Jump to content


Photo

The Middle East Picture Getting Dark


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#21 Paladin58

Paladin58

    I lurk moar...

  • Project Team
  • 2,384 posts
  • Location:Iowa, USA
  •  Drifting Gun-Toting Liberal, Forum Lurker

Posted 15 June 2007 - 07:29 PM

What if he did? ^_^ Just kidding, a bit of sarcasm to lighten the very depressing mood. But, these people will not stop until they obliterate their tribal and religious enemies. I guess to say that it is all religion's fault is a fallacy. But, it does play a strong role. When they say 'For Allah!' and all that other kamikaze crap before they blow themselves up, they mean it, as they think that since they are blowing themselves and the infidels (us, other tribes, foreign religious zealots) up, they think that they're going to arrive in Heaven, and get lots of poon from 72 virgins because blowing themselves up is considered martyrdom in their religion. And, that is because the author/s of the Koran (including Mohammed, possibly) were inclined to go a little lax on the 'love thy brother' part that most religions like to take to heart. I believe that the only way that they will calm down over there is if they have bloodshed, their own little World War. Then, their religious zealots will see what Europe and East Asia have had to suffer through several times, and realize that not everything is solved by cutting the infidel's head off. But that's just my take on it, that there are some situations where diplomacy just won't work until blood has been shed, and people see that war is a terrible thing, especially in this day and age.

OLD SIG
When history witnesses a great change Razgriz reveals itself,
first as a dark demon. As a demon it uses it power to rain death upon the land,
and then it dies. However after a period of slumber Razgriz returns
As the demon sleeps, man turns on man.
Its own blood, and madness soon cover the earth.
From the depths of despair awaken the Razgriz.
Its raven wings ablaze in majestic light.
Amidst the eternal waves of time
From a ripple of change shall the storm rise
Out of the abyss peer the eyes of a demon
Behold the Razgriz, its wings of black sheath
The demon soars through the dark skies
Fear and Death trail its shadow beneath
Until Men united wield a hallowed sabre
In Final Reckoning, the beast is slain.
Razgriz intrerpretation

Posted Image <-This stays up there for you, buddy!

#22 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 15 June 2007 - 07:34 PM

to claim that mohammed planned this situation 1200 years ago is like saying that Moses planned the Holocaust on the jews when he went out into the desert.

blaming religion is what makes crusades in the first place. blame the people and the cultures, not the straw-men/straw-ideologies. and our culture is just as much if not more to blame because of our power, to the instability in the region.

I don't think he meant Mohammed started it. I think he meant simply because Islam is associated with Mohammed

#23 Paladin58

Paladin58

    I lurk moar...

  • Project Team
  • 2,384 posts
  • Location:Iowa, USA
  •  Drifting Gun-Toting Liberal, Forum Lurker

Posted 15 June 2007 - 07:38 PM

^That's what was going through my thought processes at that time. Just association, not the literal Mohammed. Even if he did see Allah, I don't remember hearing about him being able to see the future. ^_^

OLD SIG
When history witnesses a great change Razgriz reveals itself,
first as a dark demon. As a demon it uses it power to rain death upon the land,
and then it dies. However after a period of slumber Razgriz returns
As the demon sleeps, man turns on man.
Its own blood, and madness soon cover the earth.
From the depths of despair awaken the Razgriz.
Its raven wings ablaze in majestic light.
Amidst the eternal waves of time
From a ripple of change shall the storm rise
Out of the abyss peer the eyes of a demon
Behold the Razgriz, its wings of black sheath
The demon soars through the dark skies
Fear and Death trail its shadow beneath
Until Men united wield a hallowed sabre
In Final Reckoning, the beast is slain.
Razgriz intrerpretation

Posted Image <-This stays up there for you, buddy!

#24 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 15 June 2007 - 09:22 PM

hmm, suddenly alot of reply to. better make my answers poem-like with alot of meaning in few words :p

That was a good reply nab.

