Bow Down Before Iran?

John Creighton · 2006-09-09 03:36:46

I just heard on some talk show that Iran wants us to bow down before them. I also heard under there religion that they can enter into any contract with out intention of fluffing their obligations provided it supports Islam. Also there was something about some city (I forget what it was called) that Osama bin laden said would be in Iran and would be the center of an authoritative united Arab nation. You know most Iranian people are great people and not much different from us but there is such a thing as being in the wrong place at the wrong time. What kind of nation would make such statements and defiantly develop nukes in our face. They want to rid the world of infidels? Do they remember Hiroshima. Iranians for there own sake really need to over throw the Ayatollah. Assuming we act before it is too late be it though diplomatic or other means.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2006-09-09 12:58:49

A lot of that doesn't really matter, the USA doesn't have the moral high ground over any nation when it comes to atomic weapons, The USA is the only nation to have used these Nuke weapons on people ( Hiroshima ). Some good came out of it but only because MacArthur was able to get Hirohito to admit defeat and turn him into a poodle, without that the Emperor would have continued to send Japanese to their deaths just like he did the kamikaze.

The problems with the Middle East is that the ayatollah's have never publicly admitted defeat unlike the Japanese Emperor and the USA the supporter of Israel probably hasn't fought a noble war since WW2 and there are no more simple good guys or simple bad guys, Israel might have the moral high ground over a few Arab terrorists and Muslim suicide bombers but it is also involved in crimes against humanity, Isreali leaders have been charged with warcrimes, in Israel there is a deliberate media coverup of the murders by IDFs, and they use cluster bombs to destroy residential buildings. I agree that the Iranian leaders are nuts and should not have these weapons but there are a lot more probelms in the Middle East than just one nation like Iran, the ragtag army of Iranians might be able to build a bomb someday. While the Isreaeli have a nuclear weapons programme but nobody ever asks them to disarm their Nukes even though they are a nation that is constantly killing Arabs every week.

John Creighton · 2006-09-09 14:59:32

I think all perspective is lost. The debate as to weather Israel should defended its self differently is somewhat academic. Israel uses force which you may or may not agree with for it’s security. Iran advocates genocide on a global scale (To, “rid the world of infidels). In radical Islam (not real Islam) genocide, jihad lies and destruction are part of the religion. To say non of us our innocent is an insulting comparison. You know it is hard. I met to many good people from Iran and I know the vast majority of Iran’s are good. If Iran starts WWIII which they claim is already waging in IRAQ but take it to a real global and nuclear level, do we blame Iran, Ossama bin Ladin, George bush or our bleeding harts.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-09 16:17:55

China doesn't have a dog in the Middle East fight, if it sides with the Arabs against Israel, that is pretty crass. Besides most Chinese aren't muslims. According to the Iranian leader they are infidels too. Seems that Russia and China have abandoned all pretense to nuclear nonproliferation, they want Iran to have nuclear weapons, so what are they waiting for? Russia and China have nuclear weapons, why don't they just give them some. And we can give nukes to Japan, maybe arm the Chechens and the Tibetians with Nukes too. Hey boys, it nukes for everybody!

Now would you like to live in a world like that? I don't think its fair for just the bad guys to have nukes.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2006-09-09 17:08:15

The funny thing about Tibet is that the Yanks wouldn't have ever gave a damn about it if Chinese weren't communist, the boys in Beijing have more claim to Tibet/Xīzang than the Whites of Australia have claim to aboriginal land or the land American folk claimed from Native Americans, the Chinese first annexed taht place thousands of year ago by many dynasties like Manchus, Yuan, Ming and Qing grabbed and ruled this area long before any Whites start sailing the seas and were stealing land form australian aboriginals.

China has enough of its own things to worry about and China doesn't have many ties or connections in the Middle east. China might have maintained diplomatic relations with a few old nations that were once friendly during times of the Cold-war, such as a few of those Russian's had connections to. The Chinese have their own problem with radical Muslims in Xinjiang in region and they are trying to stamp them down. The area which borders East Turkistan is known for suicide bombings and bus bombs but when the Chinese military police arrive on the job, they enforce law and order and suddenly all these radicals are kept in a nice quiet room and enjoy reading Mao's little red book

As for Iran getting Nukes, so they are a bunch of radical nuts and they don't deserve such weapons, Iran should not have Nukes !! but another huge part of the problem is Israel is that they have been breaking humanitarian law and their bombing have been war crimes against the Arabs

noosfractal · 2006-09-09 18:59:06

China doesn't have a dog in the Middle East fight

China needs, and has contracted for, the vast majority of Iranian oil. This is one of the reasons that Iran is being so bold.

Another is that they believe that they are the chosen people of God. But then who doesn't believe that?

John Creighton · 2006-09-09 20:23:35

If Israel wasn’t constantly being attacked by Arab terrorist groups and neighboring states then the claimed human rights abuses wouldn’t exist. Weather Israel is right or wrong, it is ridiculous to equate Israel’s actions to a state that advocates the extermination of the infidels and the driving of Israel into the sea.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-09 20:26:14

The funny thing about Tibet is that the Yanks wouldn't have ever gave a damn about it if Chinese weren't communist, the boys in Beijing have more claim to Tibet/Xīzang than the Whites of Australia have claim to aboriginal land or the land American folk claimed from Native Americans, the Chinese first annexed taht place thousands of year ago by many dynasties like Manchus, Yuan, Ming and Qing grabbed and ruled this area long before any Whites start sailing the seas and were stealing land form australian aboriginals.
China has enough of its own things to worry about and China doesn't have many ties or connections in the Middle east. China might have maintained diplomatic relations with a few old nations that were once friendly during times of the Cold-war, such as a few of those Russian's had connections to. The Chinese have their own problem with radical Muslims in Xinjiang in region and they are trying to stamp them down. The area which borders East Turkistan is known for suicide bombings and bus bombs but when the Chinese military police arrive on the job, they enforce law and order and suddenly all these radicals are kept in a nice quiet room and enjoy reading Mao's little red book
As for Iran getting Nukes, so they are a bunch of radical nuts and they don't deserve such weapons, Iran should not have Nukes !! but another huge part of the problem is Israel is that they have been breaking humanitarian law and their bombing have been war crimes against the Arabs

You know war is impersonal business. The object of War is to destroy the enemy before he destroys you. When terrorists hide in crowds and shoot from crowds, you have two choices, either you shoot back or you don't. If you choose not to shoot back, you are rewarding the enemy for hiding in crowds and you are showing him that this has worked for him, and so he'll try this again and more often imperiling ever more civilians. The enemy wants to destroy you, so either you surrender to him and trust in his mercy or you shoot into crowds and shoot him where ever he is in order to destroy him and save yourself! What you are basically criticising the Israelis for is having a sense of self-presurvation. I can just imagine some people saying, "Don't they realize they are Jews? As Jews they should realize that their lives are not worth living and they should just lay down and die so as to protect the hapless and sometimes complicit enemy civilians who are sharing space with the enemy that is fireing rockets at them?" I guess the way you look at it, the Jews of Israel, just don't realize that their lives are worth less than everyone else's on this planet, that is the unspoken assumption of all these AntiIsraeli people. Its always, "Of course we must fight terrorists where ever we find them except when they are killing Jews, then these Jew killers deserve our understanding and compassion, because they are only killing Jews, and its lot like they were killing real people or something."

Antisemitism runs deep, and it has even spread to China of all places, and the Chinese are finally seeing the difference between white men who called Muslims and white men who are called Jews, but that compassion China has for Muslims seems to totally disappear when they are being killed by Serbs.

Now my question is quite simple: Why does it offend you so much when Israelis kill Muslims, but not when Serbs kill Muslims? Aren't they all just white men to you? How come you've become so good at telling the difference between different kinds of "round eyes", and why does it make a difference to you whether they are called Serbs, Muslims, or Jews? I thought we all looked just the same to most Chinese.

John Creighton · 2006-09-10 12:23:22

Oh, I remember what Osama bin Laden and the Ayatollah both think is in Iran. It is called the caliphate.

John Creighton · 2006-09-10 12:54:37

c The apocalyptic belief of Shi'ite scholars, clerics and political leaders -- like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- predicting a violent, "final" clash between Muslims and infidels in which Islam triumphs, by wiping "nonbelievers" from the Earth.
c And the predominantly Sunni Muslim goal of an Islamic caliphate that extends from Casablanca in the west to Bali in the east.
The vision of a globe-spanning Islamic theocracy is not new. In 632 A.D., following the death of Muhammad, his followers named Abu Bakr, as caliph -- or successor. He resolved to spread the Muslim theology, with its message of equality and strict rules of behavior, through force of arms. His goal of Islamic dominance has survived the bloody Sunni-Shi'ite schism, the rise and collapse of the Ottoman Empire, two world wars, communism and the fitful spread of representative democracy through most of the rest of the world.
Thanks to a steady flow of petrodollars, today's leaders of "the religion of peace" -- both Sunni and Shi'ite -- have been able to launch and sustain well-financed, extremely aggressive campaigns to advance their beliefs. Sheiks, imams, mullahs and ayatollahs routinely expound the virtues of "martyrdom" and vicious treatment for Christians and Jews.
The "common ground" for all Islamic radicals is hatred of the United States and Israel. Shi'ite leaders like Iranian Ayatollah Ali Khameini, Sheik Nasrallah and "President" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, routinely proclaim Israel, the "Little Satan," must be "destroyed," and the United States, the "Great Satan" must be "driven from the lands of the prophet" -- where Islam is practiced as a state religion.
Sunni terror leaders -- like al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden and his second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahri, have openly pledged to establish a new global caliphate. They have loudly and proudly proclaimed Islam will rule the world, and that the West and its "infidel" religions and cultures will be destroyed.
Bin Laden has boasted "the pious caliphate will start from Afghanistan." Al-Zawahri envisions the caliphate's re-establishment, writing, "History would make a new turn, God willing, in the opposite direction of the United States and the world's Jewish government." Fazlur Rehman Khalil, an al Qaeda apologist, has written: "Due to the blessings of jihad, America's countdown has begun. It will declare defeat soon," and will be followed by a new caliphate.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commenta … -2746r.htm

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-10 13:10:47

And the Chinese and the Russians can so easily be bought for those petrodollars, and were not talking about hundreds of billions or tens of billions but merely of hundreds of millions in contracts and lucrative oil deals. My how cheaply the Russians and the Chinese sell their principles and their allegiances. Don't they realize that trade between the US and China is worth alot more than whatever the Arabs want to buy with their petrodollars. If China is willing to be bought and made to see white occidental Jews as subhuman and unworthy of life or the right to self-defense, then the United States and China may find themselves at opposite ends of a military conflict, perhaps by proxy, and each side taking a step to hurt the other and perhaps one side giving their proxy the nuclear bomb either directly or through lots of help and then their will be Hell to pay.

Do you think the United States will not blame Russia and China if Iran gets nuclear weapons? At the very least, I can imagine tariffs being raised against Chinese goods and the tremendous loss in trade that follows that, chinese workers being layed off and for what, National Pride, Petrodollars? You know perfectly well, that the Arab states cannot afford to buy as much from China as the US does, and that no deals with Iran will ever replace the trade that was lost between the US and China because of its adversarial foreign policy and its empowerment of mad religious dictators with nuclear weapons!

John Creighton · 2006-09-10 13:51:17

Here is something on the Third Great Jihad. I haven’t read it yet. Maybe when I get back from roller blading.

http://www.insiderreport.net/clash_1-2.html

noosfractal · 2006-09-10 14:24:58

http://www.washingtontimes.com/

John, you are quoting from a tabloid. They deliberately write inflammatory articles to sell more papers.

This is not to say that the Iranian leadership hasn't been handing them gift after gift of late.

Commodore · 2006-09-10 15:25:07

We have been give our terms of surrendender in a recent tape from a Californian who has joined Al-quida. They are convert or die.

The only answer that doesn't result in the complete destruction of Western Civilization, is one that aught to be familier to everyone in the West: No one forcably converts anyone. In a country were people have serious discussions as to whether the Christmas tree at the local shopping mall forces them to be Christian, this consept shouldn't be that hard. Yet somehow the pine tree with all the pretty lights is the bigger boogey man than the people who try to force conversions at knifepoint. Most likely because of the shortsighted view that if George Bush perfers the tree, then the forcefull conversions are for me.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-10 21:53:07

I believe the operative phrase is oppositional contrairianism. The liberals don't have any good ideas, so they just oppose whatever ideas George Bush has.

I'll tell you one thing George Bush has done, he's given a manned Mars program a bigger boost than any Democratic President has done. Ok, Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson did make Apollo happen, I'll grant you that, but lets compare JFK and LBJ with George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, now whats the difference between the first two Presidents and the second two?

Answer: The first two are now dead and the second two are alive.

The kind of Democrat represented by LBJ and JFK is going extinct, what happened to Lieberman when his Party turned on him is an example of what's happening to all the moderate democrats who stand on principle and patriotism. Basically Lieberman put his country before the goals of his party and for that the Democratic Party has not forgiven him. The Democratic Party wants to see the USA defeated in some way by the terrorists so that the Democrats can take back their seats in Congress and win back the Presidency under the platform of, "I'm not so stupid as George W. Bush!"

Those of you supporting a Manned Mission to Mars should consider the last two Democratic Presidents that supported a similar goal to the Moon and how dead they now are, as compared to the two living Republican Presidents that supported such a goal and the Presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton who didn't. I think the resemblence is uncanny, but have you ever considered why Mars is Red and the Earth is Blue? Remember how Al Gore wanted to explore the Earth, while the Two Bushes wanted to send men to Mars? There you have it, Red State/Red Planet, Blue State/Blue Planet.

John Creighton · 2006-09-10 22:08:35

If I lived in the US think I’d vote Lieberman if he would run as an independent for the presidency. But if it looked liked the democrats where going to win I’d have to vote republican as the democratic party is starting to drift too far left for my liking.

John Creighton · 2006-09-10 22:11:01

Noosfractal, if that source is inadequate can you find me a good source of what the Ayatollah and Osama Bin Laden are saying now?

noosfractal · 2006-09-10 23:48:54

Noosfractal, if that source is inadequate can you find me a good source of what the Ayatollah and Osama Bin Laden are saying now?

One good source? Nope. Media polarization is worse than at any time since the end of Cold War I. You've got to read multiple sources to get any sort of balance. I use http://news.google.com/ If you really want one source, then the http://www.csmonitor.com/ is probably your best bet. Of course, no matter what you read, you're not going to find them saying nice things, but it might help you chill out a notch or two.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-11 09:51:11

Reading multiple sources won't necessarily get you closer to the truth if they are all wrong. The problem is the misuse of the media. People buy these media outlets to get their message across instead of to make money by selling news and advertisement. I think the reporters are way too interested in who's President of the United States, and they are too interested in affecting the outcome of that election and so they slant their reports and even make things up and doctor photographs. People try to engineer events in order to get the president they don't like out of office, so they do everything they can to undermine our foreign policy even if it is treasonous and harms the country. Kind of like the crew of the Titanic deliberately sinking the ship to make their tyranical captain look bad before the noard of review, if passengers get killed because of it, its not their problem, just so long as they get rid of that hated captain.

I don't understand this Bush hatred, someone has even made a movie about shooting George Bush, are they trying to encourage people to do that, just like John Wilkes Booth did?
The funny thing is, John Wilkes Booth was an actor who didn't like the Republican Party as many actors don't today, and so John took his pistol and shot Lincoln in the back of the head. The problem is the people who made this movie aren't even American. When one talks about assassinating a foerign head of state, that is an act of war.

I imagine that George W. Bush would be one of the most difficult Presidents in US history to assassinate. So far Osama Bin Lauden hasn't been able to touch him. I think if the Libs were to orchestrate this, we'd have another Civil War, a very short Civil War too as Libs disparage military service.

John Creighton · 2006-09-11 12:34:26

I understand Bush hatred but I wish people could grasp just because they don’t like Bush his choices may of not been that bad. I wish Kerry won but Bush is a lot less scary then people make him out as. In his own Cowboy America knows best way is trying to do what he thinks is best for the world and the country.

Bush a man that doesn’t always come off as the brightest acting as the commander and chief of the most powerful nation gave the world the finger and said damn the UN we are going to do thing our way. He stripped back personal liberty such as privacy and gay marriage at home and he ran the biggest deficit in recent times drastically changing the fiscal position of the united states. Not only did he say America knows best but there is a reasonable possibility that he lied to the world about his reasons for going to war in IRAQ.

Now that all said, in these time extra protection at home may be warranted, the US is largely socially conservative anyway and IRAQ may be a strategic move in stopping the third great jihad. Bush may of not made the right decisions and his unilateralism may of ticked off many but people need to get past there own ego’s and realize who the real enemy is. If the free world wishes to bicker with it’s self over petty differences then like the Romans of the past we may loose track to the real threats to our way of life.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-11 22:02:50

Bush Hatred is largely irrational. Most of the Bush haters, if I asked, could not name a single thing that Bush did to them personally. The International Media has been waging an antiBush propaganda campaign against him all led by George Soros. Bush is also the only President that set the United States on a firm commitment to send astronauts to Mars. The Mars program is the new central program of NASA, replacing the Shuttle, all the other presidents fiddled and diddled, they kept the shuttles going on inertia, more lab rats in space, more zero-gee studies, but George Bush started the ball rolling. Thanks to George Bush, we can finally get serious about going to Mars. What have you got against cowboys? Don't you know there are cowboys in Canada too? What about all those people who criticise Bush's cowboy diplomacy and then bite into a hamburger? Where did that hamburger come from? It didn't grow on a hamburger tree.

People always assume George Bush is dumb and then their sorry. Everybody things a democratic victory in Congress is a shoe in, they've been wrong before about Bush. When Bush has a victory, it often is a come from behind victory. Also I wonder what Secretary of State Conzaleeza Rice told the Israeli Prime Minister to get him to agree to a disadvantageous ceasefire for the Israelis. Did she promise something to him, like maybe doing something about Iran perhaps?

What about unilateralism anyway? If something needs doing and the world doesn't go along, something still needs doing. The Civilized World always likes to avoid wars until the last possible minute, Hitler counted on this fact to invade various countries one-by-one. World War II was a very costly war because in part we let Hitler get as far as he did before someone with backbone decided to stop him. From the time France fell to the time Germany invaded the USSR, Great Britian was a unilateralist. Hitler offered Churchill peace terms in exchange for him giving Germany a free hand in Europe, Churchill was a stubborn man just like George W. Bush, his was a lone voice in the wilderness until Chamberlain imploded with his disasterous foreign policy. The United States was the "Europe" back then, we considered Hitler to be Europes problem rather than our own, besides the "Red Coats" were our traditional enemy from the time of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, why should we help that Imperialist power that so many Americans gave their lives to win independence from? Many Americans would have been happy to let the UK hang. Not Roosevelt, but he was in a minority, only chance and a stupid move by Japan and an even stupider move by Hitler to back up Japan saved the day.

All this antiBush stuff is attributed to what I call the NATO effect. NATO is basically an umbrella organization in which the United States helps Europe to defend itself, the main problem is that over the decades, the US has been too helpful to the Europeans, they have come to take national defense for granted, and gotten used to regarding war as a choice. If someone attacks a country in Europe, instead of lending assitance, they say, "Give Peace a Chance" and then the USA come to the rescue with troops, and then half the Europeans call us Imperialists and cowboys for stopping that dictator in Europe when they really want to find out what made that dictator so angry in the first place to invade that little European country. Whenever someone other that the USA starts a war, the assumption is that the belligenrent must be justifiably angry at someone, and the effort goes into finding out what made him so mad in the first place rather than in stopping him.

You can't give peace a chance if their is no chance for peace. I don't see a chance for peace between the United States and Iran for instance. Iran hasn't offered the olive branch to the US for over 30 years, oh they'll say anything to buy time to get their bomb built, but I don't trust anyone who has said "Death to America" for over 30 years.

John Creighton · 2006-09-11 23:13:22

The cow boy stigma probably has something to do with John Wayne. That is everything can be solved by the barrel of the gun. Perhaps a derogatory stereotype but it exists. I agree bush has done wonders for the space program but most people don’t care about space. I am not sure what you are talking about hamburgers for. But I am suddenly hungry. lol

I won’t comment about Bushes intelligence but I do agree he comes off as dumb. Weather or not he actually is a different matter. But he is an easy target to make fun of and that type of humor can lead to arrogance. I agree that Bush has been good in the diplomatic area with respect to the middle east. He is the first president to convince Israel to give the Palestinians their own area to self govern and it appears all for not since the Palestinians are still sending suicide bombers to Israel. With regard to his friends Europe Russia and China he has not been as successful in diplomacy.

With regards to unilateralism, the problem with saying if something needs to be done is, who decides what needs to be done? What gives them the authority and why do they know best? I can’t go shoot my neighbor because something needs to be done I have to trust in the proper authorities. Unilateralism is insulting to allies and can lead to Chaos as a nation can always make up some reason to go to war. It also opens up the door more to accusations of ulterior motives, like say, helping Halliburton drum up some more business.

A great leader would be very careful before acting unilaterally because a great leader would understand the importance of allies and acting as a global community. If a great leader decided to act unilaterally he/she would give a far better speech to the world then Bush did and offer sincere apologies for any disagreement. A great leader would try to undermine the united nations as little as possible before taking on unilateral action.

As for Iraq did the united states really need to go into IRAQ. The sanctions that were already in place from the previous gulf war destroyed Sadam’s weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqi people were suffering under Sadam and the sanctions but the Americans weren’t and the world has not thanked the United States for creating conditions where those sanctions could be removed. Additionally Sadam was a secularist and under Sadam the more radical shite leaders in Iraq had no where near the influence they now have under his fall.

As for the wisdom as Iraq being a foothold to stop the third great Jihad and the forming of the caliphate, I am not sure that is wise either as Iraq may of hurt future support by allies to help in what may need to be done against Iran and has weakened America’s stomach for the realities of war. Iraq has been very useful as a center point of anti US propaganda without engaging the real source of radical Islam and the threat it poses to the free world.

I am not saying the United States shouldn’t of gone into Iraq. I am saying that it was a questionable act that could have been delayed for diplomatic and political reasons. Wouldn’t it of made sense to go after North Korea first and see if that would of caused the Iranians to start shaking in their boots?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-12 07:44:05

Most people don't care about space, but perhaps they should. The next empires will be made in the Solar System, for most people to turn their back on it is foolish. I just read an article in the New York Times about David Cameron, the Conservative Party Chief and his opionion about fellow conservative George W. Bush. Apparently winning the House of Commons back from Labour is the be all and end all of his existance, and he figures that to do that, he must advocate the opposite of whatever Tony Blair is doing, therefore he burns some bridges with fellow conservatives in the American Republican Party and he calls them all Neo-Conservatives. If David Cameron is not a Neo-Conservative, then what is he, an Old Conservative? Appareantly he's trying to redefine what a conservative is for the purposes of defeating Tony Blair's Party. Personally, I find David Cameron to be a disgusting individual, he may be sounding the death knell of NATO. Just as Poland and Eastern Europe Join NATO, NATO falls appart because of crass power-hungry politicians like David Cameron.

What kind of Old Conservative is David Cameron, is he in the mold of King George the Third perhaps, does he want to end the special relationship between the UK and US the way it started say in 1776? And all over terrorists too? So NATO ends with Tony Blair, when he resigns Great Britian ends the special relationship and the glue that holds NATO together, no one else wants to pick up the mantle because they all want to be friends with Arabs and big oil, they bow before the Oil barrel and abandon the Atlantic Alliance so they can prostrate themselves before Muslims, and be bought by them and their petrodollars as the Arab terrorists attack Americans and the West. Divided they fall! All the lessons of World War II forgotten and over what, Terrorists who don't even have a country? There is no reason for the US to stay in NATO if our allies are going to stab us in the back, it has been a one-way alliance even in the best of times, as all NATO bases are in Europe. If Europe collectively pulled its weight, it would be an equal partner with the US and not a junior partner, but the politicians there have to beat the anti-American drum to make themselves look good. America is the only enemy they can handle, it costs them nothing to make the USA the enemy except the NATO alliance, as they can't handle real enemies such as International Islamic Terrorism. Maybe Charles Lindberg was right, maybe we should have left the UK to its fate during World War II, all this Alliance stuff has bought us nothing. The dictators of the world are having a field day, the NATO alliance is shattering because of Mr Cameron, and they will soon start building their empires without having to look over their shoulders, just as Hitler did. Sooner or later we'll come to a point where we have to fight them and alot of good people will die because the Alliance was not united and we allowed the enemy to grow strong.

We have not lost alot of men in Iraq, Great Britian lost fewer men than we have, but if the UK breaks the alliance then we will lose many more men in the future against an enemy we might easily defeat now if we don't let them grow too strong. I think the inclination is to let them grow too strong and let our children deal with the enhanced menace rather than to face up to them now. The thing about George Bush is that he goes against the Winds of History. The Winds of History are pushing in the opposite direction of where he wants to go. The Winds of History are blowing in the direction of World War III, just like they did previously for the other two World Wars. Most of the people in the World are inclined to let them blow in that direction since that is the easy path to follow, its not very hard not to fight your enemies when they are weak, its better to talk with them, let the enemy grow strong and when the enemy's ready he'll start the conflict with the West at a time of his own choosing. I think Space may be important, it may be a way to escape the destruction of Western Civilization and in fact all terrestrial civilization. The bad guys are getting what they want, the destruction of the Western Alliance all handed over to them on a silver platter by David Cameron and those in the Labour Party who want to oust Tony Blair. the US will get discourage, grow isolationist, and the only recourse for humanity is to find another home other than Earth.

