Iran/America

[gundampali23]

Has anyone read whats goin on in iran and america.This is a serious topic and it could fire up another war.

What r ur opinions on this thing. Explain by telling me if u like a side and why.
Tell me if u like Americans/Iranians/Isrealis and tell me why u do choose their sides.
And please people absolutly no discrimination or racism.

[Albert Flasher]

[FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=Sienna]In all honesty? I hate this **** and I wish that the Yanks had never gone into the Mid East. But, as long as they're there, they might as well take out the real bad guys in the area, which really is Iran.[/COLOR][/FONT]

[Aaryanna]

[QUOTE=gundampali23]Has anyone read whats goin on in iran and america.This is a serious topic and it could fire up another war.

What r ur opinions on this thing. Explain by telling me if u like a side and why.
Tell me if u like Americans/Iranians/Isrealis and tell me why u do choose their sides.
And please people absolutly no discrimination or racism.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]So what exactly are you wishing to discuss? Your opening post is rather vague; as you did not state what you think or what side you are on. Nor did you explain what event between Iran and America that you are referring to. Sorry but I lack the ability to read others thoughts. Are you perhaps referring to how back in the 1950?s the politics in that area started to change due to oil?

Or perhaps you wish to discuss the ramifications of how relations between Iran and America deteriorated even further when the Iranians revolted in 1979 and Ayatollah Khomeni became Iran?s new leader and declared that the United States was the ?Great Satan? and a ?nation of infidels.?

I am assuming that you mean something more recent, but the constant bickering and fighting between these countries has been going on for quite some time. So without further clarification I haven?t a clue, which one of the events you wish to discuss.

Perhaps if you were to explain what you wish to discuss I would be able to answer. Also, could you please use proper English? It?s kind of annoying to have to figure out what you mean with the abbreviations. For members who?s first language is not English, well it?s probably even harder for them to understand what you are trying to say. It?s not that hard to type [U]are[/U] instead or [U]r[/U] or [U]you [/U]instead of [U]u [/U]or [U]your[/U] instead of [U]ur[/U]. I?d recommend using spell check as well. [/COLOR]

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f]While I understand why most Muslim countries don't like Israel (being a Muslim and a Palestinian myself), I am absolutely appalled by Iran's president's assumption that the holocaust is all made up.

The holocaust is not made up. Six million innocent Jews have been brutally and unjustly slaughtered. We have their names. And we all must learn form the holocaust that there should be tolerance between races and religions, even though we value different ideals..

Anyway, is America the great Satan? I certainly don't think so. While there are many aspects in western culture that are sinful and 'satanic' in the Islamic point of view, there are also aspects in eastern culture that are also sinful.

While Iran's current government isn't very good. It was much worse before. The current leader was at least elected, while the previous leader was a dictator. But for some odd reason, the U.S has a bigger problem with the new government because it is a theocracy. I hate the America?s double standards. If democracy doesn't result in something favorable to the U.S, then the U.S has a problem with it.

Honestly, are theocracies that bad, if the huge majority of the people in a country follow a certain religion, and even voted for a theocracy?

On to nuclear weapons. I personally think that the Iran is indeed pursuing a peaceful nuclear program. If Iran has the guts to call the America the 'Great Satan', and to deny the fact that 6 million Jews were exterminated in the holocaust, why would they have a problem admitting the fact they were making nuclear weapons?

But if the U.S can have nuclear weapons, why not any other country in the world? The U.S has no right to dictate which country can do what. I wish they would butt out of other countries' businesses, especially if those countries have never harmed the U.S.

Everyone is afraid of Islamic countries. They fear that Islamic countries want to take over the world. Now, while many Islamic countries are indeed oppressing their own people, they never had interest before in hurting western countries. If western countries had left them alone in the first place, and stopped controlling what they do and, and yes, killing many innocent civilians, there would never have been terrorist attacks on western countries in the first place.

I think the best way to have dealt with the Middle East?s internal problems is with peaceful negotiations. And for the U.S to stop using the double standard and to stop only siding with countries that would benefit [I]them[/I], instead of siding with what is truly just in our world.

