Would US attack Iran?!!

Mira and SearchAndDestroy:

I think you two might make a perfect couple.  Opposites attract.

Why don't you make a date to go out? 

 

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy And most people seem to think it's all conspiracies. I don't mind changing my mind when hard evidence comes up. But I look at all angles, and all I see is unbievable conspiacies on your part. You say they are there to colonize basicly because the US is western, because other western countries have done it in the past. There is no reason to colonize anymore, for what oil? Canada hasn't even tapped into it's oil completly and it's said to be the biggest in the world, the US has more then enough oil fields itself and if needed there still Alaska. We buy cheap oil from the Saudi's who are more then happy to seel it to us. The US, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, China Norway and a few others are able to produce more Petroleum them Iraq can. Iraq is 14th on the list, Iran 4th. If we really went for oil, who do you think would have been more beneficial to colonize?

The US doesn't want to use its own reserves.  It's clear as the sun.  If you wanted to use your reserves, and you say you have plenty, then you wouldn't have reduced yourself to supporting repressive governments like the Saudi regime just for the sake of keeping the oil prices stable.

The Darfur crisis has been happening ever since I was a baby in a cradle.  The US only paid attention to the "humanitarian" crisis when uranium was discovered there.  Now isn't that one strange coincidence?

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy Yes ofcourse the American, the US is in a country without reason. Anyone has the right to be scared if their country was invaded and the right to fight. I never agreed with this war, but I'm not going to assume the reasons for it if I don't know everything. Know one knows the real reason, you can only assume, but from what I see as the reason for colonizing the country doesn't make sense.

You certainly didn't go there for the unfound WMDs, and there's weren't any Al Qaeda links and all that BS with the ex-regime.  Saddam Hussein was always evil, nothing new. 

Says US must prevent oil fields from falling into hands of terrorists

So now the US wants to be the vanguard and the protector of the wealth of other countries.  5% of the world population is consuming half the world resources.  Sigh.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy You need not be a conservative Muslim to have morals.  Easterners, generally, are more conservative in terms of upholding traditions and values than Westerners, whether they were Muslims, Hindus, Christians .. etc.  I thought we talked about ignorance before, and here you are saying that Middle Easterners are only capable of morals. Morals are different for everyone, I was raised to treat everyone with respect unless they don't show it to me, and to believe everyone is on equal footing, obviously you don't see people as equals. It almost seems that you feel westeners are inferior is your own culture, which is pretty sad.

S&D, why am I misquoted here?  Where in that paragraph did I say that MidEasterners "are only capable of morals"?  First of all, I said "Easterners," not Middle Easterners.  Secondly, I said, "more conservative."

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy We took out the taliban for supporting Osama, we took out a secular dictator though I believe illegally, but obviosly not because he was muslim. We don't force other countries to become secular, but we won't help a country who we feel doesn't support our ideas or doesn't have anything to offer, thats politics.

You didn't only "take out" the Talibans for 'allegedly' supporting OBL.  (They Talibans said, "Present us with evidence and we'll hand him over."  The US failed to do so,) you "took out" more than just the Talibans.  Too many innocents were "taken out" in that process.  I don't know what that wedding had to do with the Taliban.  It's sad they had to accept a bomb down on them for a wedding gift.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy Only thing we told them is we don't support a country that doesn't over rights to the minority.

But you support Saudi Arabia?

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy We have something called a constitution that a President must follow. He in know way can put his religion on others and he can't take away the rights of the people upheld by the constitution. Thus the minorities are still protected. I also know in a couple of years I still get my chance to vote in someone with my own ideas and they are different from the current President.

How do you know the Palestinians don't feel secure about guaranteed freedoms?  You just assume that by Hamas winning the elections, there's going to be no more freedoms guaranteed?  Now isn't that ignorance and prejudice?

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy Yes it is up to them, problem is it's still not Freedom of choice for everyone.

You're wrong.  It only shows you know so much about Shariah law.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy No because in court you can't favor one group, everyone is on equal footing in court until your found guilty by the laws of the land.

