quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z .

You got me all wrong. I just didnt want to sound very critical. Iran did mention something about "wiping Israel off the map" but of course Iran would not do it - that's suicide for their regime. It was misinterpreted. And we all know who the real aggressor in the region is (Israel and USA). And the real excuses for this conflict are, you know, have little to do with Iranian nuclear danger. But then again, why does Iran need nuclear power when it has massive supplies of natural gas and oil? Then I realized it - it is because Iran does not want to be invaded or attacked - nuclear nations establish national security this way.

Time will tell ... But one thing for sure, I know that the missile defense systems being built in Eastern Europe are not aimed to protect against Iran. American establishment and NATO has continued to expand eastward, turning Russia's friends into foes and pushing Russian influence out. And now they want to put the final nail in the Russian influence by building military bases and interceptors. To make it look convenient they found the best spot for them to coincide it with the absurd Iranian threat against USA. Pretty simple, actually.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by Chryz707 Then you need to ask why build nukes, they arent a defensive weapons! They dont have the capability of getting to the U.S. additionaly wasnt it Iran that threatend to wipe Israel from the face of the earth. If Iran uses a Nuke, the gloves come off and there wont be Iranians left. Iran will be a sheet of glass!

Fairly obvious really, but the answer is "deterrence" - just look at our foreign policy toward North Korea, which has the ability to incinerate Seoul if attacked. Or our foreign policy toward Pakistan, who we refuse to even put pressure on, opting instead to ask nicely and deal with them saying no.

Nuclear weapons in the world system is like blanket immunity from foreign aggression.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z ... because we want your resources bitch!" Disgusting.

So if we (the West) provide a country, under contract, with the technology, capital and ability to access resources that happen to be within 'their' borders, whos resources are they again?

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

The thing is and its a sad fact, if the US was so evil and the "great satan" as some would say.... Then Iran would be toast...
A few placed ICBMs would completely destroy them.. and that is a FACT.

Iran has the right to possess nuke tech as they see fit. But they need to realize that if they continue their childish views using religion to view the world. they will be dealt with....

now who is the one who is to blame?? the world aka the West or a small back ward thinking country that uses religion to express everything about the world..

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r So if we (the West) provide a country, under contract, with the technology, capital and ability to access resources that happen to be within 'their' borders, whos resources are they again?

Um, what are you trying to say?

Last edited by infinity HiGH on Jul-12-2008 at 17:29

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX The thing is and its a sad fact, if the US was so evil and the "great satan" as some would say.... Then Iran would be toast... A few placed ICBMs would completely destroy them.. and that is a FACT.

Thats the whole point of the American foreign policy in the Middle East. They manage to hide their acts of aggression this way, like the way they invaded Iraq. If they used ICBM's they would turn away the entire world, it would be a blatant example of brutality, aggression, even genocide.

But when too many of these USA's military moves add up together, it becomes too blatantly obvious as to whats going on. Then it becomes convenient to use your ally's (Saudi Arabia) terrorists against yourself for the purpose of invading a country of specific interest. Like how many terrorists came from Iraq? Even many of the foreign Islamic terrorists like Ibn Al-Khattab who operated in Southern Russia / Chechnya. The financiers of the terrorists were all from Middle East, more precisely Arabic countries who are American allies. Ibn Al-Khattab was from Saudi Arabia. Yet another Saudi terrorist serving the interests of the American foreign policy.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX The thing is and its a sad fact, if the US was so evil and the "great satan" as some would say.... Then Iran would be toast... A few placed ICBMs would completely destroy them.. and that is a FACT. Iran has the right to possess nuke tech as they see fit. But they need to realize that if they continue their childish views using religion to view the world. they will be dealt with.... now who is the one who is to blame?? the world aka the West or a small back ward thinking country that uses religion to express everything about the world..