From what I've seen and heard and read in the news, the U.S would prefer to side with a secular dictatorship instead of a peaceful theocratic country. Does anyone else see a problem with this? If the U.S wants to spread democracy, peace, and justice in the world, it better do it right or it will face the consequences.

As for the state of Israel, I honestly don't want to start a debate here. I've had enough of them. But one thing I will state is that Israel needs to start treating Palestinians as human beings. I'm not surprised why some Palestinians resort to suicide bombings (even though they are wrong). If Israel wants to truly protect its citizens it needs to treat Palestinians humanely and stop carrying out unjust collective punishments against entire villages because of what one person did.

Has anyone noticed that no matter how many security measures Israel takes, Israelis aren't been protected, AND Palestinian civilians are being killed at a higher rate than militants? The number of Palestinian casualties is nearly triple that of Israelis (though that number is pretty big as well) ? and that's without counting militants and suicide bombers. Something is not right here. The Israeli military isn't carrying out its job properly, and the end result is more innocent people on both sides of the conflict being killed.

Also, you can't treat an entire population like animals with no feelings, and deny them their basic human rights, without at least some of them retaliating, and also resorting to unjust means at that.[/COLOR]

[gundampali23]

Sorry aryanna.Won't happen again about the english.

When i said in the news i meant currently in the news for all those who were all confused.

In about 1956, Isreal obtained petrolium from France.In 1965, a Isreal scientist fled from his home to tell Iraq about their nuclear warheads.Till this day Isreal has 200 nuclear weapons. Weapons of mass destruction as Americans like to call it. Where was America in 1965 I have to ask. Even after all that America backed Isreal on everything in the UN.
Now I am Palestian myself and very optimistic and forgiving, but let me put it this way . If people came into ur home took your belongings, would you stand for it.
When the people come in for dinner and soend the night , doesnt it get akward.This is why the Islamic world is very hostile.This is way Iran and Palestine are very violent because your people pushed us to be violent.Do you expect Iran to sit quietly while Palestian is beaten up. No they armed themselves and told the world what they were going to do.

And maybe Iran leaders got a little carried away, like saying that the holecaust was fake.That is probably because they are in denial that the muslims are the next race in line for genocide. I mean look at all the things they out us through. Just the oyher day Isreal killed two 8 and 9 year old palestians and then they had the nerve to say they were looking for rebels.

Chabichou, I sympatheis with you, from one brother to another.Did you know that America wanted democracy in the middle east very badly?They got what they wanted. As you know Palestine became a democracy.Then when Hamas Party got ellected they went crazy as did Isreal.Well guess what guys that is what u get, so why did Isreal pull Palestian authority checks because it didnt go the way they wanted it to.And Chabichou, the current Iranian president is very moral.He is very poor and he is the president. You know why he is poor because he is generous to his country. Do you know how every president of every country has their own jet plane.Well he told them he didnt want them because he could use the money for his country instead.I mean they guy is paranoid right now because America( a enemy to Muslims everywhere) is sitting next door.

Please forgive any spelling mistakes. And post more in the subject .Iwant to her your opinions.

[Horendithas]

[COLOR=Indigo]I don?t choose any side whether it?s Americans (which is what I am) or Iranians or Israelites. I just don?t think that any one side is right. Each and every one of the groups you have mentioned in your first post have all done stupid and idiotic selfish things.

