U.S., Israel to attack Iran

[Peccator]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Mar 24 2006, 10:50 AM']The stakes are very high in this game.  Basically, if you control the ressources, you control the world.  The US is acting 'pre-emptively' by taking by force the Iraq oil reserves (which are the largest remaining in the owrld by the way).  Russia is the biggest oil producer in the world, so they might not have too much interest.  China on the other hand a starving for ressources and Iran is a provider of oil (undisputably the most important natural ressource today).[/quote]
You bring up a very important card in the game of world power. Indeed, control of the world's oil supply is perhaps the biggest playing card on can wield today...not even nuclear weapons come close.

I've not heard anything from the Chinese the last few months, not have I studied them in detail… but I agree that control of oil would be of vital importance to them...especially if they wish to acquire the status of World Power (which they obviously do) and to rival the US.

[quote]I think that if the US attacks Iran, it will be pushing their luck with the bigger kids on the block.  The US is strong, but in itself you cannot hope to attack the USSR or China for that matter.  [/quote]Indeed. Its really difficult to really say, China does have the biggest army as far as I know in the world.

I read in Newsweek a year or so ago that the Chinese has such a vast population that by the time the United States destroyed their army...the Chinese would have trained and equipped another to take its place. Its off course one thing to train an army, its quite another to feed and equip them...especially when they number in the millions.

Russia, at the moment I do not think will intervene militarily as they can barely handle the Chechnian terrorists in their own country at the moment, and their army equipment is seriously out of date and not designed for desert combat (or their troops trained for it..)
[quote]If you where the president and had the final say; would you take the gamble and invade Iran?[/quote]Hard call, they obviously have access to much more detailed information we don't concerning Iran. Keeping in mind what we do know...not a chance. Iran wants the US to attack...the insurgency would be exponentially worse in Iran.

This is not a country where the majority hates their leader. Thee people are behind him and are prepared to fight it out…and they do want the US to attack. Once again, it’s only my opinion.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Mar 24 2006, 08:13 AM']Look at all the trouble you guys are having in Iraq?  You still have 22 000 troops in Afghan(we, Canada, have about 1700 ourselves).  Winning a war is one thing, settling the aftermath in your favor is another.
[right][snapback]920050[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

We are not having trouble in Iraq. Liberal Media has totally overblown what has gone on over there. We destroyed an entire country, and are rebuilding it, and we have lost only 2,000 soldiers. People say it is another Vietnam. In one sense it is. In vietnam we didn't lose a [i]single[/i] battle, but since the media was against the war, we lost. However, that is the only similarity. Vietnam we lost what, 20,000? 10 times as many. dont make me laugh

[quote name='Peccator' date='Mar 24 2006, 11:02 AM']I'd really have to ask why the US would want to start another war when they still haven't finished the last one?.
[right][snapback]920224[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The Iraqi war is over. We won. What we have now is people blowing themselves up and along with themselves 20-30 innocent civilians. They are [i]terrorists[/i] trying to incite civil war amongst arabs, their own kind

[quote name='Didacus' date='Mar 24 2006, 11:50 AM']If you where the president and had the final say; would you take the gamble and invade Iran?
[right][snapback]920314[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

An all out invasion is not necessary. Destroying nuclear facilites and capabilities would be comparatively easy. However, I don't believe this to be necessary yet, as there are still other options available to pursue.

EDIT: apparently my math skills aren't very sharp today

Edited March 24, 2006 by notardillacid

[Peccator]

[quote name='notardillacid' date='Mar 24 2006, 11:44 AM']We are not having trouble in Iraq. Liberal Media has totally overblown what has gone on over there. We destroyed an entire country, and are rebuilding it, and we have lost only 2,000 soldiers. [/quote]I do not rely on the liberal media to tell me the situation in Iraq anymore than I do with regards to the situation in the Catholic Church.

I do however rely on people who do work there...and from what I've heard its not so optimistic as Pres. Bush seems to be:

[url="http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/21/bush.newsconference/index.html"]http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/21/bus...ence/index.html[/url]

Victory and pulling down a few statues do not mean the same thing.

