Those friendly Iranians

yet when Saddam is commiting some of those crimes, U.S was supporting him (from 1980-1988 Iraq-Iran war, U.S was on Saddam's side).

more importantly, U.S government is lying to its people on WMD or nuke issue, a real shame.

and nice work in Iraq now, a civil war is ahead for sure.
 
more importantly, U.S government is lying to its people on WMD or nuke issue, a real shame.

and nice work in Iraq now, a civil war is ahead for sure.
Click to expand...

Micheal Moore made a an account!

First of all the United States had false intellgence and did not "lie" to its people. The reasons for this false intellgence might of had something to do with 8 years of neglect from the clinton adminstration.

On the second point, are you a blind? THE FACT THEY MADE A CONSTITUTION IS PROOF YOUR WRONG. They got over there diffrences compromised and drafted a constitution, how is this leading to civil war? When i see shia and sunni clerics standing side by side denoucing the insurgency i dont see this as a prelude to civil war. Are there going to be mistakes yes, were there mistakes in the US constitution; yes, and they have been corrected just as they will be in Iraq.
 
gladius said:
I saw this show on Iran about a year or saw ago, most people in there where secretly saying that they do not like the Iranian government and that they wish the US would do the same thing as they did with Afganistan over there.

And yes its funny, and sad, how alot of Europeans believe in their own flawed liberal thinking, when the common people of Iran believe otherwise.

Unfortunately, the new Iranian President is an Islamic hardliner. It was a major setback for the moderate Iranians. His main agenda is to develop Iran as a modern and advanced Islamic power.

Marinerhodes said:
Imagine that.
Those same young Europeans probably take for granted their rights and freedoms that were paid for in blood by our forefathers in the early part of the 20th century.

One day, if there is any justice in the cosmos for people like them, they will get a lesson, and it will shock them into realizing the price that was paid for them to be able to sit there and make comments and statements like that.
Click to expand...

I actually think that day is coming. Give it about 20 years or so.

Europe will be invaded by a united Islamic Empire. The deathtoll for this war will surpass even WWII.
Click to expand...


Hmm I suppose it could happen but how would they ever unite? One big difference is Sunni and Shia muslim, why would they unite to invade Europe? Also Egypt and Syria did merge to become the United Arab Republic sometime in the mid 20th century to try to unite Arab nationalism, almost got Yemen in as well, but it failed and collapsed in 1961.
Kuwait backs the US, Saudi arabia's government does to some degree. Egypt's government does as well. Iran's public seems pro american. Iraq is changing to a democracy. Turkey is close to Europe as well
If you include Northern African Arab countries, then Tunisia is close to Europe, and Morocco and extremely close ties to the US and Europe spanning many years.
It seems like it would be near impossible to unite the Arab states.But that is just my opinion.
 
Rabs

You kidding yourself, take off the blinders. No matter what your opinion is about Iraq (stay or leave now) there is absolutely no doubt that Bush lied about Iraq. To deny that now is to deny reality. I saw the 2nd in Command of the CIA James McLaughlin on CNN saying that the Administation 'cherry-picked' the information around their policy. You have the aides to Powell saying how shocked they were of how weak the WMD case was, you have the British Downing Street memo, You have GOP congressman expressing grave doubts about the sincerity of the Administration what more do you need? Even Bill O'Reilly admitted the Administration lied. Clinton had his faults, but blaming him for Iraq is like blaming Bush for Hurricane Katrina. Not even the worst Bush apologists in the media could go that far.

The constitution is as worthless as the paper its written on if the Sunnis dont agree to it. There are many Sunni that want nothing more than to put Saddam back in power and totally crush the Shites and Kurds. How do you plan on have democracy with a policy like that?

As for the Islamic Empire. I hate to tell you this but Europe has been fighting radical Islam much longer than the USA has. Most countries (France being the most severe) have very strict anti-radical laws. The two countries were that was weak was Germany and the UK. Both of which are in the midst of improving their security as we speak.
 
Although this is about IRANIAN people not Iraq but let me have my say here:

1- Bush repeated the same false intel that russians, french, british and germans had given him

2- In the long run, Iraq will be a safe, democratic country in the region.

3- Global war on terror is necessary because right now resembles the 1930s when Democracies were scattered and Nazis and Fascists (now islamists) were taking the world. Set aside the differences and focus on your common enemy before it is late
 
Phoenix

Well its hard to talk about 1 with discussing the other as they are somewhat linked...

1. Brits, french Germans etc never gave Bush anything. The intel came from the CIA. Like Bush, They simply assumed that Saddam was cheating without proof, the difference is thqt they didnt act on a assumption. As they say Assumption is the mother**** of all disaster.