I do try to follow what happens to a certain extent, but at the same time a huge percentage of the American population has no say whatsoever in what happens in the Middle East. I get really tired of people wondering why or where was America when certain things happened. Especially when so many of the problems started long before I was even born.[QUOTE=gundampali23]Now I am Palestian myself and very optimistic and forgiving, but let me put it this way . If people came into ur home took your belongings, would you stand for it.
When the people come in for dinner and soend the night , doesnt it get akward.This is why the Islamic world is very hostile.This is way Iran and Palestine are very violent because your people pushed us to be violent.Do you expect Iran to sit quietly while Palestian is beaten up. No they armed themselves and told the world what they were going to do.[/QUOTE]Just which people are you referring to? Who is supposed to have made you violent? Your whole statement here is extremely vague. Are you trying to say that everything is America?s fault?[quote name='gundampali23]And maybe Iran leaders got a little carried away, like saying that the holecaust was fake.That is probably because they are in denial that the muslims are the next race in line for genocide. I mean look at all the things they out us through. Just the oyher day Isreal killed two 8 and 9 year old palestians and then they had the nerve to say they were looking for rebels.[/QUOTE]Now I?m even more confused, what gives you the idea that Muslims are in next in line for genocide? I hardly think that the death of two children means that all Muslims are going to be murdered. [QUOTE=gundampali23']I mean they guy is paranoid right now because America( a enemy to Muslims everywhere) is sitting next door.[/quote]So now America is an enemy to Muslims everywhere? Since when was America their enemy? It?s foolish to blame an entire nation based on the current government. I would hardly consider all Muslims my enemy over the actions of a few. It?s this kind of thinking that turns me off on such subjects. Each side gets so busy blaming the other that they start to overlook their own mistakes.
[/COLOR]

[gundampali23]

[QUOTE]Just which people are you referring to? Who is supposed to have made you violent? Your whole statement here is extremely vague. Are you trying to say that everything is America?s fault?[/QUOTE]

Sorry about being vague, i dont post much. And i meant Isreal. This whole thing started becuase of Palestine and Isreal. [QUOTE]Now I?m even more confused, what gives you the idea that Muslims are in next in line for genocide? I hardly think that the death of two children means that all Muslims are going to be murdered. [/QUOTE]

Listen if you think these two children were the first you are very mistaken.Isreal owes Palestine many lives.Even though me personally, i dont believe in a eye for a eye or revenge,but i cant change a whole other nation's views or belief ,espiaccally the nation of Palestine full of fathers, mothers, sons and others that were lost.I mean that is what they started suicide bombing for.Listen they believe that they will go to heaven and that they are doing holy work , even though i am a muslim i dont believe that is right.They lost there loved ones that is what pushed palestians to this.If you do not believe on the genocide theory,then go look up the death count of muslims for the past 10- 100 years and see if i am only talking about 2 kids.Come on man, have you ever heard the term Abu-Gharib camps.If you havent look it up.



[QUOTE]So now America is an enemy to Muslims everywhere? Since when was America their enemy? It?s foolish to blame an entire nation based on the current government. I would hardly consider all Muslims my enemy over the actions of a few. It?s this kind of thinking that turns me off on such subjects. Each side gets so busy blaming the other that they start to overlook their own mistakes.[/QUOTE]

Sorry about that it is another case of being vague again. When i meant America i meant the government and there allies. We all make mistakes, but it is the first one the counts, like taking Palestian land and giving it to Isreal. Then America(the government )gave them weapons. What do you expect us to do.We are a simple religious,poor people. We cant combat the tanks or air strikes Isreal has slaped us down with.

[Retribution]

[QUOTE=gundampali23]Sorry about being vague, i dont post much. And i meant Isreal. This whole thing started becuase of Palestine and Isreal.

Listen if you think these two children were the first you are very mistaken.Isreal owes Palestine many lives.Even though me personally, i dont believe in a eye for a eye or revenge,but i cant change a whole other nation's views or belief ,espiaccally the nation of Palestine full of fathers, mothers, sons and others that were lost.I mean that is what they started suicide bombing for.Listen they believe that they will go to heaven and that they are doing holy work , even though i am a muslim i dont believe that is right.They lost there loved ones that is what pushed palestians to this.If you do not believe on the genocide theory,then go look up the death count of muslims for the past 10- 100 years and see if i am only talking about 2 kids.Come on man, have you ever heard the term Abu-Gharib camps.If you havent look it up.[/QUOTE]
[size=1]To even insinuate that the current death-rate of Muslims brought about by Americans could possibly rival that of the holocaust is a sick and gross overstatement. There is no genocide occuring in Palestine and Israel -- a few American (torturous, granted) jails cannot be considered commiting genocide on a grand scale.

