Guest Guest Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 I support President Bush in his current actions but to go any further (attacking Iran) would require alot more than simply saying they are evil. If the US continues with this attitude of a crusade then WE are going to be viewed as the threat by the rest of the world and the next thing you know, WE cause WWIII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waelabdo Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 and i mean by (US) here = here president cause not everyone in usa thinks like him cause i have many many friends at usa who refuse his actions and call it insanity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daffydk Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 I dont think Bush is a fanatic christian. And people who claim that lack understanding of how America works. I voted for Bush because I believe he was the best among the choices offered. Kerry was not the best leader. And again even alot of americans dont know how america works. War decesions are made in Pentagon. The american presidency changes every 4-8 Years but the American Policy remains relatively unchanged. And I am disguisted by some people here who blame a whole religion or a whole people for the actions of a few. I thought star trek fans were different from those regular beer drinking couch potato ignorant folks. I thought if anything, star trek fans understood cultural values, the idea that nations and races exist with both good and bad in them. Just because some volcuns blow iup the earths embasscy doesnt mean all volcuns are bad.. in fact its the opposite. Most volcans are peaceful and some may claim they are more logical than humans. I dont want to quote anyone from this board or name names but I would strongly suggest that you look into yourself and bring the best of yourself out rather than use your primitive emotions and start blaming a whole people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daffydk Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 By the way, there is a TNG episode that is named preemptive strike or attack.. it sorta has ideas about how to take action before something happens to you. However as far as Iran is concerned, there is little reason why the US should meddle in their affairs at this point in time. Some one mentioned that they may press the button. IT is unlikely ANYONE will press the button. Let me rephrase, it is Unlikely ANY Nation will pres the button becuase if they do, that will be the end of that nation. And iranians have proved to be far from being stupid: If you all know your history, Iran acted in a very smart way to avoid a war with the Taleban after about 11 of its diplomats were killed by the taleban. Without going into reasons why but they acted very smartly. Further evidence of Iran being smarter than other nations is that in Iran they have 1000s of printed media and universities. And contrary to what you read by the propagandist, iran is a complex democracy/theocracy. They have an elected president and parliment as well as a theocratic entitty. Their balance of powers maybe tilted a bit but their government system works quite well. It is very similar to our United State with the senate, president and supreme court all governing us. Of course our government here is much more balanced (usually-except lately). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonHelton Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 you forgot to mention america is run by a fanatic christian When I see Bush or any other American Christian chopping people's heads off, then I'll agree with you. :stare: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamp Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 I wasn't aware anyone was blaming whole ppl or religions, just those who are crazy ones. Although congress has a say the dissision to go to war would ultimatly come to the president. Saddam was not a muslim, his vice president was a christian. Saddam and bin laden hated each other. there were no terorist training camps in Iraq, there were no weapons of mass destruction. I dont judge the americans, i like americans. i judge Bush, man who was not thinking of the ppl he represents when he attacked iraq, but of his precious oil and finishing his dads business. i don't actually think he is fanatical based upon his christian beliefs, i should of worded my statement before different. but he still lied to the american people trying to scare them enough to re-elect him. Iraq was never a threat, it's iran that is potential threat, but you can't go in guns blazing. what do you think Picard would say about that? I would of thought star trek fans of all people would realise that. If bush really cared he would be trying as hard to solve the palistian and israeli problem as bill clinton did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daffydk Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 I wasnt particularly talking about you Lt Lamb. I was talking about others who use the terms "muslims", "all muslims" "all christians" etc. It may seem strange by I do support the fact that THe US got rid of saddam. He was brutal and he would continue his brutality against kurds, shiats and others indefinitely. And He attacked kuwait. But it is very unfortunate what has happenned since. I didnt expect it would get out of hand this way. And I would imagine that neither the pentagon or state department knew that it would get out of hand. Mistakes were made. Idealisticaly The US would only use force for humanitarian purposes and not for gain of oil or other resources. But it is the reality of the situation and I cant change that by voting differently. As I said the strategic US policy is not so much influenced by who is in the presidential office but by different entities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonHelton Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 And I am disguisted by some people here who blame a whole religion or a whole people for the actions of a few. ".....There is no greater desire of anyone who is Muslim than to push the Nation of Israel into the Sea." -Yassir Arafat, 1976 You were saying? :stare: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elderbear Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 I don't blame the british for not joining. What are the Iranians accused of? Not being democratic or religious. How about not being WASPs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zgamesforu Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 lol :D We can always count on good old arafat to illuminate the situation from that point of view. Does anyone sense a curasde coming on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daffydk Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 ".....There is no greater desire of anyone who is Muslim than to push the Nation of Israel into the Sea." -Yassir Arafat, 1976 You were saying? :stare: And your point is??? Just because some political figure makes a statement which serves his purpose doesnt make that statement the TRUTH or a fact? You have alot to learn or you are stuck in 1976 or both. Turky is a secular nation with muslim population and leaders and they are at peace with israel and in fact they even do military training together. There are many other nations that are at peace with isreal including jordon. Just becuase some nations like syria with dictators have problems with isreal doesnt make all muslims at war with israel. You can quote 100s of people but it doesnt mean