I'm all about diplomacy, as long as it's backed up by brute force. Do you think the Soviets would have been as diplomatic with us if it's weren't for mutually assured distruction?

My thoughts are, as a right wing person, is that we should begin to show force, a mobilization of about 2 million troops to show we're serious. And as we do that we put the focus on diplomacy to avoid a western invasion of Syria, Palistine, Lebanon, and Iran.

If they want a holy war, by all that's holy, let's give them one. See we don't actually have to invade them, we have to create the perception that we've had enough and are drawing up plans to, in the case "diplomacy fails"

War sucks, I agree it's the last course of action needed. But it's about time the US and NATO began to draw up plans to invade the region. Doesn't mean we have to, it means we need to show unity of policy. A policy that resolves itself, if need be. Without the big stick to back it up, diplomacy is useless.

The issue is, the western powers (Europe) are on holidays right now and can't quite be bothered at the moment, please leave a message. See if this issue is not resolved at some level soon, we'll be settling this issue in Europe rather than the middle east.


diplomacy is always about who has the best hand to play, and military power is the basic flush in those situations. the problem with the diplomacy that you are supporting is that its a diplomacy that easily makes you the one to draw first blood. and i have to say i don't feel very comfortable being on the side that draws first blood.

European countries have had that opinion for quite a while. we might wait a bit longer than Americans before we do something, but by then we are pretty much sure that we've tried all other options and the blame can hardly be put on us for the mess the opposition has gotten themselves into.


the two million troops. what do you think would happen if they were deployed in the middle east? they would be candy for al-qaeda. a few thousand killed in one proper chemical or biological bomb and they would be immortalized forever as holy warriors because they got the western world to attack the rest of the countries for some minor(yes, i claim a thousand troops does not equal tens of millions of civilian casualties) bomb.

dropping off two million troops in the middle east without international support through UN or something else would be in my eyes diplomatic suicide. it directly says something about your hopes to do something about the situation. and if you are building up military forces in a region, why wouldn't the locals do so as well?

What if he did? ^_^ Just kidding, a bit of sarcasm to lighten the very depressing mood. But, these people will not stop until they obliterate their tribal and religious enemies. I guess to say that it is all religion's fault is a fallacy.

But, it does play a strong role. When they say 'For Allah!' and all that other kamikaze crap before they blow themselves up, they mean it, as they think that since they are blowing themselves and the infidels (us, other tribes, foreign religious zealots) up, they think that they're going to arrive in Heaven, and get lots of poon from 72 virgins because blowing themselves up is considered martyrdom in their religion.


And, that is because the author/s of the Koran (including Mohammed, possibly) were inclined to go a little lax on the 'love thy brother' part that most religions like to take to heart. I believe that the only way that they will calm down over there is if they have bloodshed, their own little World War. Then, their religious zealots will see what Europe and East Asia have had to suffer through several times, and realize that not everything is solved by cutting the infidel's head off.

But that's just my take on it, that there are some situations where diplomacy just won't work until blood has been shed, and people see that war is a terrible thing, especially in this day and age.


added some breathing spaces.

it might be true that they won't give up before they have gotten the world firmly in their hands. and you know why i am very calm about that scenario? its because i am absolutely certain that if they ever get halfway near it, our western cultures will say "fuck-all" and stop it big-time. i have no doubt that the western world could stop fundamentalistic Islamists on a large scale, but as long as our very existence doesn't depend on it we ain't gonna get ourselves into a ethical situation worse than Hitlers.

the problem is, the islamists doesnt really control alot of countries. Iran is practically the only one, and i bet the US could on their own take out its military force in a month. if the western world got sick and tired of Iran, we could probably send down like 10 million troops with the most modern equipment availible and search every inch of that country for anything that would work against us.

the question is, is it worth it? one day it might, but until then we should not do anything but do our best to keep the 80% of the muslims, that are moderate, on our side. and Russia, India and China on top of that, as none of those countries would enjoy the thoughts of the western world having a monopoly on 75% of the oil reserves left in the world.

basically. the next move after a total ownage of the middle east by the western world would be a counter-attack by an eastern coalition(Russia, China, India) "in the name of freedom for the people of the middle east" ofcourse, but ultimately it would be a "hey we want a piece of the cake too" war. and after a heavy war in the middle east, i heavily doubt that the western world would be able to stand up against the united might of the east.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#25 Paladin58

Paladin58

    I lurk moar...