[QUOTE]Sorry about that it is another case of being vague again. When i meant America i meant the government and there allies. We all make mistakes, but it is the first one the counts, like taking Palestian land and giving it to Isreal. Then America(the government )gave them weapons. What do you expect us to do.We are a simple religious,poor people. We cant combat the tanks or air strikes Isreal has slaped us down with.[/QUOTE]
Look, if you want to point fingers, point them at the UN. It was they who established the State of Israel. I also think that after the murder of six million people, the Jewish people deserved a state of their own where they could defend themselves. I mean, if you had just been attacked a week before, would it be logical for you to take extra precautions to defend yourself from a future attack? Of course it would.

Please don't make the Palestinians out to be weak and powerless, as they have widespread support throughout the Middle East. Take, for example, in 1948 the armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq attacked Israel. By my count, that's five on one, and it's not my fault that Israel defended itself and retaliated years later. You can't attack a tiger and expect it to leave you alone.[/size]

[Albert Flasher]

[QUOTE=Retribution][size=1]To even insinuate that the current death-rate of Muslims brought about by Americans could possibly rival that of the holocaust is a sick and gross overstatement. There is no genocide occuring in Palestine and Israel -- a few American (torturous, granted) jails cannot be considered commiting genocide on a grand scale.
[/size][/QUOTE][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=Sienna]

Agreed. More people died at Auschwitz alone than than in this so-called Muslim genocide. It's rediculous to even think that the numbers are comparable.

It's not like the Jews arrived at Isreal and said 'Hmm, I feel like slaughtering some Muslims!' They arrived with broken spirits and were in no position to attack or slaughter anyone. It was Muslim nations that started the conflict, and while I agree the provocation was there (I don't particularily agree with Isreal myself), it's pretty hard to blame Isreal for something the Muslim nations essentially started.[/COLOR][/FONT]

[Fasteriskhead]

Okay, I'll give it a shot, although the question of what to do about Iran getting nukes is a heck of a nut to try cracking and my international politics skills probably aren't up for it. And I won't even try to tackle the Israel/Palestine question, which is even thornier than Iran and has been going on for decades longer.

Okay, so is Iran really going after nukes? Probably, although there's nothing resembling a smoking gun on this yet. Look at how Iran's been presenting itself on this: if all it cared about was nuclear power it could have easily accepted a deal with Russia to enrich uranium outside of its own borders (or something similar even earlier), with what would almost certainly be unanimous international acceptance. Instead, it flaunts the IAEA and insists, in such a way to piss everyone off, that it has the right to do the enrichment on its own soil. This is extremely heavy posturing: at the very least it's an attempt to assert Iran's status as an international power, regardless of whether it ever gets nuclear energy or not. But the bottom line is: if Iran can now enrich uranium, from there on out it only has to spend a few years (maybe ten, tops) working on the technics before it gets nuclear weaponry. Given Iran's obvious ambitions to ramp up its regional power, given its long history of not remotely caring whether the rest of the world likes it, and given that it knows that states like Israel and Pakistan already have the things, it seems to me very doubtful that they won't try to go for it.

So, if Iran gets nukes, then what happens? Well, first off, it would severely alter the balance of power in the region. Politics would completely change. More than likely it would prompt an arms race and, left unchecked, would lead to nuclear proliferation throughout the middle east. Some have argued that this would actually stabilize the region, given that only madmen would lead nuclear-powered states into direct conflict with each other (rather than fighting through proxies). I'm not convinced. First off, the states in the region with nukes would not always be democracies (e.g. the U.S., India) or self-interested oligarchies (e.g. the former USSR): rather, they'd often be autocracies, theocracies, or even worse, states of loose affiliations between regional warlords. This is [i]not[/i] a good environment to have WMDs floating around in, or one that lends hope to MAD theories of peace.

Second, Iran itself has been making some aggressive noises, and it's remotely possible they might just be nuts enough to [i]use[/i] their nukes. Although personally I think their talk, especially the stuff about about "wiping Israel off the map," is mainly just rhetoric, it's still possible that in the the next decade Tel Aviv will end up a smoking crater... and then very, very bad things will happen.

