Would US attack Iran?!!

I think it was a good discussion, I learned alot, I hope you took away something too. Never thought I'd see a discussion really end on these forums. Look forward to future arguements with you.

Well, what is certain is that not unless Iran attacked the US.

Sorry, I have to get this out: I find threads nauseating after they reach a certain size.

Bye.

I find on these message boards everything that has to do with news agencies are considered propaganda. While I like to look up more information before I fully believe in something, I really don't believe CNN is a propaganda machine for the government due to all the negitives it gives. Unless you consider CNN showing the negitives of the Iraq war, talking about the people being killed, and how they say insurgent numbers are just growing and make it seem as though the war will never end gives a good image of our government, then I guess I could agree with you that it is a propaganda machine.

Also that comes from the future! It's march 2nd over here. You must be a fortune teller.

But I do see this as progress. The feeling they gave off when they first came in wasn't that of progress. So this is back to the talks I've been talking about above.

Allow me to copy-paste the entire content of the link that mysteriously didn't work for you, lol. (I'll make a new post)[/qupte] Hey now, I wouldn't lie to you. It really would work!     Well thanks for posting it. [quote]Technology also won't stand still on the consumption side of the equation, Yergin says. "By 2025 or 2030, we'll probably be moving around in vehicles quite different from the ones we drive today. Maybe we'll be driving around in vehicles that get 110 miles to the gallon," he says. That's more than a guess. Toyota's 2001-model Prius hybrid got 48 miles per gallon; the 2005 model was up to 55 mpg. If automakers focused solely on energy efficiency, 110 mpg isn't out of the question.

Also it seems the oil companies here are raising prices just for the hell of it. A inbestigation was launched to see if they had any reason to be raising prices and there really isn't any. Exxon made the highest profits ever by a company in the United States in the last quater. They definitly jacked up the prices using the war as an excuse. It seems everytime a suicide bomber blows up, or the US army is struggling the prices suddenly shoot up. And for what reason, we aren't getting oil from Iraq yet.

If anything, this article almost seems aimed to help bring up the idea of supporting the war for Bush supporters. The news is always talking about how the world is heating up from global warming, yet snow fall has been increasing for the past four years. Like I said, the news here likes to scare people.

It might be because of oil, but so far I think it's just because Bush is an idiot and wanting to finish something is father didn't finish. I think I'd rather believe it was for oil so I could stop guessing, but recent trends, oil being found in other parts of the world, and so on just don't point to it. I'm just going to go and further my research into it.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy That's the situation in Sudan, but what's that other rival country that would have ignored the UN and invaded a sovereign state for oil? is this a trick question?

I try my best to avoid using "our sources" (such as Al Jazeera), and stick to your own to make it eaiser for you to believe the content of the information posted.  You seem to be inclined to believe your sources, but I may be wrong. 

You'd be so naiive to think that "news" isn't linked to the government.  Haven't you heard of PSYOPS and CNN?  Directly from the other side or not, to be "open minded" means to be open to all views and not avoid something because it's from the extreme other.  I don't think you'd lose anything by watching that video; it just speaks for most of us in the Middle East, not just the Iraqis - that's if you even care about how we feel.

Lol.  I still don't understand the point, but thanks for trying to explain it again.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy Not always.  You try to avoid the conflict if it wasn't existent to begin with.  In this case, the verse below applies But there was a chance for peace! How can you deny it? It's almost as though your just arguing this case just to argue. It was some short lived actual progress.

If it was short-lived, it died before the elections, not after it.

I didn't hear them talk about supporting the Palestinians.  I heard them talk specifically about pushing forward the peace process to solve the Middle East conflict, and "support Israel."

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy And please don't act like Israel is doing the Palestinians a favor by "conceding" land.  They're only giving back less than half of what they occupied after 67.  They're already ignored over 60 resolutions regarding that matter.  That was right when peace talks were really making progress. That was when the Palistinian Government and Israely government were actually talking. That was some "Progress" that is now lost due to Hamas. Your arguing for violence when you should want peace. I mean, how could you not want that small possibilty that there won't be bloodshed?

I would love for a peaceful solution to surface, of course.  Who doesn't want peace?  But we can't apply the Christian philosophy (with all due respect) of turning the other cheek.  If you hit me, I'll hit you back.  I have the choice of forgiving you, but I won't be sinning if I choose not to.  I don't support violence, but I believe in Hamas' right to retaliate, just like you believe in America's right to retaliate for 9/11.

Here you go:

Hamas statements boost peace hopes

March 03, 2006 MOSCOW: Hamas might reconsider its attitude towards Israel in order to advance the interests of the Palestinian people, the Palestinian ambassador to Russia announced last night.

Hamas "ties the question of recognising Israel as a state with the necessity to end the occupation of the Palestinian territories", ambassador Bakir Abdel Munem said, raising hopes of a major breakthrough in its standoff with Israel since its landmark election win.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,574 4,18331819%255E2703,00.html

Calm down, lol.  Why do you take everything I say so personally?

We're all for peace, as long as it helps the Palestinian cause.

Hamas didn't even get down to business yet, so what are you basing your opinion on?  How do you know all chances of bringing peace have disappeared?  Give them a chance!  The US pushed for the elections and was giving big talks about democracy:  Here's what you got.  Deal with it!  In any case, I'm sure Hamas doesn't expect much from the US.  It has always relied on Arab/Muslim support.

Give them a chance.  They just made a progress with the statement about "reconsidering" their position.  Doesn't that look promising to you?

Hmm .. Maybe!

Allow me to copy-paste the entire content of the link that mysteriously didn't work for you, lol. (I'll make a new post)

So anything un-American is propaganda to you, even without seeing it?  Tells a lot about your open-mindedness, you know.  Sorry about your computer, I guess!