  • Project Team
  • 2,384 posts
  • Location:Iowa, USA
  •  Drifting Gun-Toting Liberal, Forum Lurker

Posted 17 June 2007 - 03:17 AM

No, I'm not saying that we completely steamroll the Middle East, I'm just saying that if a war happens to start over there, all the western (and eastern) countries that have their hands in the countries involved pull them back for a bit, and watch what happens when the little countries try to play "Genocide: The Boardgame!" with nuclear weapons in their own little wastelands, and learn what happens when holy wars meet MAD doctrines.
Then, as they recover from a shellshocking war, western and eastern countries pick them off their feet, dust them off, and give them a bit of 're-education' when it comes to modern wars, and not to start them. Of course, this could only happen when the west and east are on better terms, farther from this day and age of new tensions between the US and Russia, where there is technology to easily filter/scrub out radiation from the air, ala GitS. Not gonna happen anytime soon, but hey, that's how I think the situation should be handled.
And, I made this one with breathing spaces for ya, you just might want a radiation mask. :lol:

Edited by Nology5890, 17 June 2007 - 03:18 AM.

OLD SIG
When history witnesses a great change Razgriz reveals itself,
first as a dark demon. As a demon it uses it power to rain death upon the land,
and then it dies. However after a period of slumber Razgriz returns
As the demon sleeps, man turns on man.
Its own blood, and madness soon cover the earth.
From the depths of despair awaken the Razgriz.
Its raven wings ablaze in majestic light.
Amidst the eternal waves of time
From a ripple of change shall the storm rise
Out of the abyss peer the eyes of a demon
Behold the Razgriz, its wings of black sheath
The demon soars through the dark skies
Fear and Death trail its shadow beneath
Until Men united wield a hallowed sabre
In Final Reckoning, the beast is slain.
Razgriz intrerpretation

Posted Image <-This stays up there for you, buddy!

#26 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 17 June 2007 - 04:50 AM

I'm a firm believer in conventional war when it's necessary. Nukes simply are not an option. Nor can we accept the use of them by other nations. It's the BIG no-no of the world.

But Duke you need to read deeper into my thoughts. I didn't say deploy 2 million troops into the middle east. I said create the plans to if necessary then logistics are already in place. In order to do this there would have to be a NATO mandate in the least.

About the Russians, include them also. They have they're Chechnya, they have they're Beslan. They have every right to be a part of fixing this issue.

If these entities created a well rounded plan to clean the place up and used diplomacy to insure they didn't have to actually use the plan. Then I am sure IMO many minds in the region would change.

The first step is for the US to stop acting unilaterally, NATO to get off it's ass, and Russia to understand it's a part of europe and stop countering EVERYthing the west does.

About China, who the fuck knows what they're game plan is.

#27 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 22 June 2007 - 10:42 PM

I'm a firm believer in conventional war when it's necessary. Nukes simply are not an option. Nor can we accept the use of them by other nations. It's the BIG no-no of the world.

But Duke you need to read deeper into my thoughts. I didn't say deploy 2 million troops into the middle east. I said create the plans to if necessary then logistics are already in place. In order to do this there would have to be a NATO mandate in the least.

About the Russians, include them also. They have they're Chechnya, they have they're Beslan. They have every right to be a part of fixing this issue.