Third, the middle east has no shortage of very powerful extra-governmental organizations such as terror groups. With nuclear proliferation, it seems almost inevitable that nukes would eventually fall into the hands of a Hezbollah or (far less likely) a Hamas or even an Al Qaeda. It would be bad enough if they just jockied for power with the nukes, but they're also among the most likely people to actually [i]use[/i] one of the things... and again, very, very bad things will happen.

Okay, those are the risks, so what can the international community (or, more specifically, the U.S.) do about it?

First, obviously it can let it happen. This wouldn't be the [i]worst[/i] choice, I don't think, but it's certainly not the best, even though various talking heads seem to think a nuclear Iran is now inevitable. Again, this would be bad for all the reasons listed above.

Second, the U.N. could take action. This is possible, but I find it extremely unlikely that the U.N. will do anything that will actually have any effect. Now, factions in the U.S. seem to want to use sanctions to make Iran, essentially, into North Korea, i.e. a state which may have nukes but is economically caput. This won't happen, at least not to a degree which would be effective: unlike NK, Iran is sitting on a huge amount of oil, which means that anyone doing anything to it risks a massive cut in their petroleum bloodline. The UN Security Council doesn't have the cojones for this, unless Iran does something so drastic that its hand is forced. No, more than likely all the U.N. will do is slap Iran on the hand and tell it to shape up.

Third, a military attack. Now, the fallout from such a strike would range from extremely bad to completely catastrophic; domestic support would be almost null, the international outrage (especially from muslims) would be extreme, it would immediately mobilize extremely powerful terrorist groups like Hezbollah against the U.S., and worst of all it would probably completely reverse all the ill will Iranians currently feel towards their government. Nevertheless, it's still on the table, and Seymour Hersh wrote a now-infamous article [URL=http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact](linked here)[/URL] on the White House's considerations of this option (which should be read by, oh, everyone). The first option would be an airstrike to eliminate Iranian nuclear projects. This would at best be a temporary solution, as Iran has spread its program over any number of sites with many of them probably unknown to U.S. intelligence and some so deep underground that only a tactical nuke could hit them (which I doubt even the present administration is stupid enough to try). It would put them back by a few years, tops. Second, the U.S. could try to "decapitate" the present Iranian government and hope whoever comes in afterwards will be more agreeable. This is just as tricky as the first option, as the mullahs and their civilian stooges are quite paranoid and would probably disappear the moment they caught wind of such a plan. Third, rather than the U.S. doing anything, have Israel perform options one or two. This is far more difficult from the tactical point of view, and even more likely to end up useless; worse, no one will be fooled, and the political fallout could end up even more drastic. Fourth, a full-on Iraq-style invasion and occupation with regime-change in mind. This is the only option that can clear out Iran's nuke programs completely, but let's be clear: the U.S. [i]cannot do this[/i], it's simply stretching the military too far. Controlling a state the size of Iraq is already pushing things - Iran is far, far larger, and has greater complications to it too numerous to name. So, to sum up, any military action against Iran risks being useless and will end up as diplomatic suicide; if it has any use at all, it's only as a big ugly threat for the U.S. to wave around while it pursues other options.

Fourth, and perhaps nuttiest of all, is "Nixon goes to China." Essentially the idea is to reestablish relations with Iran, give it inducements to play nice with the rest of the world, and hope that as a result of this it can be "tamed." This was first proposed by, of all people, Christopher Hitchens (infamous British hawk), and to me seems almost crazy enough to work [URL=http://www.slate.com/id/2137560/](article linked here)[/URL]. The key is Iran's own population, which is very westernized, overwhelmingly pro-America, and increasingly dissatisfied with its own government and lack of political representation (the last election for president ended up being between a conservative and a more-conservative - as you know, the more-conservative won). The hope for pulling a Nixon is that the mullahs won't be able to sustain themselves as legitimate in the eyes of their people without increasingly giving ground to reform - as in China in recent years. Personally, I think this is the "best" (well, least-bad) idea of all those listed above: a slight humiliation on America's part in return for the very likely possibility of dealing with a completely different Iran by the time they might get working nukes.