This applies to minorities everywhere.  One minority group can't be favored over other groups, whether the other groups were the majority or another minority group.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy I don't think many Palestinians will object to the new government's desire to eliminate corruption; who likes corruption anyway?  Who says they aren't corrupt, or is it because of those strong Eastern morals you spoke of before?

The majority who voted for Hamas didn't think they were corrupt, or at least that corrupt.  You can't tell unless you were a citizen of Palestine.  In any case, Hamas was never part of the government before.  On what grounds do you base your claims of their corruption?

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy Prostitution, for example, is legal in 10 (some say 15) out of 17 counties in Nevada.  So why make it illegal in the others?  Each 'county' is different, and wants to put different laws to protect itself.  See what I'm saying? And any American citizen can go and leave those places without facing any crime. Protitution also has heavy guidlines there and are illegal in other places because it would cost money to take care of that one business. But what does this prove except our laws are very flexable?

You call it flexibility, we call it laws of protection.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy The Iraq war wasn't about humans rights at all, it was about stupid lies. I don't know the exact reason and I probably never will, but it doesn't make sense for colonizing and oil when it doesn't offer anymore then we already get and can get.

Then why aren't you using what you already have and can get?  Why is the US government interested in maintaining good relations with Saudi Arabia, and asking them to keep the oil prices as they are, when there are better alternatives, as you say?

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy Your also forgetting the Political aspect. A country does what it needs to to either get to the top or stay on top. Palistine offers us nothing and stands against what we are against, Saudi Arabia has alot to offer. Like I said, you seem to be looking at this world in black and white.

Has a lot to offer in terms of what?  Oil?  I thought you said you already have and can get that from somewhere else.  Does Saudi Arabia stand for what you believe in?  Palestine perhaps is closer to being a secular state, even with Hamas in power, than Saudi Arabia is.

I don't think you understand our region and its politics.

Originally posted by Aydin American gov is trying every single possibility to destabilize iran. the chief of the independentist arab organization of khuzestan met already several personalities not only american authorities but also canadian PM... i think most of iranian including the government are unconscious about the gravity of the situation ...

Iran should just crack down really hard arrest all suspects and any potential US informers and collaborators and line Bushehr and other nuclear and strategic sites with them. 

Edited by Zagros

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 I said we are used to all that. Great Powers don't need it both ways. Your outrage is also not relevant.  You can get as upset as you want, but it is not going to, and in any event would not, change anything. Whine and complain all you like.  Britain is a free country.

U r right, great powers do everything their way. My outrage is nothing more than an expression of my frustration and anger at the loss of thousands of innocent civilian lives at the hands of the great powers.

What i must do is show my distaste for the abuse of other peoples right to life, by a great power. I must protest at this. For if u can not change something by hand than at least you can try to change it by your tongue. Pretty normal human emotive response built into some people. 

Sitting back, with hot cocoa and some bourbons, enjoying a lengthy feature on civilian deaths around the world is not an option. It is a state of mind of defeatist souls.

Our feelings of frustration won't change anything; the Iraqi resistance's will.

Originally posted by Genghis Originally posted by Zagros it is criminal negligence. It is a fact of war, get used to it.

I am arguing semantics with you - you are trying to give it moral justification when it has none, not by any conventional standard at least, it is the sort of rationale consistant with that of a morally bankrupted and totalitarian state.

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

 

Edited by Zagros

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 Originally posted by Mira Justification unaccepted by the rest of the world - how about you get used to that? When it comes to national interests, the acceptance by the rest of the world is not relevant.  We are used to it, as are, and have been all other powers.

Then also get used to the hate and criticism. U cant have it both ways. Problem is that decent Americans with more humane values than urselves have to suffer alongside the likes of u who champion illegitimate military causes.

Edited by malizai_

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 Originally posted by Mira Justification unaccepted by the rest of the world - how about you get used to that? When it comes to national interests, the acceptance by the rest of the world is not relevant.  We are used to it, as are, and have been all other powers.

I think you're right.  Everybody knows about the American greed.

Originally posted by Mira Justification unaccepted by the rest of the world - how about you get used to that?

When it comes to national interests, the acceptance by the rest of the world is not relevant.  We are used to it, as are, and have been all other powers.

 

Justification unaccepted by the rest of the world - how about you get used to that?