America is not the great satan, Dick Cheney is. Childish views on religion? You mean like when our president said God told him to end the tyranny in Iraq?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis America is not the great satan, Dick Cheney is. Childish views on religion? You mean like when our president said God told him to end the tyranny in Iraq? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

Yes, we share part of the blame as well...
and the idiot Bush and his ignorant views of how the world should work can't leave office fast enough...

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis Because we like wasting money.

Once again you come in a post a small stupid one liner.. can you elaborate?

Its not a waste of money but a strategic move to gain more influence in eastern eu.. a move to isolate and cut russia from eastern eu.. a move to lure eastern eu towards west and make new allies in that part of world which is largly influenced by russia and is dependend on russia for its defence..

quote:

Originally posted by Chryz707 Then you need to ask why build nukes, they arent a defensive weapons! They dont have the capability of getting to the U.S. additionaly wasnt it Iran that threatend to wipe Israel from the face of the earth. If Iran uses a Nuke, the gloves come off and there wont be Iranians left. Iran will be a sheet of glass!

Wrong. Nukes are defensive weapons. The primary function of a nuclear arsenal is DETERANCE. Read up on the MAD doctrine. Ahmadinijad also never threatened to wipe "Israel" of the map. He said, "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)". The US and Israel are trying to bring down the Iranian regime, and has been for years. Iran has every right to call for the same thing.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by infinity HiGH Um, what are you trying to say?

quote:

So if we (the West) provide a country, under contract, with the technology, capital and ability to access resources that happen to be within 'their' borders, whos resources are they again?

Not sure how much more clear that can be...?

Let's take a similar scenario.

If I'm an aspiring musician and want to, 'break out' I'm going to need an agent and probably a record label with the experience and funds to help me.
I sign a contract stating that I get a share of the royalties but only a percentage and the songs are property of the label.
I eventually become a star but because of the contract I signed, I still only get a percentage.
One could at this point, now that I'm a, 'good artist', say it was all me and nothing to do with the record label and that I'm being repressed by them as a result because of the contract - but is it?
Yes it was me singing and one would automatically assume that because it is me singing the songs, those songs should then belong to me, however, I'm now trying to use my stardom as leverage against a contract that I signed in the very beginning to get me to this point in the first place!
I'd have to break off, become an independent, or sign under a different label with a better deal.
Makes sense right?

Now take this same scenario an apply it to my oil patch.
I find that I have a huge reserve of oil in my back 40 and have neither the experience nor the capital to get it out.
I'm probably going to go to a bank to get the funding and find an experienced company to get this stuff out of the ground.
I sign a contract with them stating that I'll get a percentage of the profits.
They dig the wells and everything is going well however I feel that I'm now entitled to a larger percentage because hey, it's my back yard and my oil right??

I annex (see 'nationalize') the whole operation, boot all the current employees off, hire all my neighbours, set up security gates and dogs and proceed to collect all the profits while paying the employees peanuts.

Are we seeing the moral deficit yet?

Even if I had known but was doing nothing about the oil in the backyard, and was approached because there was a demand for it - and did the same thing - expropriating the assets without a buyout is wrong regardless of the reason when a contract is being honoured.

Question: Who do we think built the oil fields in Iraq in the first place?

I agree when people say that it was about oil, because I believe it now more than ever.
Do I agree that Saddam was used as a convenient scapegoat and reason for the invasion? Somewhat.
There was no question Saddam needed to go but I believe he was the moral argument that the people of the World would believe more than the recollection of lost international company assets - I mean, who cares about fat cats loosing money right? Who's going to die for that??
Think I'm wrong? Then why are there more Blackwater operatives in Iraq than U.S. Troops?
It's the oil companies trying to secure their stolen assets that's why.

Want another scenario of oil fields and foreign ownership?
We only have to look in our own back yard...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_Oil_Sands

And where do we think a lot of the money for this project is coming from?
I can tell you for sure that it's not Canada...

Hey, maybe once it's all up and running 100% we'll nationalize it all.
I wonder what would happen...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."