[quote]People say it is another Vietnam. In one sense it is. In vietnam we didn't lose a [i]single[/i] battle, but since the media was against the war, we lost. However, that is the only similarity. Vietnam we lost what, 20,000? 10 times as many. dont make me laugh[/quote]Vietnam was lost due to alot of other reason as well...its not as simple as that unfortunely. (Iraqi insurgents for instance are not supported by the likes of China or Russia)

The biggest tragedy of Vietnam(for me) was the way the soldiers returning home were treated and how alot were left behind
[quote]The Iraqi war is over. We won. What we have now is people blowing themselves up and along with themselves 20-30 innocent civilians[/quote]Well thats debateble...I must however tell you that my experience with the armed forces has been that they always spin the numbers...I'm pretty sure the numbers are much higher.

[url="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm"]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops..._casualties.htm[/url]

Those are the official number I've come accross. Do not get me wrong, I'm no liberal...I am though against soldiers dying for nothing.

[musturde]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' date='Jan 25 2006, 05:26 PM']wow...  i didn't expect this kinda reaction on this thread 
[right][snapback]865948[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

LOL me neither...

[musturde]

EENS I agree that Zionism isn't such a hot deal but Judiasm isn't bad. They still are the descendants of Abraham (like the Muslims).

[musturde]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jan 25 2006, 09:54 PM']Dear child,

Imagine if we took out Hitler before he attacked Polland.

Now, send Bush a thank you email.

Iran wants to destroy Israel. All of the arab countries want to destroy Isreal for being Jewish.[/quote]
No, "all" of the arab countries want to destroy Israel (also not ALL of them anymore, many have peace treaties with Israel now) because they feel sorry for the Palestinians. Muslims don't care about someone being Jewish, they have respect for Jews as people of the book.

[quote]Islam is not a religion of peace... it is a religion of pieces. [/quote]
LOL did you steal that line from that one Coptic Priest.... If you don't know what I'm talking about then nvm.

[quote]The Quran says to hack off limbs when people steal... even if for food. Doesn't matter the age or sex. I've seen video of girls about 13 years old have their hands cut off on the side of the road for stealing. The Quran says "do not take the Christian or the Jew as your neighbor". There has been war in the middle east since 700 AD because of Islam. (This is where the ignorant state the same thing about Christianity - but that's another topic)[/quote]
I'm glad we're back to bashing religions. The terrorists nowadays, as Muslim scholars agree, are following the Islam incorrectly. If anyone looked deeper at most of these cases for more than a minute they'd realize that most of these attacks are based on political reasons rather than spiritual. True Muslims show respect for Christians and Jews and even say "Peace and blessing upon him" after even a mention of the name of Jesus or Moses (or any of the prophets). The Koran is often misinterpretted in many areas but the Koran is very much against killing innocent lives.
[quote] 5:32  Whosoever kills a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all of mankind[/quote]
In other words if a terrorist harms innocent people (instead of people he is warring with literally such as armed forces in a war) then he is killing the amount he killed times the world population and will be judged by that under God. In other words, if a terrorist kills 20 people, God will judge him as if he killed 20 times the whole worlds population. In Islam, killing is only allowed when it is under face to face combat. Attacking civilians or killing war captives, which even Muhamad never did in any of his wars, is agains thte teachings of Islam. In Surah 2, Muslims are prevented from being agressors. If their religion is being literally opressed, then they may attack. However, the Koran says that even if members of the warring side seek protection, a muslim is required to provide it. No prisoners may be tortured or killed, they must be treated with dignity and be treated fairly. Captives and those under Muslim protection must be given adequate clothing and provisions, and must never be treated with cruelty. The captives would be exposed to Islam and would CHOOSE whether or not to believe it, that is why they were to be very nice and fair to them. For a Muslim to cut off a hand of a thief, though it is a common practice, is only under vague criteria. The more advanced countries in the Middle East don't do it anymore and the idea of the criteria all being fulfilled is hard if it is correct. A thirteen year olds hand being cut off is ridiculous. The person must be mature and the amount of money or whatever stolen must be of value. Also the conviction of amputation is very very very rare. The more advanced countries don't use it (if they do it's practicly once every 100 years).