If these entities created a well rounded plan to clean the place up and used diplomacy to insure they didn't have to actually use the plan. Then I am sure IMO many minds in the region would change.

The first step is for the US to stop acting unilaterally, NATO to get off it's ass, and Russia to understand it's a part of europe and stop countering EVERYthing the west does.

About China, who the fuck knows what they're game plan is.


nukes are always an possibility for most nations. especially when their existence/way of life is at stake. incredible what humans will do to make sure others won't get what they can't have.

two million troops. thats probably 1/5th of what the states would be able to muster in a few weeks. naturally i wouldnt let such a grand-scale war be left upon the shoulders of the states if it was a joint cooperation agreed upon by more than the states. the question is would it happen at all if the states doesnt attack first? so in the end i find it more likely that the US will attack with force alone. NATO wont attack on a whim from the states, they would demand proper reasons and legal grounds before they would do anything i believe.

the russians are scary fighters, and with the right inspiration they could easily prove an effective ally in the middle-east setting. naturally the question is would the US like to have an ally in a future war with such political and social values that Putin is enforcing through nationalism and national black-mailing? on the top of it, let them have military forces based near the important resources located in the middle-east?

so if we were to be able to gather in the middle-east-liberation-force where we have practically every country that has interests in the resources found in the middle east, how do you think the locals would react to that? i hope that someone understands that we are hungry for "stability" in their resources, and that smooth-talking will get them longer than defying us.
the problem is, someone might see longer than one move ahead. would stability for a decade be worth the same situation over again in ten years, when the opposition might have learned a few new tricks to better battle in their enviroment?

china wants the same as us, but probably has some cunning plan not to tell us about it before its too late. theres a reason people believe china is the country of the century you know.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#28 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 23 June 2007 - 02:32 AM

You can't walk into a diplomatic discussion without a BIG STICK. But I know this won't happen. So the usual will happen, alot of mumblings and no plans.

The Russians wouldn't go for it, the peace-monger nations wouldn't mandate it. So it's business as usual.

Which empowers the enemy and allows the threat to grow larger. It's probably better to have this settled in Europe rather than the middle east anyway.

It might jumpstart a few things in the minds of the europeans. So when the left wing hippies see the battle move to europe they will undoubtfully blame the US.

When in fact they were the secondary target all along. The battle will move to europe, like it or not.

Then all the left wing hippy/communist/anarchists will point the finger at the US (not Russia) and blame the whole mess on the US. But even if they do, they are the next battlefiled over the next 3-5 years.

#29 Athgar

Athgar
  • Project Team
  • 207 posts
  • Projects:Czerion
  •  Crazy Monkey Pirate

Posted 23 June 2007 - 11:37 AM

A girl from my class was recently on vacation in Iran. Her family originally comes from Iran, and they still have alot of family members down there. I know that her view isn't the most reliable since she's only there on vacation and doesn't have to live there, but it's still a view into how it is to live down there.

Also, you have to remember that Iran was one of the most westernly middle east countries until it got couped by Ayatollah Khomeinei. One of the things she said wa that it wasn't really that backwards in technology. Many young people get new fancy cell phones quite often, and they live in(atleast in the cities) quite modern houses most places. Also alot of young people challenge the islamic rules of the government. She was there while the media was talking about them banning the western haircuts. That was because alot of girls set up their hair so they could show it, while still wearing a headscarf. My classmate who has lived all her life in Denmark, is an atheist(No, she doesnt wear a headscarf) and wears normal clothes said that many of the girls down there were dressed more provocatively than her, with short pants and skirts. Some of the young people she met down there said that if the police came driving by, you'd better not attract too much attention or try to provoke them since then you could get arrested for some days but other than that it was only the old people who really cared much.

