So far we have raised 0% of our monthly running costs! Thanks for your generosity!

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
War with Iran, will the UK help
#11
Quote:which is worse, communism or a totally corrupt government
As a person who grew up in a Communist country, I can attest those two are different sides of the same coin.

The whole Cold War I don't completely buy is a conspiracy part of the media, certainly ballooned and exaggerated, but no way a lie. There was no way Communism could spread to the US, but the East was not safe, proven by the rise of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
Reply
#12
Thats why I like some German laws .... planing a war of aggression inside German Borders will be punished in every case with lifelong prison... here the most people are against the war in afghanistan and I´m sure a war with Iran is nearly impossible to explain.

But I´m sure .so long people see it as honor to fight in a war ( and not as a evil ) and soldiers are proud to lost their lives in a desert or another unimportant place on earth we can buy some Chips and peanuts and see the next wars live and in full HD from our TV´s accompanied from the newest and best lies
Proud to be Gay & Pagan
)O(

[Image: pentagramm.gif]

31.10 Samhain, All Hallows Eve, Halloween
21.12 Yule
STOP eating Animals !
Reply
#13
interesting Wrote:As a person who grew up in a Communist country, I can attest those two are different sides of the same coin.
The US seemed to quickly draw the line on communism but promoted many corrupt ineffective governments. Either way the citizens are punished. If the local population is ok with it why should America save them?

The VietNam war lasted decades.
Russia would have fell apart by its own.

I really believe the US's has a compulsive disorder to install a new demonic fear to distract its citizens, cold war, war on terror... it will only stop when there is no more money.
Reply
#14
pellaz Wrote:The US seemed to quickly draw the line on communism but promoted many corrupt ineffective governments. Either way the citizens are punished. If the local population is ok with it why should America save them?
Then the US should have never gotten involved, but to involved itself and reneged on its involvement certainly painted a bad color. And I'd hardly say the US promoted any type of corrupt gov't, there is a difference between advising its friend and wholeheartedly supported what was going on. And even if the latter was true, the US did try to resolve it, but failed anyway.

The question of whether USSR would fall or not, is a toss-up because it didn't fully go down until 1990s. But China wasn't definitely going anywhere, as evident by its stance on protecting North Korea even now.

I don't think the US is trying distract its citizens or instill any fear in the public, I think the US is now just more aware of the world (as seen by its ignorance of WWII and the eventual destruction of Pearl Harbor), but has gotten tangled into too many webs, I think it's time to stand back and look at everything because the US is constantly on the move without seeing everything.
Reply
#15
fenris Wrote:Thats why I like some German laws .... planing a war of aggression inside German Borders will be punished in every case with lifelong prison... here the most people are against the war in afghanistan and I´m sure a war with Iran is nearly impossible to explain.

It is quite a different scenario, however, as the United States is not largely responsible for starting a war that included mass genocide and the deaths of over 60 million people. The Germans were right to react to their own history in such a manner.

As far as the war in Afghanistan, I would have to say that the German response is the result of an over zealous and ideological populace. The war in Afghanistan, according to every letter of international law, is a just war.

There is such a thing as just war theory, an actual field of study dedicated to understanding the reasons that justify military action. (I'm going to make this plain so you understand. I'm not saying that as an insult, I'm saying that there must be a disconnect for you not to have already reached this understanding.) First, you have to be familiar with the idea of an Original Contract (Hume), the contract being that which exists between the people of a society and their government. Under all such contracts exists the obligation of the Government to protect its citizens, and in the case that an entity attacks those people, that government is obliged to act. So, when the terrorists attacked the people of the United States on September 11th, 2001. The Government of the United States was contractually obligated to defend its citizens and if possible, to ensure that it did not happen again. Now, the terrorist group, Al Qaeda, which was responsible for the attack was being harbored and supported by the ruling regime of Afghanistan, the Taliban. Thus, in order to fulfill the contract and protect the citizens of the United States (you should remember that numerous countries were attacked by the same group) the war in Afghanistan was started. Does that make sense to you?
Reply
#16
pellaz Wrote:Newt Gingrich Contemplates War with Iran

isnt the weapons of mass destruction is a little warn out?
but what if we actually did it an in the end only found a few cans of paint in the land mass the size of California. err ... didnt this already happen a few years ago.

I think that this is another matter of Washington wagging the dog. For one, every potential president of the United States has been asked and has speculated on Iran since the Carter Administration. Iran and the somewhat dubious report from the IAEA are being used to make the current administration look like it is weak on foreign policy and defense, which is a traditional stand of the GOP, and a particularly hard case to sell given the Obama administrations success in diplomacy and defense.

At this point, a war in Iran would have to be brought about by an open and extreme act of aggression against the United States or one of its allies. Otherwise, I see no plausible instance in which the United States spearheads a war against the Iranian Government . . . no matter what a candidate may give lip service to.
Reply
#17
If oil wasn't involved would anyone give a shit?
Reply
#18
dfiant Wrote:If oil wasn't involved would anyone give a shit?

Without oil we can't even grow our crops or move them to the cities. Oil is an absolute necessity for modern western states.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fred

Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans.
Reply
#19
Oh my goodness we're cutting help for the most vulnerable in our society, we've got a right wing god awful government who only thinks of their friends in the City, let alone go to war with another state, we don't have the money, it's about time this government realises the days of Empire is over.
[SIZE="3"][COLOR="Green"]Be yourself; everyone else is already taken.”

Oscar Wilde[/COLOR][/SIZE]
Respect
Reply
#20
Well it's kind of hard to not understand why the US is not very popular with Iran. First of all, they backed the Shah's dictatorship for several years, until he was ousted by the Ayatollah. Then the US provided weapons and financial support to Iraq's botched invasion of the weakened post-revolution Iran, which also possibly included illegal chemical weapons (at the very least the US used its security council position to block UN condemnation of Iraqi war crimes) which were used on Iranian soldiers. This happened in the 80s, so there are plenty of Iranians left hanging around who remember being on the receiving end of US interference.

Another thing that baffles me about the GOP anti-Iran rhetoric is the tie in with Israeli security. Iran is no where near Israel, so it's not like they pose an imminent security risk. They are also often made out to be belligerent and militaristic, despite having the lowest defence spending in the Mid-East (they spend less of their GDP on weapons than the US too).

Of course, there are grounds for objecting to the spread of nuclear technology, it provides political leverage to those who possess it, which is of course why Iran wants it. The more aggressive the West acts towards Iran, in imposing sanctions and drumming up the potential for war, the more precarious Iran's position in the world becomes. If Iran feels threatened, it will seek out nuclear weapons more so than ever before.
When a subject is highly controversial — and any question about sex is that — one cannot hope to tell the truth. One can only show how one came to hold whatever opinion one does hold. One can only give one's audience the chance of drawing their own conclusions as they observe the limitations, the prejudices, the idiosyncrasies of the speaker.
- Virginia Woolf
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)