If you actually read about Islam from a true Muslims point of view or asked a true muslim about Islam instead of reading from extremists or from people who aren't even Muslim, you'd actually learn the truth about Islam. You don't expect me to go to the traditionalist schismatics and ask them about the Catholic Church, do you?

[musturde]

[quote name='notardillacid' date='Mar 24 2006, 11:44 AM'] People say it is another Vietnam. In one sense it is. In vietnam we didn't lose a [i]single[/i] battle, but since the media was against the war, we lost. However, that is the only similarity. Vietnam we lost what, 20,000? 10 times as many. dont make me laugh
[right][snapback]920423[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes but the recent speculation about Iraq most likely coming to a civil war isn't good for our troops. Will we stand by and help or just leave. What happens then? The whole rebuilding process then is destroyed and useless. Either way, i speculate a lot more deaths are to come soon whether it's American, Iraqi, or both.

[dspen2005]

I hope that this doesn't happen....

[musturde]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Mar 25 2006, 10:05 AM']I hope that this doesn't happen....
[right][snapback]921753[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

To tell you the truth, I believe it most likely will. However, anythings possible. I just dont know if we'll actually pull our troops out of this is to happen.

[musturde]

ugh my huge post is kinda choppy and has many grammatical errors... I wish I could edit it. sorry guyz

[Didacus]

Just caugt myself up on this thread. A few quick comments and I'll be back later.

1. Hitler and WWII is so full of media and propaganda hype that even now many of the truths are not main stream - yet.

One of them being Birtian and US banks lending and donating money to hitler's polical campaigns in the 1930s for example - as long as he kept a 'military' plateform.

Not impressed?

How about the fact the US sold oil to Germany - even after they declared war against them!!! Germany would have lost the war a lot sooner, and without D-day being required had the US simply chose not to sell oil to Germany.

What was WWII about?

It was not about freedom.





Next;

The war in Iraq is not over - and it did not being in the early 3rd millenia. it did not being in the early 90s either. Iraq, like Iran, are remnants of the Ottoman empire that was dissected by Europe some 100 years ago.

When did the gulf war start - over a hundred years ago. when will it end? God and maybe the devil only knows.

The US suffered more casualties after the 'second gulf war ended' than during the war itself. And you're going to tell me its over?

[Peccator]

We have to be very careful when discussing WW2 as any disagreement with the Allied version of the war and you're quickly labelled a Nazi (Ironic, since I have some Jewish blood about 2 generations back)

[quote name='Didacus' date='Mar 27 2006, 02:05 PM']Just caugt myself up on this thread.  A few quick comments and I'll be back later.

1. Hitler and WWII is so full of media and propaganda hype that even now many of the truths are not main stream - yet.

One of them being Birtian and US banks lending and donating money to hitler's polical campaigns in the 1930s for example - as long as he kept a 'military' plateform.[/quote]
There was a huge amount of hypocrisy regarding WW2...I for instance found it surprising that only axis soldiers were executed for war crimes...whereas Allied troops were never touched, even though its fact that a large number raped women and shot POW's.

Germans were accused of their use of the V1 and V2 rockets against London and various other civilian targets, yet the allies launched a massive air raid against the German city of Dresden using firebombs killing more in that one strike than all the rocket attacks and German air raids combined for the entire war!

That the Germans did not invent the concentration camps, the British did...and they used it to subdue a small farming nation who apposed their attack on their land. Its also worth mentioning that the camps were designed not for POW's, but for their women and children. (On my mother side of the family they lost 4 people in these camps.)

The list goes on, history is indeed written by the victor...and very few question it.

[quote]The US suffered more casualties after the 'second gulf war ended' than during the war itself.  And you're going to tell me its over?[/quote]You are correct sir