As i said she doesn't live there so she doesn't experience it the same way as someone who has to live there their entire life. She said that she might even want to live there in the future, so it can't really be such a hellhole as some of you imagine it to be. You should remember that it was quite westernly oriented few years ago, and that it is still a quite rich country.
Posted Image

#30 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 23 June 2007 - 12:37 PM

i've said before that there is alot of people in Iran that are pro-western, and that is just another proof to that. the problem is that there are plenty of yahoos in every country around the world that can mess things up for the smarter people. and quite often its those people who have the more provoking opinions.

the best way to get Iran out of trouble would be somehow to take out the priesthood ruling the country and staging a counter-revolution of some sort. there might be civil war, and the military might be troublesome, but if there is no solid proof that we had anything to do with it, it would make it alot easier for us to help them out as they wouldn't be too pissed at us.

ou can't walk into a diplomatic discussion without a BIG STICK. But I know this won't happen. So the usual will happen, alot of mumblings and no plans.

i would think that if we were able to reform the UN quite a bit and get some proper unity into making some serious deals, just the thought of the western world prepping for something big should be enough. its one thing to know that a guy has a gun at home, compared to having the same gun in your face.

The Russians wouldn't go for it, the peace-monger nations wouldn't mandate it. So it's business as usual.

Which empowers the enemy and allows the threat to grow larger. It's probably better to have this settled in Europe rather than the middle east anyway.

It might jumpstart a few things in the minds of the europeans. So when the left wing hippies see the battle move to europe they will undoubtfully blame the US.

When in fact they were the secondary target all along. The battle will move to europe, like it or not.

Then all the left wing hippy/communist/anarchists will point the finger at the US (not Russia) and blame the whole mess on the US. But even if they do, they are the next battlefiled over the next 3-5 years.


peace-mongers. hehehe, that word sounds like a red-flag for a psychologist. don't go to a shrink or you might get some long sleeves.


if the troubles gets worse in the middle east, it would most likely be because we havent done enough. it will be everybody's fault. the hawks wants to kick ass to fix the problem, while the doves wants to do it peacefully, and thus you have a tug of war that makes the situation static. if anything, i would blame the hawks if things got out of hand and it spread to europe, because they were blocking the peaceful route to a solution.

also, in the end the hawks have twice the chances of getting what they want. if they get to do things their way, pre-emptive strikes and invasions and whatnot. if there are people stopping the hawks, they think "fine, but we sure as hell ain't letting you do what you want". and they postpone until the situation gets so bad that the fanatics on the other side gives them a reason to attack.

so yes, i would perhaps blame the US if things got out of hand and Europe into trouble. mostly because it would indirectly be the US's hawkish opinions that stopped the opportunities for diplomacy.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#31 GorGorgood

GorGorgood
  • Members
  • 48 posts

Posted 05 July 2007 - 08:50 PM

i've said before that there is alot of people in Iran that are pro-western, and that is just another proof to that. the problem is that there are plenty of yahoos in every country around the world that can mess things up for the smarter people. and quite often its those people who have the more provoking opinions.

the best way to get Iran out of trouble would be somehow to take out the priesthood ruling the country and staging a counter-revolution of some sort. there might be civil war, and the military might be troublesome, but if there is no solid proof that we had anything to do with it, it would make it alot easier for us to help them out as they wouldn't be too pissed at us.

ou can't walk into a diplomatic discussion without a BIG STICK. But I know this won't happen. So the usual will happen, alot of mumblings and no plans.

i would think that if we were able to reform the UN quite a bit and get some proper unity into making some serious deals, just the thought of the western world prepping for something big should be enough. its one thing to know that a guy has a gun at home, compared to having the same gun in your face.

The Russians wouldn't go for it, the peace-monger nations wouldn't mandate it. So it's business as usual.

Which empowers the enemy and allows the threat to grow larger. It's probably better to have this settled in Europe rather than the middle east anyway.

It might jumpstart a few things in the minds of the europeans. So when the left wing hippies see the battle move to europe they will undoubtfully blame the US.

When in fact they were the secondary target all along. The battle will move to europe, like it or not.