anything. Arafat or hafiz Assad or sadam or benladin or others do not speak for muslims. They speak for their own interest. Just like Bush, he only speaks for a thin majority of americans that vote for him. If you continue to believe in your ignorance, it will only end up at the wrong end of the tunnel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elderbear Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 I don't want to find myself aruging that Iran is the "good guys" here. I barely understand the Islamic approach to government, I still vividly remember when they invaded our embassy and took our people hostage. That was an act of war, which has never been resolved! In other words, by some standard, we would be perfectly justified in using Iraq as a base for invading Iran and changing the regime there. Doing so would also be stupid (for many reasons). There is, however, a certain nation that has been convicted by the world court of government sponsored acts of terrorism. That same nation has a regime installed under questionable circumstances after a suspicious election. This regime has manipulated its population with militaristic propaganda in order to arrogate more power to its leadership, reducing civil rights, and violating international treaties. This nation has scoffed at international law, treaties, and accords repeatedly; frequently using the military to serve the interests of its oligarchy in direct contravention of said agreements. Wanna know the scary thing? This nation has chemical, biological and nuclear capacity. It has used weapons of mass destruction in the past, both in committing internal genocide and in attacking external threats. Shouldn't taming this rogue nation be the number one national priority? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zgamesforu Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 Oh no not with turkey, they're just bending over backwards because they want to be part of the EU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elderbear Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 Oh no not with turkey' date=' they're just bending over backwards because they want to be part of the EU.[/quote'] You want a good opinion on Turkey? Go ask an Armenian! :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daffydk Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 Oh no not with turkey' date=' they're just bending over backwards because they want to be part of the EU.[/quote'] Well they are doing everything possible now to join EU. Hoever they had friendly relations with israel long before they wanted to join EU. You implied that turkey is friendly with israel becuase they want to join EU? Or maybe you didnt imply.. it seemed so from your post. Turkey was offered to join EU decades ago but they declined for various reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonHelton Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 There is, however, a certain nation that has been convicted by the world court of government sponsored acts of terrorism. That same nation has a regime installed under questionable circumstances after a suspicious election. This regime has manipulated its population with militaristic propaganda in order to arrogate more power to its leadership, reducing civil rights, and violating international treaties. This nation has scoffed at international law, treaties, and accords repeatedly; frequently using the military to serve the interests of its oligarchy in direct contravention of said agreements. Wanna know the scary thing? This nation has chemical, biological and nuclear capacity. It has used weapons of mass destruction in the past, both in committing internal genocide and in attacking external threats. .......And if America was a brutal dictatorship, I might agree with you, but it's not. :stare: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamp Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 i think the main reason iraq didn't turn out like many supporters of the war was that they didn't realise that many people would not see it as a war to free a people, but see it as a war with another agender mainly oil, this being what is infuriating so many people in the middle east. one of the other problems in the aftermath is the US army is not really trained for peacekeeping. As I said the strategic US policy is not so much influenced by who is in the presidential office but by different entities. would enron be one of these entities you talk about? i really look forward to bush's second term, without having to worry about getting re-elected i wonder if he'll go for peace or war. Kinda makes the world more exicting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonHelton Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 Um, I have a question....... If we went into Iraq for oil, why did we give a large portion of that oil to Russia?? :stare: Would someone explain that to me? I guess I'm just not fully versed in the "greedy American" mentality yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daffydk Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 I don't want to find myself aruging that Iran is the "good guys" here. I barely understand the Islamic approach to government' date=' I still vividly remember when they invaded our embassy and took our people hostage. [b']That was an act of war, which has never been resolved![/b] In other words, by some standard, we would be perfectly justified in using Iraq as a base for invading Iran and changing the regime there. It is interesting you mentioned the embassy situation but you forget (intentionaly not?) mention why the embassy was taken over. The US had meddled in iranian affairs by actively promoting a dictator/king and over throwing a democratic elected president. And when the iranians got rid of the dictator through a popular revolution and noticed the US stil messing around in iran through their embassy.. they acted impulsively. But you cant expect them to act any other way right after a revolution. How would the US act right now if they find out that a certain nation's embassy was unloading millions of dollars and carrying other covart operations to over throw the democratic government and setting up a monarchy in the US????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comtron Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 For those who wish to know, or who have inaccurate info, the US has not yet received a single barrel of oil from Iraq. Why? They are still trying to meet their own needs, and the contracts that countries originally had with Iraq. The main problem is that Iraqi militants keep blowing up their own oil pipelines and water mains. This makes absolutely no sense. As far as Strategy goes in the long term, Saudi Arabia is running out of oil. Their own officials have placed their reserves at lasting a maximum of 40 more years even at minimal rates of production. So, the US does have some responsibility in the oil agenda, but not the one you think. The US is attempting to set up a government in Iraq that will sell us oil for years to come as cheaply as Saudi Arabia did. However, the US has yet to see any return on its investment. Other than that objective, the War was supposed to be humanitarian, although it was unforseen that Iraq would be infiltrated by tens of thousands of muslim extremists from nearby nations bent on trying to cast doubt in the minds of the NATO founding nations. --Lt. Cmdr. Timothy Wagner --VF143 Pukin' Dogs (Sqdrn 9) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts