Multiple blasts hit London transport system

Man!  So thin skinned.  I am ok with lightening up if everyone else is.

From here on, I am going to concentrate on the history forums anyway......too many opportunities to get steamed up in this one.

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri No one can deny that USA and UK have done great works in Iraq and Afghanistan (of course their works are more comprehensible for those who have live in an undemocratic country ), but as someone who lives in Iran, I believe the source of terrorism is in my country, so the problem of terrorism still exists. I think Israel is the only state in the world which is fighting against "terrorism" directly and Iran is the only state in the world which is supporting terrorists all around the world especially in Palestine.

So there are widespread terrorists in Iran? Is this what you are saying? Americans have been saying that Iran has terrorists, but I think I have heard Iranian officials deny that.. Maybe not to get attacked ..

Originally posted by strategos Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri No one can deny that USA and UK have done great works in Iraq and Afghanistan (of course their works are more comprehensible for those who have live in an undemocratic country ), but as someone who lives in Iran, I believe the source of terrorism is in my country, so the problem of terrorism still exists. I think Israel is the only state in the world which is fighting against "terrorism" directly and Iran is the only state in the world which is supporting terrorists all around the world especially in Palestine. So there are widespread terrorists in Iran? Is this what you are saying? Americans have been saying that Iran has terrorists, but I think I have heard Iranian officials deny that.. Maybe not to get attacked ..

No I say Iran is supporting terrorists all around the world but it is obvious that there many terrorists in Iran too.

Phallanx:

It is not the West's resposibility to solve the problems of the Arabic world.  They must take that responsibility upon themselves.  One of the weaknesses is caused by some Arab interpretations of Islam that still think it is the eleventh century and everyone who goes to an Arab land is a "crusader."  These attitudes cause some to seek shelter in concepts of an Islam that may not have existed as they wish it had.   

The Arab economies have made lots of money over the last century from our "exploitation" of them.  Another problem is that not enough of it makes its way down through those economies.  A start may be more representative assemblies and more free enquiry.....some progress has been seen in Egypt and the Gulf states, a bit more in Lebanon; a little in Saudi Arabia.  I know this is a lightning rod, but just MAYBE Iraq, a sophisticated and well educated Arab state, with oil wealth and a great history dating back thousands of years, will turn out to be a success.  Maybe not....neither Syria not Iran are much interested in such an outcome.  A weak Iraq, with civil conflict and unable to defend itself could be carved up by neighbors who would like to control its oil so they can sell it to those "crusaders."     Can you say "exploitation?"

Give it a chance.....Saddam and his two sociopath sons were not too interested in solving any of these problems. 

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 I know this is a lightning rod, but just MAYBE Iraq, a sophisticated and well educated Arab state, with oil wealth and a great history dating back thousands of years, will turn out to be a success. Maybe not....neither Syria not Iran are much interested in such an outcome. A weak Iraq, with civil conflict and unable to defend itself could be carved up by neighbors who would like to control its oil so they can sell it to those "crusaders."    Can you say "exploitation?" Give it a chance.....Saddam and his two sociopath sons were not too interested in solving any of these problems.

Your argument was going well until you brought up Iraq.

Quite frankly, Iraq is much worse off now than when Saddam was in power. At least they didn't have bombings on a weekly basis. The constant attacks makes economic activity impossible. And the historic strife between the different ethnic groups guarantees a slooooooow political process.

In normal circumstances the country should be broken up in three different states; that would ease the political pressure. Unfortunately, Iraq has oil. Each ethnic group must want a piece of it--why not? They all suffered under Saddam's regime; they are entitled to it. The U.S. must also prefer having to deal with one country than three.

The situation in Iraq hurts Syria and Iran in the long run. The experience that foreign fighters are getting in Iraq could easily be used against their own represive governments.

Bush had the right strategy: Don't go in. The costs in life and money will outweigh the benefits. Remove Saddam and you are looking at one or two decades of instability. Of course, I am talking about George Herbert Walker Bush, the father of today's president, who wisely avoided the quagmire that the U.S. is embroiled today.

The best part of the Iraqi war is that it failed to protect England. Why should it protect the U.S.?

phallanx:

Industrial economies must go where the oil is.  We live in the "oil age," and everything from power generation to transportation to almost anything made from plastic is dependant upon that commodity.

I am now aware of how much all this upsets people here....I can understand why you don't like the situation, but that doesn't change anything.  The British exerted influence in Mesopotamia because of oil.  The Nazi German government tried to maintain friendly relations with Arab governments because of the possibility of future oil supplies.  The Soviet move into Afghanistan took advantage of Iranian turmoil and U.S. weakness at the time to put military striking capability close enough to the Straits of Hormuz to possibly affect oil supplies if need be, and to increase their political influence and strategic position.  France traded with Iraq "under the table" because she needs oil....on and on.

So I see the resentment, but if the lights are not on, and the house is cold, and the train doesn't run, and you can't drive the car, and if there are no more polyurethene boxes for fast food, it will really piss you off.

"I am not the bloody vampire you think I am."

Yes, most likely not, but it made me feel resentment when i see such blind Americanism. Sorry for the wording if it might have ment something bad for you.

"My original point was that states, the Russian Federation, the United States, Estonia, India, China...whomever, will act and always have acted in accordance with their vital interests."

Yes of course, but most other nations won't go half around the globe to police the world for little apparent reason. This search of, and achieving of VITAL INTERESTS has gone further from the simple reason of it, but has risen to the level of pointless powertrips around the world which more and more threaten US status and position by creating enemies everywhere.

"Hopefully we can have better conversations.  Didn't mean to offend, just making a point a bit forcefully."

Naturally my buddy, we both just tried to make our points here and that is the sign of democracy which flourishes in this forum quite vividly. Nothing too harsh went down, you should have seen me with one of our honored members named Dark One. That was agitation and a clash of understandings, but even with him we made up with no affect on either of our views on the world. So of course our future good relations are not affected here.

Free Chechnya!!!!!!!!!!

Edited by Kalevipoeg