|
So... when is Iran being attacked? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psygnosis
I'm persian myself, so I really do want US to go to Iran and try put a stop to the damn Mullahs.. en hate them. |
Trust me you dont want US going to Iran,People of Iran will get rid of the mullahs when the time comes.There is no need for help from outside.
| quote: | | I hope freedom is brought to Iran once more, after being taken away from US when they brought that Mullah Khomehni (sp?) |
I dont know how familier you are with the history perhaps your parents might know this,but how do you think Khomaini and those mullahs got into power and who helped them to go to Iran?
Thats right Americans did,why because the Americans at that time wanted Shah out of power since Iran at the time was the most powerful in the regiona and the Americans were not too please with that,so They decided to bring the mullahs to get rid of him so they went after the young people of Iran and introduced Khomaini and Islam and thats how everything changed.Shah left Khomani got the power and slowly things started to change and people startd getting unhappy day by day and mullahs started killing and turturing people and got rid of all freedoms.
So I sure hope that the people there know what the consequences will be if Americans get invlove again. |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by Michael19
maybe its because the canadian goverment hasnt invaded another country? |
And also.. maybe its becuase i just want to talk about US politcs?
Hes too simple minded to understand though... let him be |
|
|
| DampCold |
| quote: | Originally posted by h@x0r
On the flip side:
One other thing I noticed - Cyrus pays an awful lot of attention to American affairs. Not seen that many posts criticizing Canadian government or actions. I guess Canada must be a country with flawless government. :stongue: |
Well, since the USA is pretty much the only superpower left in the world in only make sense that people would be suspicious of it since if the USA for any reason decided to just start taking over countries there is little other nations could do to stop it. A hypothetical example would be if the USA just decided to "annex" Mexico. This would of course cause a lot of problems, but would unlikely result in any militaristic opposition. Of course I wouldn't imagine a scenario like that would ever unfold, however the potential is enough to keep many people very concerned with US foreign policy.
As you can imagine Canada does not pose quite the threat that the USA does. |
|
|
| zig |
| quote: | Originally posted by DampCold
Well, since the USA is pretty much the only superpower left in the world in only make sense that people would be suspicious of it since if the USA for any reason decided to just start taking over countries there is little other nations could do to stop it. A hypothetical example would be if the USA just decided to "annex" Mexico. This would of course cause a lot of problems, but would unlikely result in any militaristic opposition. Of course I wouldn't imagine a scenario like that would ever unfold, however the potential is enough to keep many people very concerned with US foreign policy.
As you can imagine Canada does not pose quite the threat that the USA does. |
Iraq and insurgants come to mind........ |
|
|
| Radagast |
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
You've got a point there. |
What point would that be? |
|
|
| DampCold |
| quote: | Originally posted by zig
Iraq and insurgants come to mind........ |
I don't think you quite understood the concept of what I was saying. |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Radagast
What point would that be? |
| quote: | | They [Bush administraton] didnīt invest billions of dollars just to free people and see Democracy that will pick another anti America president. |
|
|
|
| Radagast |
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
|
I don't believe the Bush administration has stated that they will influence the Iraqi elections in any way. I also don't believe you have any proof that they will. In fact, if an anti-american Iraqi leader was chosen it would break none of the official reasons given at any time as to why we invaded Iraq, at any point.
Additionally, if,
Reality(Bush administration statement):
The U.S. monetary cost for invading Iraq paid for removal of cruel tyranny, institution of democracy, and promotion of freedom.
Your mind:
The U.S. monetary cost for invading Iraq paid for removal of cruel tyranny, institution of democracy, promotion of freedom, and rigging of subsequent Iraqi election.
Then what standard are you using to translate the worth of the institution of democracy/freedom into monetary value? At what point does this worth become less than an imaginary hidden agenda which co-opts the official justification for entering the country entirely? |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Radagast
I don't believe the Bush administration has stated that they will influence the Iraqi elections in any way. I also don't believe you have any proof that they will. In fact, if an anti-american Iraqi leader was chosen it would break none of the official reasons given at any time as to why we invaded Iraq, at any point.
Additionally, if,
Reality(Bush administration statement):
The U.S. monetary cost for invading Iraq paid for removal of cruel tyranny, institution of democracy, and promotion of freedom.
Your mind:
The U.S. monetary cost for invading Iraq paid for removal of cruel tyranny, institution of democracy, promotion of freedom, and rigging of subsequent Iraqi election.
Then what standard are you using to translate the worth of the institution of democracy/freedom into monetary value? At what point does this worth become less than an imaginary hidden agenda which co-opts the official justification for entering the country entirely? |
I don't have any proof of any sort of a plot to hijack the election, but it's obvious that the Iranian government is not favored by the U.S. administration. If you look at the religious makeup of Iraq, the largest group practices a more conservative type of Islam, which could very well bring Iraq to ally itself with Iran based on a fair democratic election. It wouldn't make any sense for them to get rid of Saddam for a government that would potentially be even less friendly with the U.S. There's already set-aside seats for Sunni leaders to ensure they get at least a certain amount of representation, so it's clearly not an election based solely on votes. Many groups within Iraq's boundaries do not lke each other, so many rules are being put into place to curb the Shi-ite majority and include more Sunni & Kurdish representation.
Also, in reality, we entered the country based on justifications that had little to do with democracy. With what Bush said to the U.N., if Saddam had WMDs, reported and dismantled them, we would have left the country under his rule. |
|
|
| Radagast |
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
it's obvious that the Iranian government is not favored by the U.S. administration. |
Is it? How so?
| quote: | | If you look at the religious makeup of Iraq, the largest group practices a more conservative type of Islam, which could very well bring Iraq to ally itself with Iran based on a fair democratic election. |
So?
| quote: |
It wouldn't make any sense for them to get rid of Saddam for a government that would potentially be even less friendly with the U.S. |
No it would not. However, it would make sense for them to get rid of Saddam for a new democratic government, whatever the new governments alignment toward the U.S.
| quote: | | Also, in reality, we entered the country based on justifications that had little to do with democracy. With what Bush said to the U.N., if Saddam had WMDs, reported and dismantled them, we would have left the country under his rule. |
Irrelevant. |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Radagast
Is it? How so? |
Umm, you really think that the Bush Administration likes the Iranian government? We don't even have political relations with them and we have sanctions in place. They were also part of the "Axis of Evil" along with Iraq.
So we wouldn't want a government in place if it would be more hostile to the U.S. and as I just stated, we don't get along with Iran. Securiting the safety of the U.S.is also a main point of the Bush administration.
| quote: | | However, it would make sense for them to get rid of Saddam for a new democratic government, whatever the new governments alignment toward the U.S. |
If the democracy turns the county toward civil war,a fundamentalist theocracy or makes us less safe than when Saddam was in power, it doesn't make sense for the U.S. It's very possibe a new regime elected fairly could become more dangerous to us, because Bin Laden favors theocratic rule, where Saddam did not. It would be possible that the new regime would offer aide to Al Qaeda, which Iran has been reported to by some.
I was disputing what you said in the latter part of your previous post, rather than bolstering my own argument. |
|
|
| Flotser |
I think bush will never attack Iran or NK, because he is a coward.
he attacked Iraq, because it was the easiest target, and not because of the "War On Terror". |
|
|
|
|
