Do you think the American government will attack Iran?

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: September 11th. You can't fight the whole Islamic world by yourself. You can't even win in Iraq by yourself. This simply isn't realistic!

Now Sham, it's not that unrealistic (numbers wise, it would have to be nuclear), the real question is are we willing to pay the price for doing that? And exactly what would be the price?


Invasion of the USA mainland is out, troop ships would never make it to our shores, and we wouldn't allow them to make it to anywhere in the Americas. Nukes are out, any nuke strike wouldn't do much damage to the USA's retalitory(sp?) ability to wipe the attacker off the face of the earth, even if all nuke owners attacked together) the numbers aren't there anymore. Economic embargo, the world would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. We won't do it because that is not our style.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: quote: Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: quote: Originally posted by Dace De'Briago: Syria is on America's global turdlist at the moment as well.

Good, Syria deserves to be. Syria is occupying Lebanon. Are you as indignant about that occupation as the American one in Iraq? [/QUOTE]Well its not really as complete. But yes, it p**sses me right off. The trouble is that the US has no credibility when it makes accusations now Trying to convince sceptics that Syria is actually evil and probably assassinated the ex-PM is a nightmare job! [/QUOTE]Only to them folks that don't have the ability to see there is a difference betwix Iraq and Lebanon(sp?). Syria has been there what 10-15 years and are still there RUNNING the country even though the stated reason for being there was to bring peace and stablelize Lebanon. Lebanon has been stable for years(relatively speaking for Lebanon) We what coming up on 3 years in Iraq, and they are making moves to have their own government up and RUNNING Iraq. Show me where Lebanon is making moves to have their own government up and RUNNING Lebanon? How far along is Syria on reaching that goal after 10 years? how does that compare to where the USA is in UNDER 3 years?

Edit: Syria had agreed to pull out years ago see* Taif Accord, an Arab brokered agreement, but they have not pulled out 10 years after the agreement was signed. And have not followed the time table in the agreement.

[ 02-24-2005, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[Sir Degrader]

The Gospel of John bombs away...

[Black Baron]

I do not porpose fighting islam, i purpose to fight fanatic islam. I do suggest throwing fanatic islam states (iran and saudia) into the dark age, while taking over their oil. It is much safer that way. The hell with morale. The hell with public opinion. When we have bombed iraqi nuclear reactor you have rebuked us. I wonder what would have been the result of the second gulf war, if this crazy maniac had an A bomb. Give Europe oil and it will shut up sooner or later, and rather sooner than later.
If you wonder why i think so, i may only answer that i deduce it from your reaction to terror here, and to terror in europe. Here it is "Understandable despickable (sp?) act and in europe it is despickable non understandable act".

[Morgeruat]

well said BB

[johnny]

Originally posted by Black Baron: I do not porpose fighting islam, i purpose to fight fanatic islam. I do suggest throwing fanatic islam states (iran and saudia) into the dark age, while taking over their oil. It is much safer that way. The hell with morale. The hell with public opinion. When we have bombed iraqi nuclear reactor you have rebuked us. I wonder what would have been the result of the second gulf war, if this crazy maniac had an A bomb. Give Europe oil and it will shut up sooner or later, and rather sooner than later. If you wonder why i think so, i may only answer that i deduce it from your reaction to terror here, and to terror in europe. Here it is "Understandable despickable (sp?) act and in europe it is despickable non understandable act".

You're overlooking a tiny issue, but that's fine with me, since everyone seems to be on the same level.

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Black Baron: I do not porpose fighting islam, i purpose to fight fanatic islam. I do suggest throwing fanatic islam states (iran and saudia) into the dark age, while taking over their oil. It is much safer that way. The hell with morale. The hell with public opinion. When we have bombed iraqi nuclear reactor you have rebuked us. I wonder what would have been the result of the second gulf war, if this crazy maniac had an A bomb. Give Europe oil and it will shut up sooner or later, and rather sooner than later.

Just for the record I supported the reactor bombing and have stated this on IW many times.

My point is that its not possible to fight fanatical Islam on this scale without fighting Islam as a whole. Military action like this will turn every law abiding Muslim into a freedom fighter defending their faith - and they would be right in this case. I think your view of how it would turn out is unrealistic.