Sorry, I didn't understand this.

Not always.  You try to avoid the conflict if it wasn't existent to begin with.  In this case, the verse below applies:

"And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you. Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who ward off (evil)." [2:194]

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy Your governments have supported Israel for the past 50 years.  Isn't that a reason to feel uneasy about your country? And the Clinton adminstration never showed any aggression towards them and pushed on trying to bring peace between the two nations. And Bush continued, though he probably never would have gone with it if he wasn't picking up before the previous adminstration. But Bush did try and before Hamas came in they were actually agreeing on things. I mean, Israel was actually pulling out of areas which pissed off their own citizens. You can't say that wasn't a move in the right direction.

I'm sure I remember seeing Bush and Al Gore (in the first elections) compete with each other on who would support Israel more.  That was quire a competition.

And please don't act like Israel is doing the Palestinians a favor by "conceding" land.  They're only giving back less than half of what they occupied after 67.  They're already ignored over 60 resolutions regarding that matter. 

Look at the map after the 1948 partition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UN_Partition_Plan_For_Pal estine_1947.png

And the map after the 1967 occupation:

http://www.countrysidebible.com/audio/2002-Israel/maps/1967- before-six-day-war.jpg

Of course they have to move out.  Who cares what the settlers think?  They're settlers after all, who live on stolen land that belongs to others.  Do you ask for the thief's permission before returning the stolen property to its rightful owner?  Use some common sense.

No matter what, even when and if a peace is ever achieved, the Israelis will always remain the thieves, who had stolen the lands of other people, and established their state on the expense of another nation.  I don't know if you'd like to live in camps like Palestinian refugees, when you know you have a land but cannot return to it.  How can you give someone, who claims that their ancestors had lived in the land some 2000 years ago the "right of return," while those who have been expelled not even a century ago are still living in camps and do not have the right to return to their homelands?!

This is democracy and the people's free will.  The people elect whom they believe will represent them better to the world.  Hamas does represent the Palestinian frustration and patience that's running out.

Then you have no idea what's going on in the global oil market.  Take a look:

 http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2005-1 0-16-oil-1a-cover-usat_x.htm

You don't drop down bombs randomly and not expect them to cause any civilian damage.  Did you, by any chance, see the invasion of Iraq live on TV?  It couldn't have been smart-targeting.

I don't know what you hear in that part of the world, and I don't want to go off-topic here, so I'm just going to say:  Do some research.  And that story about OBL son marrying one of Mullah Omar's daughters, FYI, is not true.

You obviously did not even check the links I gave you.  Here are some excerpts from the article to explain the figures you gave:

"They put the brakes on Iraq. Development stalled, exploration was restrained and Iraq Petroleum acquired all remaining concessions in order to shut out competition."

"By 1960, Iraq Petroleum had developed only eight out of the 35 oilfields discovered in Iraq."

"But the new era was snuffed out by the 1979 rise to power of Saddam Hussein, who diverted oil revenue from development toward imperial goals and left the vast majority of newly discovered fields untapped."

"Some figures reveal just how untouched Iraq is: since oil production began at the dawn of the 20th century, only 2,300 wells have been drilled in Iraq, compared with about 1 million in Texas. A large part of the country�the western desert area�is still mainly unexplored."

"Of more than 80 oilfields discovered in Iraq, only about 21 have been at least partially developed. And 70 percent of current capacity derives from just three old fields: Kirkuk, discovered in 1927, and North and South Rumailah, discovered in 1951 and 1962, respectively."

Which reminds me:  Did you check the link to the video I had posted earlier?

You were just bragging about the great justice system where nobody's guilty until proven otherwise, but now you're talking about 'possibilities' and that one should automatically be suspicious about Hamas because of its Islamic nature?

Your governments have supported Israel for the past 50 years.  Isn't that a reason to feel uneasy about your country?

Hamas always vows to "retaliate"; they never start the aggression.

If there was a possibility of peace, it would have happened with or without Hamas.  You can't use Hamas as a scapegoat.  Hamas just recently won the elections, and the post-Arafat government has been doing its best for a year now.  Arafat died in November 2004, by the way.

Who provoked this whole intifada anyway?

Well we do have reserves, but we also produce alot of oil. I'll explain further down as some of these questions can be answered together.

Though a few years ago when Powell was still in office, he wanted the US to get involved in some civil war going on in Afriaca. To be honest, I don't really follow what happens in Africa. So I'll just go with what your saying.

Though you can't deny the Taliban didn't know about Al Qaida. They openly supported them. They allowed Terrorist camps to be built in their country without hesitation. They admired him for helping fight off the Soviets. They may have asked for evidence, but that was just to save themselves. We know he was there for numerous reasons.

Like I said it's all politics. A Government is going to stay on top in whatever way they can. Like I said before, Palistine has nothing to offer us while Saudi Arabia does. They have oil, we buy from them and sell our own. There is nothing Iraq has to offer from what I can tell and neither does Palistine.

Staying on top to enforce human rights is good, but Bush I believe is abusing our Power right now.

But for Hamas, today the leader came out and said that they considered themselves the winners in the struggle against Israel for winning the election. He said that Israel would also always be considered a enemy. Basicly with that said, everything the US has been doing diplomaticly since the Clinton adminstration has just ended. We basicly have to start all over again if we want peace in that region. Which is why I wish we could just forget about Israel, maybe thats why we want Iraq and Afghanistan as a ally, so we could forget about Israel...

Originally posted by Zagros And, btw,   I am used to it, probably unlike anyone here: I have experienced war, first hand.

I never knew that, did you fight against Iraq in the 1980's?