2. No, thats what you HOPE and PRAY might happen. What will happen has yet to be written. The Muslims have been at war with each other for centuries, if you really think that declaring "democracy" in Iraq is going to change that, you might as well declare "mission accomplished" for the civil war you about to start.

3. As for Iran. The fact that the new president is a hardliner doesnt really change much internationally. The fact the the ultra extremist Guardian Consul still has final say in most everything makes the election almost moot. I think the rhetoric will go up but everything else will stay the same, meaning Iran will continue to try and get the bomb. the real question is what is th rest of the world going to do about it?
 
WorldWatcher said:
gladius said:
I saw this show on Iran about a year or saw ago, most people in there where secretly saying that they do not like the Iranian government and that they wish the US would do the same thing as they did with Afganistan over there.

And yes its funny, and sad, how alot of Europeans believe in their own flawed liberal thinking, when the common people of Iran believe otherwise.

Unfortunately, the new Iranian President is an Islamic hardliner. It was a major setback for the moderate Iranians. His main agenda is to develop Iran as a modern and advanced Islamic power.

Marinerhodes said:
Imagine that.
Those same young Europeans probably take for granted their rights and freedoms that were paid for in blood by our forefathers in the early part of the 20th century.

One day, if there is any justice in the cosmos for people like them, they will get a lesson, and it will shock them into realizing the price that was paid for them to be able to sit there and make comments and statements like that.
Click to expand...

I actually think that day is coming. Give it about 20 years or so.

Europe will be invaded by a united Islamic Empire. The deathtoll for this war will surpass even WWII.
Click to expand...


Hmm I suppose it could happen but how would they ever unite? One big difference is Sunni and Shia muslim, why would they unite to invade Europe? Also Egypt and Syria did merge to become the United Arab Republic sometime in the mid 20th century to try to unite Arab nationalism, almost got Yemen in as well, but it failed and collapsed in 1961.
Kuwait backs the US, Saudi arabia's government does to some degree. Egypt's government does as well. Iran's public seems pro american. Iraq is changing to a democracy. Turkey is close to Europe as well
If you include Northern African Arab countries, then Tunisia is close to Europe, and Morocco and extremely close ties to the US and Europe spanning many years.
It seems like it would be near impossible to unite the Arab states.But that is just my opinion.
Click to expand...

I agree with Rhodes on the attitude of the Europeans. What I wanted to point out, Watcher, is that exactly you're right, that's why the Islamists consider all the governments of all the Muslim countries, either democratic, socialist, dictatorial etc, as blasphemous govts. Only the Taliban they regarded to as legitimate. That is why they have been attacking Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan. Those govts in their eyes are nothing but friends of the West.
 
I am interested why Iran wants Nuclear weapons? This is speculative, but if the people of Iran want greater freedom, and closer ties to Europe and the US (as per the article), then that desire would likely be perceived as a threat by the ruling theocrats to their power. In that case, the theocrats might view the possession of Nuclear weapons as useful bargaining chips to expand & shore up their influence domestically and within the global community.

Saddam Hussein used the saber rattling technique to maintain his power base for years. (Although he miscalculated in the end). North Korea's Supreme Idiots 1 & 2 have both used this technique to maintain power and are now going down the nuke path presumably with the same aims. It just appears that desperate leaders seem to think the nuke option is a sensible game plan.

IMO, the world's most urgent priority should be to stop the development of nuclear weapons by "rogue states". The UN however is more interested in periods of prolonged navel gazing!
 
Has anyone taken into account the fact that Iraq had approximately 10 years to resolve any and all doubts about their WMD programs or anything else for that matter? Yet over the course of those years they repeatedly delayed and removed UN workers from various sites in the country and refused them access to other parts and sites.

One of the reasons that I feel we went in was for the blatant disregard of the UN council. I mean how many times does a person have to be asked or told to allow inspection of your facilities etc etc. How many times must we impose sanctions against a country? In the long run all it was doing was hurting the people, not him. He could give a crap. It never hurt his lifestyle.

Saddam was given an ulitmatum, (paraphrase) "let us in freely, or else."

Well he chose the "or else."

This is putting a very basic spin on the whole situation of course. But if you look back and consider what was originally released in the press at the very beginning, that was the (I think) basic reason for us going in in the first place. (He thumbed his nose at the UN counil for 10+ years and the US took offense and socked him in it.)

He kicked out the UN workers and refused to allow them 100% inspection as required under the previous terms of agreement. (I am not sure exactly what the agreements were, this is an uneducated assumption on my part)
 
Marinerhodes

I must admit that I too wondered about that.

I think the answer is quite simple like all schoolyard bullies Saddam liked
to flex his muscle not because he had something to prove but because he enjoyed the chaos and fear around the world when he did. Terrorizing people was always a strong suite with Saddam.

There is another possibility. According to the captured Iraqi Nuclear Scientists, Saddam was kept as much in the dark about Iraqs WMD strength as was the rest of the world. Its possible Saddam though he was defending something at that point when in fact he was defending nothing because his own advisors were feeding him false information.

This is all speculation of course...
 
mmarsh said:
Phoenix

Well its hard to talk about 1 with discussing the other as they are somewhat linked...

1. Brits, french Germans etc never gave Bush anything. The intel came from the CIA. Like Bush, They simply assumed that Saddam was cheating without proof, the difference is thqt they didnt act on a assumption. As they say Assumption is the mother**** of all disaster.

2. No, thats what you HOPE and PRAY might happen. What will happen has yet to be written. The Muslims have been at war with each other for centuries, if you really think that declaring "democracy" in Iraq is going to change that, you might as well declare "mission accomplished" for the civil war you about to start.

3. As for Iran. The fact that the new president is a hardliner doesnt really change much internationally. The fact the the ultra extremist Guardian Consul still has final say in most everything makes the election almost moot. I think the rhetoric will go up but everything else will stay the same, meaning Iran will continue to try and get the bomb. the real question is what is th rest of the world going to do about it?
Click to expand...

Wrong

Mr. Blair was the first one talking about 45 min threat Saddam can pose to the west.

If you are anti-war, it is fine. I can get it but don't tell us that Bush lied to go to war. Bush didn't need to risk too many lives if there was no logical reason to invade a country like Iraq.

Btw, Saddam was a threat, IMO. He used WMDs on his own people and neighboring countries. If you are a leader of a 300 milion nation, you can't take any chance. Saddam COULD be a sleeping monster and had to be dealt with. I am happy he is gone.

I don't think there is ever gonna be a civil war in IRAQ. That is what Europeans and Liberals think all over the world. That is not gonna happen.

3- As for my homeland, we Iranians want better relations with the west but not under this brutal regime. What we need is that Europeans cut their talks with the terrorist mullahs and support the Iranians for reforms and democracy.
And Majority of Iranian people don't want any type of Nuke under the rule of mullahs because it is simply too dangerous to give things to Mullahs whom cant be trusted at all.
The regime of Iran is not a responsible regime and shouldnt be trusted at all.
 
mmarsh said:
Marinerhodes

I must admit that I too wondered about that.

I think the answer is quite simple like all schoolyard bullies Saddam liked
to flex his muscle not because he had something to prove but because he enjoyed the chaos and fear around the world when he did. Terrorizing people was always a strong suite with Saddam.

There is another possibility. According to the captured Iraqi Nuclear Scientists, Saddam was kept as much in the dark about Iraqs WMD strength as was the rest of the world. Its possible Saddam though he was defending something at that point when in fact he was defending nothing because his own advisors were feeding him false information.

This is all speculation of course...
Click to expand...

I am not an expert in Politics, but the world is not a place to flex your muscles by threatening the other nations. Those other nations will take it seriously and react.

Btw, Saddam cheated and fooled UN for 12 yrs and that was enough.
He made a mockery of UN and western countries.
He had to be removed from power with use of force.
 
WorldWatcher said:
Hmm I suppose it could happen but how would they ever unite? One big difference is Sunni and Shia muslim, why would they unite to invade Europe? Also Egypt and Syria did merge to become the United Arab Republic sometime in the mid 20th century to try to unite Arab nationalism, almost got Yemen in as well, but it failed and collapsed in 1961.
Kuwait backs the US, Saudi arabia's government does to some degree. Egypt's government does as well. Iran's public seems pro american. Iraq is changing to a democracy. Turkey is close to Europe as well
If you include Northern African Arab countries, then Tunisia is close to Europe, and Morocco and extremely close ties to the US and Europe spanning many years.
It seems like it would be near impossible to unite the Arab states.But that is just my opinion.
Click to expand...

I'm not just talking about only Arab countries uniting, but most if not all Muslim countries uniting.

As to how they will unite? Since I guessing you are a Westerner, you probably don't know a little fact, that most all Muslims beileve in.

They believe in a set of prophecies which states they will form an empire under one great leader for a final Jihad. Both Sunni and Shia believe this, they also believe this will cause them to unite. This will be the catalyst for their unifcation.

I posted a long article on this, there is alot of detail involved but if you want to read it heres the thread;
The rising of an Empire and the future invasion of Europe!