And "the hell with morale"? That's the language of the terrorist, the suicide bomber, the torturer and the dictator. Morality is what raises us above the beasts in this world - you can't simply switch it on and off when it suits. What you suggest is incompatable with the moral codes of every religion I can think of as well as those underlying secular democracy.

If you wonder why i think so, i may only answer that i deduce it from your reaction to terror here, and to terror in europe. Here it is "Understandable despickable (sp?) act and in europe it is despickable non understandable act".

Sorry, I didn't quite understand this bit. Do you mean my reaction to terror in Israel as compared to when it happens in Europe?

When I see terror in Israel, I condemn it because innocents are harmed. But I also have my eyes open enough to see that the current situation is unjust - it always has been. A monkey could have done a fairer job of dividing up the land in the first instance. The shift in foreign policy when Likud came to power, especially the whole 'Greater Israel' ideology stinks of expansionism and not defence, so in my opinion portraying Israel as the innocent victim is not the whole story. There have also been many many opportunities when Israel has deliberately obstructed peace, especially in the early years.

Of course, the surrounding Arab states are certainly not blameless and their conduct has often been absolutely deplorable and downright stupid at times. But when I look at the Arab-Israeli conflict in balance, after studying it in detail, I honestly think that both sides are as bad as each other. Nobody can claim the moral high ground here - its a nasty quagmire created by an initial injustice that is never going to be solved anytime soon. The only solution I can see is if Israel builds this wall on pre-67 borders and stays behind it. Having studied the current route of the wall it can only be seen as an effort to annex the few remaining pieces of fertile land. The systematic diversion of water supplies from palestinian areas and the dislocation caused by roadblocks has pretty much assured that the Palestinian economy will be non-functional for a good while yet.

As for terrorism in Europe, well the Madrid bombings spring to mind. That was explainable and understandable as well - both an effort to disrupt elections and also painful memories for Islamic extremists of the turning back of the Islamic empire. It's a natural target. What amazes me is that nobody has attacked Britain yet, I can't understand why we haven't got one over Iraq.

As for giving Europe oil to shut them up...perhaps listening to them might be an alternative solution?

Oh, and Morgeraut - a reply to your PM will be coming soon. I've been v busy at the moment, but have been looking through loads of those sites and spreading the word a bit too. MEMRI in particular is a great resource.

[ 02-24-2005, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Morgeruat]

Shamrock, the only reason I can think of that England hasn't already been attacked by radical Islam is that they've already got decades of experience dealing with IRA terrorists, and their guard is significantly higher on a constant basis than the majority of the rest of both Europe and North America. I do however think that an attack is a matter of time, and the reactions may very well be as strong as in the Netherlands, and Nepal (after a nepalise reporter IIRC was killed in Iraq).

[Black Baron]

As far as i remember, the initial reactions to the madrid bombing were-"why in the seven hells us?" and "what did we do"?.
A point to consider-Likud now divides the land.
Giving away gaza strip and north samaria, is hardly "all is mine" attitude.
Terror was here before 1967 and 1948 as well. 67 war has nothing to do with it.

About Europe and the oil.
The plan goes like this: America starts to destroy Iran and Saudia (one at a time). Europe protests. Bush responds-not your buisness, i do not care, hey look a biiird! etc.
America takes over the oil fields. destroys everything 10 km's around them in order to create a killing zone. America will also destroy power plants throught the country. It will destroy all the military too (all the tanks, plnes, explosives and Ak-47, well as much as one can). Europe will threaten with embargo. Bush will say-hey kids, I got the oil now.
Europe shuts up. Not because it likes, but because it can do nothing.

About my morale: morale is not "one size fit for all" thing. Terrorists also have morale. It is simply different from ours. One of the reasons for war is differency in morale.

[Davros]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: I wouldn't say the article is as clear-cut as that? quote: "This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous," Bush told a news conference after talks with European Union leaders.

Then one sentence later...

"Having said that, all options are on the table," he added, drawing laughter at a clear reference to military action.

He'd bomb Iran in a second if he thought he could get away with it... [/QUOTE]Yeah - I am glad he cleared that all up for us .

Then again, the good news is that while he is flip-floppin he ain't droppin .