Then all the left wing hippy/communist/anarchists will point the finger at the US (not Russia) and blame the whole mess on the US. But even if they do, they are the next battlefiled over the next 3-5 years.


peace-mongers. hehehe, that word sounds like a red-flag for a psychologist. don't go to a shrink or you might get some long sleeves.


if the troubles gets worse in the middle east, it would most likely be because we havent done enough. it will be everybody's fault. the hawks wants to kick ass to fix the problem, while the doves wants to do it peacefully, and thus you have a tug of war that makes the situation static. if anything, i would blame the hawks if things got out of hand and it spread to europe, because they were blocking the peaceful route to a solution.

also, in the end the hawks have twice the chances of getting what they want. if they get to do things their way, pre-emptive strikes and invasions and whatnot. if there are people stopping the hawks, they think "fine, but we sure as hell ain't letting you do what you want". and they postpone until the situation gets so bad that the fanatics on the other side gives them a reason to attack.

so yes, i would perhaps blame the US if things got out of hand and Europe into trouble. mostly because it would indirectly be the US's hawkish opinions that stopped the opportunities for diplomacy.


Blame yourself and Al-Quaida etc. for killing each other in the name of religon. Certain countires in Europe are responsible for many problems in the Mideast going back to Colonial times and the post WWI period.

Also, there are many areas in the Middle East etc. where tribe, clan, family, and religon are the main focus of peoples' lives, and it can be somewhat Medieval and yet more primitive.

'Honor killing' of female family members allegded to have disgraced their families is a good example of the primitive mentality that still exists in some areas of our world, as is forced female circumsition (sp?).

Shiites and Sunnis have been feuding since about the time of the death of Mohamed, so this particular problem can be relegated to the class of religous fanaticism, and the people involved should solve this problem themselves, which unfortuantely seems to indicate that they will eventually all kill each other, or get tired of the waste of human life and come to the realization that they are simply being irrational and stupid and rahter cruel to their neighbors that have a different religous view.

Have fun in your perfect cubicle of a world that you have created for yourself, Chris

#32 Ash

Ash

    Foxtrot Oscar.

  • Undead
  • 15,526 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Keep calm and carry on.

Posted 07 July 2007 - 07:55 PM

Indeed. Let them get on with it. As a race and a culture they still survive, don't they?

Let them have fun warring over a dustbowl. Aside from the 'O' word, there is little or no strategic, economic or sociopolitical benefit to anyone who would want to try to disrupt them.

#33 GorGorgood

GorGorgood
  • Members
  • 48 posts

Posted 08 July 2007 - 09:47 PM

Yup, it is indeed most tempting to simply let the loon-tunes fight it out amongst themselves, and if the world is lucky they will all kill each other, and then the more moderate minded people can take over and live in peace.

I hope someday that all the scumbags connected to the WTC attack, the killings in Algeria, the Sudan, and etc. are found or at least killed themselves.

Go to ogrish.com to view the beheadings of innocent people by the religous psychos. At least theycould have simply shot them rather than saw their heads off with dull knives. The victims were of course drugged.

Atrocities happen in every war and every nation commits them to some degree or the other, but these beheadings were the end of any empathy and understanding on my part. Sawing a head or taking the ears off a dead body is one thing, but these beheadings of innocent people was the last straw for me.

Sick pukes that did this need to have something similar happen to them.

Chris

Edited by GorGorgood, 09 July 2007 - 05:42 PM.


#34 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 02 September 2007 - 04:27 PM

figured this thread might be useful in a ressurection.

