IRAN : We will not stop , and we are ready for WAR

thanks for the proof...I had personally never read of that...which is why I asked.

 

No hypocrisy at all. Iran's president is unstable and persistently calls for wiping out Israel. Nuclear weapons in the hands of an unstable country is the worst thing the world needs right now.

There is no conclusive proof Israel actually has nuclear weapons. Merely speculation. But supposing they did, they do not act reckless in the eye of the world by making threats to wipe out other countries and if they do actually have them, have already shown restraint in the presences of deadly threats against their country and attacks from two different terrorist organizations last summer.

Really? Let's take a look at what we do provide to other countries:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...d+to+other+countries&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

The US provides more foreign aid to other countries than any other country. Even to countries who are historically hostile towards us.

For example, the Palestinians. Recently released 86 million in foreign aid to them, but have a long history of providing billions in aid to a hostile territory whose government's repeated stated goal is the destruction of Israel.

If Palestinians were interested in peace, they would have accepted the many offers of such throughout history and declared their own state and got own with taking foreign aid to build something constructive. Instead of sitting around complaining and spending all their time trying to wipe out Israel, they could have invested in their infrastructure, create goods and services for export, build a thriving economy and overall, done something productive. But no, they are the perpetual victims of our time, squandering away billions of dollars with virtually nothing (but death and destruction) to show for it.

Now compare the aid they receive from the US with the aid provided by any islamic country. I'd love to see that comparison.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/...ontrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1

Feel free to click the link to discover which neo-con made these recent statements.

 

To tell you the truth i am not interested in whether you have serve intend to serve or never have served (it's totally irrelevant in any case)

You are a terrorist sympathiser whether you can see it or not, yes you can be against the war without being a terrorist sympathiser i know, but you do cross the line & generally are against the USA & ally forces even if they are right in a particular situation. If you think that me telling you these kinds of things is acting tough or being a big mouth that's your problem as i'm only telling you what i see from your posts, you do talk crap without any proof what so ever did you find any proof of "bombing without hesitation" yet.

Your right, soldiers are not looking for war, nobody is, nobody wants war, do you really believe people want war? it's just that sometimes war is the only way forward in certain circumstances like in the USA case when people want to harm the USA & it's people, do you not realise people want to harm the USA, do & have? do you not realise that any nuclear weapons in the hand of Iran is dangerous with the current government, it's tantamount to giving out guns in an asylum. Do you not realise that pulling out of Iraq & more or less handing over power to terrorists is a stupid thing to do & will only mean that the forces there now would only have to go back in the future.

 

Thank you for confirming that you are a sissy cheerleader who despite all his big talks is too scared to actually fight for his country.

As mentioned previously those of us who are man enough to fight for their countries, would not need to be a big mouth because we are secure about ourselves and while we try to find a peaceful solution, we will fight if it is necessary. On the other hand scared cheerleaders need to be big mouth and advocate violence and war in order to feel like a man because they know that they will be too scared to fight in a war.

 

Gtech, the foreign policy you are talking about and the one I was talking about are in completely different contexts, I am not talking about financial and foreign aid, which is a whole story on its own.

I mean, which country benefited most from the Iraq war? It would have to be Israel, since they viewed the Saddam regime as the biggest threat to their security before the war (Although it is clear now, they over-estimated Iraq). In fact, Saddam never threatened U.S. security to my knowledge in the past decade.

If you have some free time, you might want to do some research on the Israeli lobby.

Anyway, the thing is, what America/Israel didn’t anticipate is that the obliteration of Iraq would give rise to Shia influence in the middle-east. So in-effect, the weakening of Iraq caused the empowerment of Iran, which is bad for America/Israel since Iran is much more dangerous for Israel and I don’t mean just on the nuclear front, the Iranians also control Hezbollah and have strong links with Syria.

So personally (this is just my take on it), I believe the Iraq war was intended for the destabilization of the region and giving further dominance of the region to Israel, which in-turn would strengthen the U.S.’s power in the Middle East. However, the Americans went about it the wrong way and they did not evaluate the outcome of such a situation appropriately beforehand and this has lead to what we have today.

 

Saddam invaded Iran and Kuwait. The thing he did to Israel was to send a few scuds when US rescued Kuwait in the Gulf war.

I guess that the Kurdish people have benefited most in getting rid of Saddam. Does it mean that The Kurds was behind it?
Which state have benefited most? Dunno.. What countries around Iraq would not benefit getting rid of Saddam?

In the real world, you can't draw such conclusions. It's possible for outsiders to benefit of many things.

 

Kurds have always been pawns in middle east politics. Read about England dealing with Kurds during WWI. I wonder how long it takes before they turn their back on them again.

