Originally Posted by phoenix80

Wrong!

Some times weak states such as iran or syria resort to terrorism to further their own agenda

But you fail to tell us how you have come to the conclusion that all countries can become terror states?

I did not assert that states can become terror states. I emphasized that terrorist organizations can become states. For example the Cuban Revolution and the Viet Cong Guerillas.

Or it can become the other way around, states becoming terrorist factions. Rival factions fight one another for control over a state, sometimes referring to terror tactics to further its own political agenda. See whats happening to the West Bank now? You see a rise of hostile confrontation between the Fatah and the Hamas. Even perhaps worst, Iraq is experiencing a plague of warring factions.

If you decentralize Iran now, it becomes the best time for Terrorists to regroup and attack.


PS: Please note that I do not consider Terrorists as freedom fighters. In my definition, Terrorists are dissenters who are able to organize and to carry out violence. Thats no different to a warring state.

I think I posted this before, so I'm posting this again.

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/rohloff/ww...e%20making.pdf -

A long article, but interesting of how Charles Tilly explains the aspects of State Making and War Making.

Originally Posted by Rabs

Well mmarsh is right.
The Russians have a lot more influence with the Iranians than we do. Cheyenne goes out and gives an evil empire speech and riles Putin up. So he has no choice but to hit back. This was just idiotic, I dont like Russia but we did need them on this issue.

Full Russian statements : http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/art...772175,00.html
Another for you guardian haters:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...10/ixnews.html

Im seriously addicted to these British sites, they actually report like relevant news.

don't you worry!

Russians are dependent on foreign aids especially from EU and US and they also have to cooperate with Americans over their Chechenya problems.

Cheney is good and he knows how to deal with the Ruskies and I think Putin needed to know that his Stalinist policies are not gonna be tolerated.

I did not assert that states can become terror states. I emphasized that terrorist organizations can become states. For example the Cuban Revolution.

Or it can become the other way around, states becoming terrorist factions. Rival factions fight one another for control over a state, sometimes referring to terror tactics to further its own political agenda. See whats happening to the West Bank now? You see a rise of hostile confrontation between the Fatah and the Hamas. Even perhaps worst, Iraq is experiencing a plague of warring factions.

If you decentralize Iran now, it becomes the best time for Terrorists to regroup and attack.

Iran is a terrorist state right now and it should be dealt with. They are using terrorism to scare the west and they are truly representing EVIL.

Cheney is good and he knows how to deal with the Ruskies and I think Putin needed to know that his Stalinist policies are not gonna be tolerated.

No No and No, Putin is not a great guy I agree, but you can work with putin. We can work with him on Iran and we can work with him on many other issues.

Also While Russia might get aid from EU the EU is pretty reliant on russian oil.

Iran is a terrorist state right now and it should be dealt with. They are using terrorism to scare the west and they are truly representing EVIL.

Again I agree in theory and it should be dealt with but its not time for the B-2s just yet.

Originally Posted by Rabs

No No and No, Putin is not a great guy I agree, but you can work with putin. We can work with him on Iran and we can work with him on many other issues.

Also While Russia might get aid from EU the EU is pretty reliant on russian oil.

Good points Rabs.

Putin might be a bad guy but he can be dealt with in a diplomatic manner but lunatic clerics of Iran do not understand the civilized language of our time and the only language they understand is FORCE

Again I agree in theory and it should be dealt with but its not time for the B-2s just yet.

And no body has talked about using military to solve the nuclear issues with Iran, yet. It is still far away from us.

Pres. Bush just said his main and first option is DIPLOMACY

A military option to solve this issue will further encourge Iran to speed up its Nuclear Program. Unlike Iraq, Iran was wiser enough to spread its nuclear facilities across the country rather than concentrating on building several facilities in one area.

The Pre-emptive strikes against Iraq's nuclear program was effective and therefore Israel's use of compellence have succeded. If the US or Israel were to use the same type of force to compel Iran to cancel its Nuclear Program, the results would questionable. I am quite sure that Iran has a handful of hidden facilities.