Pentagon 'three-day-blitz' for Iran

figured that we would start to get more information about the future war in Iran. its a bit of a shame that it seems inevitable, but we are probably going to see a war within the next 6 months.

my biggest fear in this is that there will be no proper evidence around to prove that the Iranians are producing nuclear weapons, and we will have a war that is even more useless than the war against Iraq. also, it will turn the international community more against the US, it will make the UN look powerless, perhaps even useless. it will make Russia more aggressive against the western world, with good reasons in my opinion.

basically, it will be the first domino-piece in a greater destabilization of the world as we know it. once people doesnt worry about the UN, they will start invading one and another, and the step will then be pretty short from using weapons that we really don't enjoy.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#35 Blodo

Blodo

    The one who disagrees

  • Project Team
  • 3,002 posts
  • Location:Eastern Europe
  • Projects:siteMeister, Mental Omega
  •  The wise guy

Posted 02 September 2007 - 06:18 PM

"Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon."

Invisible WMDs seem to dominate the known world. Except this time we use the name "nuclear weapons" because "WMDs" is associated with Iraq too quickly. Orwellian doublespeak at it's best. I wonder how long till the "american facts" (noun. story considered as legitimate because of the source, despite the fact that there is no proof to back it up whatsoever) start being shoved about in the evening news, "proving" how Iran is a threat to everybody and needs to be decimated into the ground as such..

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.


#36 Elerium

Elerium

    Road test? Me? But I gotta go save the world!

  • Project Team
  • 631 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Temporal Agent

Posted 02 September 2007 - 07:10 PM

All what I can say is that Iran is fascist anyway, they're supplying the insurgency with arms so that they can force the Americans to leave, then claim Iraq for themselves, and they've hinted at this. Nuclear ambitions doesn't bode well if the guy keeps to his word that 'Israel must be blown off the map'. Iran's human rights records are pretty crappy anyway, but this is usual for those countries under the drivel that is sharia law. Personally this from the beginning fell into the Iranian hands anyway, no Saddam means they can make nuclear ambitions. If they tried it when Saddam was still incharge, they'd think twice when he points scuds at them, but now the subsequent outcry against U.S. war and the portrayal of Bush as an imperialist has given the Iranians a political position to attack the U.S. on. Personally, I'd agree to attack Iran simply to remove Mr Ahmanutjob from Iranian office, because he probably won't go by election, but it would end up just like Iraq all over again, pulled into a guerrilla war.

Edited by Elerium, 02 September 2007 - 07:25 PM.

Posted Image
Posted Image

#37 Blodo

Blodo

    The one who disagrees

  • Project Team
  • 3,002 posts
  • Location:Eastern Europe
  • Projects:siteMeister, Mental Omega
  •  The wise guy

Posted 02 September 2007 - 07:27 PM

Yeah, so lets have one fascist exterminate the other. Good call. Or not.

Edited by Blodo, 02 September 2007 - 07:30 PM.

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.


#38 Elerium

Elerium

    Road test? Me? But I gotta go save the world!

  • Project Team
  • 631 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Temporal Agent

Posted 02 September 2007 - 07:28 PM

Except Bush can be voted out? (if you mean Bush).

Edited by Elerium, 02 September 2007 - 07:28 PM.

Posted Image
Posted Image

#39 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 02 September 2007 - 09:08 PM

well by looking at the elections of Bush, i wonder if it would be possible if it wasn't for the fact that he can't sit another 4 years.

i'm not saying that the US is worse than Iran. if it went to war against Iran on the grounds that Iran is fighting a proxy war against them in Iraq i would understand that, but by making up some larger than life excuse which sounds ridiculous wouldn't really help them. naturally, the main reason they are in diplomatic conflict right now is because of the nuclear stuff, which makes it hard to use that excuse.

if they go against the IAEA and the UN again, it will marginalize the UN, and destabilize the world. for better or worse.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#40 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 07 September 2007 - 08:00 AM

figured i add this article somewhere where its relevant.

http://www.nytimes.c...oks/06grim.html

there is alot of stuff in this topic that i think is pretty much spot on. that the US has not been more neutral in its stance with Israel has caused antagonization from Israels neighbouring countries. basically, if the US didnt support Israel as much as it does today, the political climate in the middle east would have been alot calmer.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users