As for authority, there is no World Authority, the UN is a paper tiger, it has failed in Bosnia at the hands of the tiny nation of Serbia, what kind of authority is that? The World is under a kind of controlled chaos, kind of like a town with no law enforcement, people unfortunately have to make their own law based on their own power. If their are terrorists and the United States waits for international saction to fight them, it will wait forever. The terrorists on the otherhand don't have to wait for international permission to attack us. The first obligation of any national government is to protect its citizens, not to slavishly adhere to international law, especially since the UN has proven incapable of protecting us just as it has failed the Bosnians.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-12 10:55:37

...As for the wisdom as Iraq being a foothold to stop the third great Jihad and the forming of the caliphate, I am not sure that is wise either as Iraq may of hurt future support by allies to help in what may need to be done against Iran and has weakened America’s stomach for the realities of war. Iraq has been very useful as a center point of anti US propaganda without engaging the real source of radical Islam and the threat it poses to the free world.
I am not saying the United States shouldn’t of gone into Iraq. I am saying that it was a questionable act that could have been delayed for diplomatic and political reasons. Wouldn’t it of made sense to go after North Korea first and see if that would of caused the Iranians to start shaking in their boots?

What would you have us do? George Bush already waited quite a long time for international consensus to materialize and it didn't. Sadaam was flouting the international inspection regime and George Bush waited over a year to build international consensus to do something about him and there was no international consensus. I think the world was just trying to use the United States as an international scape goat.

You see some people like to appear corageous by taking on the "big bad bully", but they don't want a real big bad bully to take on, because that might be hard, so instead they take on the United States and try to make us out to be the "Big Bad Bully" with their "Bush Hatred" propaganda. Europe has no capability to take on the real bullies of this world, the Sadaam Husseins, the Ayatohlas, the dictators, the terrorists, tangling with them may get some people hurt and make their citizens targets of terrorists, oh no can't mess with them, so instead the politicians need to make an enemy out of the United State and show their defiance by opposing us. The NATO alliance then divides and does just what our enemies want us to do, now who's fault is that? Cheap heroics is always tempting for those third rate politicians without principles, Hitler did it with the Jews, he made the Jews out to be a big menance threatening Aryan German's racial purity with their corruption and what some western politicians are doing with the United States and George Bush is not very different, its all about power, and the lack of scruples some people have in their quest for it.

John Creighton · 2006-09-12 12:12:28

Iraq wasn’t really a threat. So the US had some time and they don’t build consensuses by saying, “You are either with us or against us”. George bushes speeches are far from diplomatic. Anyway, I agree politicians are selling out their principles for power and that is why if I was an American I wouldn’t vote for the democratic party next election. I would either vote Lieberman if he would run as an independent or who ever the next republican is.

The same thing is happening in Canada and I have always voted liberal in Canada. The only potential liberal leader I would consider voting for now is Ignatieff and even him I am not sure about because I worry he is on the anthropocentric global warming band wagon. Thus I might have to vote Harper as much as I dislike his social policies because like bush atleast he has principles.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-09-09 03:36:46

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#2 2006-09-09 12:58:49

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#3 2006-09-09 14:59:32

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#4 2006-09-09 16:17:55

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#5 2006-09-09 17:08:15

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#6 2006-09-09 18:59:06

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#7 2006-09-09 20:23:35

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#8 2006-09-09 20:26:14

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#9 2006-09-10 12:23:22

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#10 2006-09-10 12:54:37

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#11 2006-09-10 13:10:47

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#12 2006-09-10 13:51:17

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#13 2006-09-10 14:24:58

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#14 2006-09-10 15:25:07

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#15 2006-09-10 21:53:07

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#16 2006-09-10 22:08:35

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#17 2006-09-10 22:11:01

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#18 2006-09-10 23:48:54

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#19 2006-09-11 09:51:11

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#20 2006-09-11 12:34:26

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#21 2006-09-11 22:02:50

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#22 2006-09-11 23:13:22

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#23 2006-09-12 07:44:05

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#24 2006-09-12 10:55:37

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#25 2006-09-12 12:12:28

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

Board footer