If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On 13 Oct 2003 23:24:51 -0700, Kenneth Williams wrote:
President Bush said that in addition to striking terorists directly that the US would also target those who harbor terrorists. I think it is clear that both Syria and Iran harbor terrorists and export terror in the region- especially in Israel, with Hamas and Islamic Jihad and even in Iraq against our own troops. Shouldn't we, like our Israeli friends, bomb Syria and Iran in pre-emptive or retaliatory strikes? I wouldn't like a widening of the war in the region but under these circumstances won't we eventually be forced to do something drastic? What is the general concensus here at RAM? I think we should bomb your house, and then nuke you until you are radioactive cinders. I personally think Iran is the worst of the two and should be bombed if Tehran does not cooperate with the nuclear inspectors on its covert nuclear weapons program. The US can't afford to have a nuclear-armed Iran sitting right next door when the US is trying to rebuild Iraq and allowing democracy in that region. Ha ha ha. And if the majority of the people in rebuilt Iraq wanted to have nuclear weapons, would the USA let them? No of course not, the only people in the middle east to be allowed nukes are Israel and not the racially inferior (according to the USA) Arabs. And if you support that policy, then you are a filthy contemptable racist too. On the subject of democracy, Iran's president is the guy who got the most votes, something that can't be said for the USA. But I suppose thatc doesn't fit in with Bush's idea of democracy, which seems more about subservience to US corporate interests. -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (My real email address would be if you added 275 to it and reversed the last two letters). |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:49:36 GMT, Bill Silvey wrote:
"Yama" wrote in message Indeed. I'd much rather see Iran as a U.S. ally than not. The current Iranian "Generation-X" pretty much despises the Mullahs that run the country, and as often as they can (and in private) embrace western values. There's a lot of truth in this. Unfortunately aggressive US action against Iran would tend to reduce it. Perha[ps the weest could play "good cop, bad cop" with Iran: USA and Israel threaten to attack, Europe offers to sell (or give) them modern weapons if they liberalise. -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (My real email address would be if you added 275 to it and reversed the last two letters). |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:37:37 +0200, Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
The problem with a 'retaliatory' strike is that, even if you could bring on incriminating documents by trainloads, the credibility of the USA has now sunk so low that nobody is even going to bother to read them, I think there's some trith in this. Last year, I was certain that Iraq had WMD. It turned out they didn't, and the British and American dossiers were seriously at odds with the truth. Now the USA says Iran is building nuclear weapons. Last year, I would have beleived them. Now I place no trust in their words. I personally think Iran is the worst of the two and should be bombed if Tehran does not cooperate with the nuclear inspectors on its covert nuclear weapons program. You can't rationally threaten people with bombs and expect them to disarm... Non-Americans have pride too. The Iranians are least likely of all to cave in to that sort of pressure; and it gives them the best motive they could ever have to develop a WMD capability ASAP. Indeed. Gaining nuclear weapons would be a rational thing for Iran to do now, for the same reason that Britain and France had them during the cold war. The US can't afford to have a nuclear-armed Iran sitting right next door when the US is trying to rebuild Iraq and allowing democracy in that region. Why not? During the Cold War many successful democratic nations had the enemy on their doorstep. Of all problems the problems facing the American efforts Iraq right now, Iran seems very low down on the list. The real danger is that Iraq will follow the road of Iran -- that an American-imposed 'friendly' regime will ultimately be rejected by the people and replaced by a hostile fundamentalist regime. Yep. An Iraq governed by an ayatollah would be an ironic outcome of this war, but at the moment it looks like the most likely one to me. I don't know about "most likely", but it's certainly a possibility, and the US govmt seems by their behaviour to be almost blind to that possibility. -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (My real email address would be if you added 275 to it and reversed the last two letters). |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"phil hunt" wrote in message
On the subject of democracy, Iran's president is the guy who got the most votes, something that can't be said for the USA. But I suppose thatc doesn't fit in with Bush's idea of democracy, which seems more about subservience to US corporate interests. Incorrect. Also, the United States is a representative republic, not a "democracy". They are very similar but not the same at all. -- http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org Remove the X's in my email address to respond. "Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir I hate furries. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Silvey" wrote in message .com...