Good god, I think I just wrote an encyclopedia entry. Well, in any case, these are the only options I know of so far, although I'm open to others if anyone has any alternative ideas.

[gundampali23]

[QUOTE]To even insinuate that the current death-rate of Muslims brought about by Americans could possibly rival that of the holocaust is a sick and gross overstatement. There is no genocide occuring in Palestine and Israel -- a few American (torturous, granted) jails cannot be considered commiting genocide on a grand scale.[/QUOTE]

Wait, Wait. Who said anything on comparing. I dont remember that. I said i consider it genocide.Just by the last statement you are the one comparing, my friend.


[QUOTE]So, if Iran gets nukes, then what happens? Well, first off, it would severely alter the balance of power in the region. Politics would completely change. More than likely it would prompt an arms race and, left unchecked, would lead to nuclear proliferation throughout the middle east. Some have argued that this would actually stabilize the region, given that only madmen would lead nuclear-powered states into direct conflict with each other (rather than fighting through proxies). I'm not convinced. First off, the states in the region with nukes would not always be democracies (e.g. the U.S., India) or self-interested oligarchies (e.g. the former USSR): rather, they'd often be autocracies, theocracies, or even worse, states of loose affiliations between regional warlords. This is not a good environment to have WMDs floating around in, or one that lends hope to MAD theories of peace.[/QUOTE]

come on man there isnt any power in the middle east anyway , it is all Isreal running the show.And look at it his way when Iran announced that they are enriching uranium, who was going nuts and wanted to fire their "weapons of mass destruction".You want to talk about unbalance what about Rice saying that to stop a nucleur crisis that they will draw up plans with India.

You got to be kidding me.Thats like saying forest fires are bad and then throwing a match into Yellowstone Park.

[Horendithas]

[COLOR=Indigo][QUOTE=gundampali23]Sorry about being vague, i dont post much. And i meant Isreal. This whole thing started becuase of Palestine and Isreal.

Listen if you think these two children were the first you are very mistaken.Isreal owes Palestine many lives.Even though me personally, i dont believe in a eye for a eye or revenge,but i cant change a whole other nation's views or belief ,espiaccally the nation of Palestine full of fathers, mothers, sons and others that were lost.I mean that is what they started suicide bombing for.Listen they believe that they will go to heaven and that they are doing holy work , even though i am a muslim i dont believe that is right.They lost there loved ones that is what pushed palestians to this.If you do not believe on the genocide theory,then go look up the death count of muslims for the past 10- 100 years and see if i am only talking about 2 kids.Come on man, have you ever heard the term Abu-Gharib camps.If you havent look it up.[/QUOTE]The very idea that Israel owes Palestine many lives is absurd. Nor did I say that the two children were the first. I simply said that the loss of two lives does not mean that all Muslims are going to be killed.

Considering that it?s estimated that there are about 1.2 billion Muslims in the world I seriously doubt that the death rate is enough to even be close to genocide. Here?s a [URL=http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/arabs.html][U][COLOR=Indigo]Website[/COLOR][/U][/URL] with some interesting information including this:

[B]Who is killing Muslims?[/B] [I]"It is interesting that Muslims worldwide accuse the USA and Israel of killing Muslims, when in reality it is Muslims who kill Muslims. Osama Bin Laden has killed more Muslims in just one day (september 11) than Israel in one year. Various Muslim dictators (from Saddam Hussein to Mubarak) have killed thousands of Muslims. The soldiers who used gas against Kurds and Iranians were Muslims. The current wave of terrorist attacks in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, etc is carried out by Muslims, and mainly kills Muslims (tens of thousands of them).
It is interesting that Muslims worldwide refuse to admit the obvious fact that Muslims (not Americans and not Israelis) are killing Muslims. That's what the brainwashing of the Quran does: a Muslim is so convinced that all evils must be caused by infidels that he blames the infidels even for the Muslim who is killing him."[/I]