Originally Posted by CABAL

A military option to solve this issue will further encourge Iran to speed up its Nuclear Program. Unlike Iraq, Iran was wiser enough to spread its nuclear facilities across the country rather than concentrating on building several facilities in one area.

The Pre-emptive strikes against Iraq's nuclear program was effective and therefore Israel's use of compellence have succeded. If the US or Israel were to use the same type of force to compel Iran to cancel its Nuclear Program, the results would questionable. I am quite sure that Iran has a handful of hidden facilities.

So what? Just because they were wise enough to build lots of those facilities does not mean that the western world should do nothing and let the religious madmen of that country get the A-Bomb.

Nope!

There are other options called Regime Change which is long overdue in Iran

And no body has talked about using military to solve the nuclear issues with Iran, yet. It is still far away from us.

Then you havent been listening to John McCain. He has been urging the WH to bomb them for months.

And that 700 amonium-nitrate fuel oil bomb blast they are planning in Nevada must just be in preparation for the 4th of July. I mean why else would they need to test an explosion that size? I can't think of any country in the Middle East that has a hidden WMD weapons program buried so far deep underground that it need such a large explosion in order to destroy it, can you?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050901461.html

From your friend folks at the Michael Moore Network (my hero)...

I am not looking at a neutral position. Otherwise, attacking my position directly and trailing off the topic is a petty cut and run tactic. Shouting wrong at my comments will not make you right either. Don't like my comments? Then try to post what Rabs commented before about the French Resistance Movement. His comments about the line between good and bad is excellent.

BACK TO TOPIC

The letter to Bush was a show of face and at the same time ridiculing the US a hypocrit. All this issue about Iran's Nuclear Program is not about securing a peaceful or stable security enviroment. Its all about power, prestige, influence, wealth, and blackmail.

Bush administration have agreed to offer Nuclear Technology to India (if given Congress approval) and on the other hand shun Iran's nuclear program. An Iranian nuclear program will enhance the countries power and prestige. This is not all about securing a so-called "stable enviroment" or the NPT regime. Its all about Power, prestige, and wealth. The nuclear deal with India will rake huge profits for the debunked US Nuclear Power Industry.

If no one wants to dis-arm nuclear weapons universally, then therefore the nuclear club grows bigger. India is eager to dis-arm its nuclear weapons if other nuclear powers follow suit. But there those who are against such proposal. Russia re-vitalizes its Nuclear force. China further develops its delivery systems. N. Korea develop its own nuclear weapons. Pakistan and India are outside the NPT regime so therefore they will act in their own interests. US revisits its Cold War strategy partially.

You are correct that Military Action against Iran is far away MMarsh. And I also agree on your views about Michael Moore. I often view him as Anti-Bush Media clown.

my favorite Acronym

We
Are
Rright

Originally Posted by mmarsh

And no body has talked about using military to solve the nuclear issues with Iran, yet. It is still far away from us.

Then you havent been listening to John McCain. He has been urging the WH to bomb them for months.

And that 700 amonium-nitrate fuel oil bomb blast they are planning in Nevada must just be in preparation for the 4th of July. I mean why else would they need to test an explosion that size? I can't think of any country in the Middle East that has a hidden WMD weapons program buried so far deep underground that it need such a large explosion in order to destroy it, can you?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050901461.html

From your friend folks at the Michael Moore Network (my hero)...

Nonsense!

John McCain is a US Senator, not the President of the USA and your michael moore reasoning do not bug me, it makes me laugh

Well then you should be more clear what you type. You didnt say POTUS you said:

"And nobody has talked about using military to solve the nuclear issues with Iran, yet. It is still far away from us".

To wit, I responded John McCain. by the way only Congress can declare war, and as John McCain is a member of Congress I find his remarks more disturbing.

But I'm laughing too, at you. Because calling me Michael Moore doesn't bother me and its the only arguement you have. Now that's funny.

Cabal

Read my last post (the one above your post), espically the last paragraph.