Indeed. I'd much rather see Iran as a U.S. ally than not. The current Iranian "Generation-X" pretty much despises the Mullahs that run the country, and as often as they can (and in private) embrace western values. I might be delusional about all this, but my feeling is that if we all leave Iran in peace, in something like 20 years it could turn into a thoughroughly modern state. Still predominantly islamic, but the way many Western nations are predominantly christian, rather than the fundamantalist islam of the ayatollahs. Much as I dislike what happened there in the past, Iran might be our best hope of introducing a stable factor in the region, compatible with the Western way of doing things. Rob |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Simon Robbins wrote in message
... Yeah, (putting aside the machinations of their governments) let's **** off another few tens of millions of people who already view us and our motives with suspicion. Go all the way and confirm their worst fears, and give them a reason to sign up and fight the unholy aggressor... Si You must be an serious medication if you think the Arabs are waiting to make that decision. Time to do what is necessary and forget if they like it when we do it. -- Scott -------- "Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq, there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Yama wrote in message
... "Peter Kemp" peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom wrote in message ... Personally, I believe pressure should be brought to bear on both Syria and Iran for their support of terrorists, not their WMD - IIRC Syria hasn't even signed the CWC and yet is being lambasted for having chemical weapons. The fun thing is, Syrians have actually provided USA some intel about Al Qaida: Al Qaida is ideological enemy of more-or-less socialist and secular Arab governments, like Syria (and Iraq...). Syria also houses the headquarters for organizations that have killed more Americans than anyone else, prior to Sept 11. Time to punish Syria for what is doing and hasn't done. I haven't even brought up the few billion dollars of "super notes" that they counterfeit each year. As for Axis of Evil, the phrase wasn't used to convey that the three members were working in league, but that they have a common purpose. And they do. -- Scott -------- "Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq, there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htmRob van Riel
wrote in message om... "Bill Silvey" wrote in message .com... Indeed. I'd much rather see Iran as a U.S. ally than not. The current Iranian "Generation-X" pretty much despises the Mullahs that run the country, and as often as they can (and in private) embrace western values. I might be delusional about all this, but my feeling is that if we all leave Iran in peace, in something like 20 years it could turn into a thoughroughly modern state. Still predominantly islamic, but the way many Western nations are predominantly christian, rather than the fundamantalist islam of the ayatollahs. Much as I dislike what happened there in the past, Iran might be our best hope of introducing a stable factor in the region, compatible with the Western way of doing things. Rob Iran is a wonderful example, or it could be, to some of the Muslims. It's had virtually no Western influence in decades and still failed as a Muslim state. All the other miserable ****-holes can always claim their failure is due to a Burger King or Coca-Cola stand on the corner somewhere. The Iranians have no excuse but their own dysfunction. It's a shame they are Shia Death Cult members rather than Sunni/Wahabbi/Salafi Death Cult members, otherwise the lesson would be perfect for them. Oh well they aren't living 500 years in the past by accident. Too bad Iran is actively trying to get nukes and spreading terrorism in the meantime. Maybe we can reach an agreement with the mullahs where the Iranians only attack Europeans while Americans go back to ignoring the world. -- Scott -------- "Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq, there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
There are numerous examples of Israel pulling back or helping the
"palestinians" only to have that be taken as a sign of weakness and increased terrorism followed. For Pete's sake the Israelis equipped the PA police, they pulled out of Lebanon behind UN mandated lines, left the West Bank until attacks forced them to return. Israel is only further along the same path the US has just started on fighting terrorism. There already is a palestinian state, it's called Jordan. The Hashemites should pick up their toys and return to the Arabian peninsula. -- Scott -------- "Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq, there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm Alan Minyard wrote in message ... On 13 Oct 2003 23:24:51 -0700, (Kenneth Williams) wrote: President Bush said that in addition to striking terorists directly that the US would also target those who harbor terrorists. I think it is clear that both Syria and Iran harbor terrorists and export terror in the region- especially in Israel, with Hamas and Islamic Jihad and even in Iraq against our own troops. Shouldn't we, like our Israeli friends, bomb Syria and Iran in pre-emptive or retaliatory strikes? I wouldn't like a widening of the war in the region but under these circumstances won't we eventually be forced to do something drastic? What is the general concensus here at RAM? I personally think Iran is the worst of the two and should be bombed if Tehran does not cooperate with the nuclear inspectors on its covert nuclear weapons program. The US can't afford to have a nuclear-armed Iran sitting right next door when the US is trying to rebuild Iraq and allowing democracy in that region. In addition, now we know how Israel feels daily with the US casualties in Iraq mounting. It is so frustrating to promote peace when you are constantly under attack by hostiles who want you to fail. I think Israel is justified with its doctrine of pre-emptive strikes. The US seems destined to follow under the circumstances. Kenneth Williams Israel is just as guilty as the Palestinians when it comes to the causes of terrorism. When will they learn that killing teenage girls and bulldozing homes is not conducive to peace? Al Minyard |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Israeli Air Force to lose Middle East Air Superiority Capability to the Saudis in the near future | Jack White | Military Aviation | 71 | September 21st 03 02:58 PM |