If you are talking about political benefits then Iran is the real winner so far but if you are talking about economical benefits, I suppose the control of about 81% of Iraq oil for the next 25-40 years is not a bad prize for the oil companies.

 

Like i said earlier answer my question & you will indeed get an answer on yours even though i do not comment on my personal life, would you like to take me up on that offer, if so feel free to do so. Are you a big mouth or someone with substance?

"Advocate violence" is that what you do when you hope terrorists kill people just so you can justify you hatred for Bush? lol there are better things to worry about than Bush all day long...

 

No. That just completley misplaces any elements of logic, the conclusion that the 'people' that benifited the most where the one's behind it is one i never made.

Interms of countries and not peoples, only 2 really benifited, Iran and Israel (others aswell but these two mostly). Now which has more influence over america, israel or iran?. Not really a hard one.

Anyways, im not blaming israel for the war. I blame the neo-cons for that.

 

It really boils down to the same thing...supporting our allies and in general, the support the US provides around the world, even to those who are hostile towards us.

I disagree wholeheartedly. Israel has more than proved in the past it could deal with Iraq by taking out Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. Between that time and present, Iraq had invaded and attacked neighboring countries and was a persistent threat to them.

The question should really be reversed when talking about countries benefiting from Iraq.

Who Benefits From Keeping Saddam Hussein In Power:

Bought out with the oil for food scandal along with the UN. If that were not enough, we also had the oil voucher scandal that clearly identified 270 influential businessmen and world leaders who saddam bought off.

So in terms of who benefitted the most, clearly those who *were* benefitting by turning a blind eye to saddams attrocities, including many of the US very own allies, stood to lose the most.

Thank you. May I also suggest if you have some time, you might want to do some research on the Arab Lobby:

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26385
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_lobby_in_the_United_States

I disagree. Of course, you are entitled to that opinion, but I see no foundation for such. That the US intended goal was to destabilize the middle east is a conspiracy I have not heard before, but the foundation for the conclusion seems unsupported.

I tend to agree more with Victor Davis Hanson, who takes an honest and open look at where things are and how they got there. Including assigning some blame, but more importantly, addressing it like it was/is. I'll highlight some excerpts that I believe counter some of your comments above:

Anatomy of Iraq

The idea I'm pointing out here and contending, is that the *conspiracy* that the US wanted to *destabilize* the middle east has no foundation. What really happened was, the US grew accustomed to quick victories and given the history of Afghanistan with the Soviets and Brits coupled with the fact that we came in and cleaned house rather quickly and had a democratic government in place within a year, we (the US) felt the same could be done in Iraq, who we had once defeated before (Invasion of Kuwait).

I'd encourage you, and others to read the entire article. It's a very interesting observation of where and how we got to where we are today, with a little blame for everyone coupled with an honest perspective.

 

These neo-cons?

 

I'd say you were the sissy, gworld. That *suddenly* you see the respect others getting for serving their country, and you decide to come out (after well over a year here bashing the US, Soldiers, Christians, Jews and dmoz...with never a bad word for a terrorist) with how you served your country is more than suspicious.

A lot of hot air. Trying to use military service as a shield for your pro-terrorist tirades is one of the most hilarious things you've done to date.

It doesn't surprise me though, that you would ask others to serve your country (even though you claim to live in Canada) for you and call them names for not doing what you cannot.

 

Corporal Chicken;

I actually posted about my military service long time ago, search it in the forum and you will find it.

The difference between I and you is very simple:

This is my situation:

Do I think that my country is invaded? NO
Do I think that war is the only solution? NO
Will I fight if my country is in danger? YES

This your situation:

Do you think that your contry is invaded? YES
Do you think that war is the only solution? YES
Will you fight to defend your country from danger? NO

What this makes you and your friends in missing balls chicken brigade? A bunch of loud mouth sissy cheerleaders.

 

It is mostly this way with Internet freedom fighters

Good post !

 

You be surprised how many people wanted war during the time when us want to attack Iraq.

 

Look what I found on the net mate.

 

(nise sppelinng jobe their geewhirld...)

was your country attacked: no
Would you fight if it was:no
Are you a liberal nutjob:yes
Is AGS your manservant:yes
do you have any friends:not other than AGS...

 

heh! AGS, at least use anti-alias on the text

 

Was your country attacked: Yes
Would you fight: No
Are you a Republican Chicken: Yes
Are you Gtech poodle: Yes
Do you know anything except sucking up to Gtech: No

Who are you? A loud mouth sissy cheerleader.

 

I figured that you'd get a buzz from the lower resolution mate.