Sounds to me like it?s the Muslims who need to stop the killing.[quote name='gundampali23']Sorry about that it is another case of being vague again. When i meant America i meant the government and there allies. We all make mistakes, but it is the first one the counts, like taking Palestian land and giving it to Isreal. Then America(the government )gave them weapons. What do you expect us to do.We are a simple religious,poor people. We cant combat the tanks or air strikes Isreal has slaped us down with.[/quote][I]?Despite the trillions of dollars earned with the oil trade, all the Arab countries together have a combined gross domestic product that is half that of Spain alone. No Arab country has invested in industry, services, agriculture.?
[/I]
If you are a poor and simple religious people then why are you blaming other governments? Don?t you ever wonder why your own government doesn't invest in improving the lives of their own people?
[/COLOR]

[Fasteriskhead]

[quote name='gundampali23']come on man there isnt any power in the middle east anyway , it is all Isreal running the show.[/quote]I hope I'm reading you right. If it am, it means either that we've been checking very different sources, or we have completely different ideas of what "power" and "running the show" mean.

It's almost nonsensical to claim that the middle east states (barring Israel, I guess?) don't have any power. Granted, a nation like Saudi Arabia (who I take as my example here) doesn't have the kind of overwhelming military strength of the U.S., but these are [i]not[/i] helpless victims waiting to get shot by the IDF. These guys are the ones guarding and allowing or disallowing access to the lifeblood of the world economy - if you're a developed country dependent on oil, you do [i]not[/i] want to get them pissed at you. There's a reason the U.S. government is propping up the House of Saud's regime, and it's not because Bush and co. are all big fans of Salafism and the use of amputation for the punishment of criminals. How is this not power?

As for Israel "running the show," while they're certainly [i]the[/i] premier military power in the region (and they certainly show no shyness about using it...), I find it difficult to believe that a nation of some seven million people could be "running" a region housing a couple of [i]hundred[/i] million. This is especially true given that many of the latter do not recognize the former as even having a legitimate claim to statehood. Unless the Israelis have a vast and secret world-controlling conspiracy going on (wait, I think I've heard this one before), I don't see how they could possibly have much control over the region beyond pointing to their military and their nukes and saying, "Don't **** with us."

[quote name='gundampali23']And look at it his way when Iran announced that they are enriching uranium, who was going nuts and wanted to fire their "weapons of mass destruction".[/quote]Well, in order: first, pretty much the [I]entire U.N.[/I] was going nuts, and second, [i]no one[/i] was proposing launching WMDs. Even the U.S., by far the most pushy of all parties, is right now only brandishing a military strike as a threat. I'm certainly not going to defend Bush and his cronies on anything else here, but their official policy has been diplomacy, albeit with an "OR ELSE" added on that should make the rest of us very, very wary. Given Hirsh's recent article (linked above) I'm very worried that this "diplomatic approach" will end up being complete bull, but even if a strike happens (and god help us if it does) the use of NBC weapons by America would be next to unthinkable.

[quote name='gundampali23']You want to talk about unbalance what about Rice saying that to stop a nucleur crisis that they will draw up plans with India.[/quote]Well, although the India treaty was a stupid move on the administration's part in very obvious violation of reams of settled international law, I don't think its signing coinciding with the Iran thing was much more than a coincidence. The U.S. has been courting India for years now, after all. Now, it is, of course, complete hypocracy for the U.S. to demand that Tehran face up to international standards when it itself has just flaunted a good number of such standards... but that doesn't mean that trying to deal with the present crisis in Iran in whatever way isn't the right thing to do. There's just too much at stake to sit on the sidelines and make fun of U.S. foreign policy for being two-faced.

(also, what's this about a "nucleur (sic) crisis?" I'm not sure what you're referring to here)

[Ikeor]

Geez I never thought someone could right that big of a message. :catgirl:
Anyway with the war. It is one of the most stupid wars I have ever seen Bush dragged the war on to long an now he is going to let the war go past his terms leaving the next president to decide a important dicision, to keep the war going :mad: or to end it :D . The thing is the war has gone on too deep if we leave now it could be for the better and everything will calm down with the terriost or it could just double it's self because there are no U.S. troops :(
:animenose note:If so many troops are being killed by so many car bombs stay away from cars.... and bombs :animesigh
Another note what did you mean by another war?