If it wasn't for this common belief, I'd say they would never unite. But this belief is there, and it is every radicals dream that the Muslims do form a Caliphate (Islamic Empire).

Like I said if we do not introduce an openess and democracy to the Middle East, then Muslim Society will remain shut off to the rest of the world, and radical influence will surely and most definately take over, once they do they will force this prophecy into being.

That is why I am saying Iraq is our last best chance of doing this. What George W. Bush is doing is absolutely right. Even though it is still a long shot, it is better than nothing. This will give the more moderate Muslims a chance to dominate Islamic world, which is what we need to prevent a future war.

Unfortunatley the Europeans do not seem to be cooperating, their liberal mindset has deluded them into thinking that this is US aggression. Most of them even go as far as to hope that Bush fails, with no regards for the consecouence of the Iraqi people. Nevertheless when this Islamic Empire comes to be, the Europeans themselves will bear the brunt of it because of their own stupidity.

20 years from now I can almost guarantee you George W. Bush will be seen as a hero and visionary who tried to prevent WWIII.
 
Phoenix

No actually you are mistaken. The 45 min claim came from Iyad Allewi who was a CIA informant. Like many of the claims that came from Allewi, Chelbi and 'Curveball' that data proved to be bogus. Tony Blair just stupidly used it without checking his source, just like Bush did with the Niger Yellow cake. So now we are moving into the "could have been a threat". That is NOT what Bush told us. Bush repeatively told us Iraq was an "immient danger to US security". That either means Bush is the most incompetant president in US history or he's a liar. Saddam was a very evil man, but the sanctions limited his ability to threaten his neighbors. Had we really wanted Saddam to die, it could have been done quietly.

As for cheating and fooling the UN, there are several countries guilty about that including the US and Isreal (which has been in violation for 30 years with its settlements). We dont see anyone wanting to bomb them.

As for Iran

I know lots of Iranians in Paris, were educated in France, UK or the USA. The all want better ties with the west. The Problem is the government you just elected seems to want to do precisely the opposite. It has alienated traditional European allies such as France and the UK. So I am not sure you speak for the majority of Iranians. There is also the guardian consul who HATES the west. Frankly I dont see who relations can improve in such circumstances...
 
mmarsh said:
Had we really wanted Saddam to die, it could have been done quietly.
Click to expand...

Wrong. For as hard as we have been trying to eliminate him, these attempts were never successful. For decades. Nothing is just as easy as it seems.
 
Italian Guy said:
mmarsh said:
Had we really wanted Saddam to die, it could have been done quietly.
Click to expand...

Wrong. For as hard as we have been trying to eliminate him, these attempts were never successful. For decades. Nothing is just as easy as it seems.
Click to expand...

Do you have access to Classified CIA data? The only known assasination attempt of Saddam organized by the USA was a cruise missile strike in 2003 after the war started. The US has a law the prevents assasinations of world leaders. Of course you know the saying "there is no crime if you don't get caught". The point is if the CIA did try, you would never know.
 
mmarsh said:
Italian Guy said:
mmarsh said:
Had we really wanted Saddam to die, it could have been done quietly.
Click to expand...

Wrong. For as hard as we have been trying to eliminate him, these attempts were never successful. For decades. Nothing is just as easy as it seems.
Click to expand...

Do you have access to Classified CIA data? The only known assasination attempt of Saddam organized by the USA was a cruise missile strike in 2003 after the war started. The US has a law the prevents assasinations of world leaders. Of course you know the saying "there is no crime if you don't get caught". The point is if the CIA did try, you would never know.
Click to expand...

Yes I do have access (kidding :D ). I just said it's well known that both the US and some internal opponents repeatedly tried to kill him, via poison or other ways. He surrounded himself with dozens of doubles. because they tried to kill him a lot of times. Of course the CIA was well involved in many of those attempts. Or what other way were you referring to when you said that making him die was something that "could have done quietly"?
 
mmarsh said:
That either means Bush is the most incompetant president in US history or he's a liar
Click to expand...

There you go again, breaking the rules. Flaming a country or it's leader(s) is a no-no.
 
Missileer said:
mmarsh said:
That either means Bush is the most incompetant president in US history or he's a liar
Click to expand...

There you go again, breaking the rules. Flaming a country or it's leader(s) is a no-no.
Click to expand...

Why have a politics section if you can't criticize a leader? Just seems that there is a big difference between criticizing a country, which is usually a generalisation, and criticising an individual who is in the public arena and the criticism revolves around the actions of that individual.

Just appears to me that mmarsh's comments are in context with his argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top