CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6593

Turquoise wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Narupug wrote:

Never said he had the right just saying that if this is a struggle for democracy, then there might be calls for just moving troops over the border from Iraq and into Iran. I think this would be a bad idea but that doesn't mean someone won't convince Obama it's neccessary, let's hope Hillary will keep this from happening.
I should hope so too. The US, and the west in general, has militarily overextended itself unnecessarily far too much at the moment.
America has.  The U.K. hasn't.

Granted, I doubt the U.K. would be interested.
I'm not talking about in a capability sense, I'm talking about in a a neo-imperial sense.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-06-13 17:21:59)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6443|North Carolina

CameronPoe wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:


I should hope so too. The US, and the west in general, has militarily overextended itself unnecessarily far too much at the moment.
America has.  The U.K. hasn't.

Granted, I doubt the U.K. would be interested.
I'm not talking about in a capability sense, I'm talking about an neo-imperial sense.
Well, as you've probably noticed, I'm not exactly as isolationist as I used to be, but this is because, if we don't intervene, someone else typically does (like China in Sudan).

With the way the global economy currently is (and the rapidly deteriorating situation in Pakistan), I'm not exactly eager for us to mess with Iran, but funding an insurgency there might not be a bad idea.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6593

Turquoise wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


America has.  The U.K. hasn't.

Granted, I doubt the U.K. would be interested.
I'm not talking about in a capability sense, I'm talking about an neo-imperial sense.
Well, as you've probably noticed, I'm not exactly as isolationist as I used to be, but this is because, if we don't intervene, someone else typically does (like China in Sudan).

With the way the global economy currently is (and the rapidly deteriorating situation in Pakistan), I'm not exactly eager for us to mess with Iran, but funding an insurgency there might not be a bad idea.
China will fall on it's own sword, don't you worry about that. They're making the exact same mistakes that the west has been making for quite some time.
Little BaBy JESUS
m8
+394|6187|'straya

CameronPoe wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:


I'm not talking about in a capability sense, I'm talking about an neo-imperial sense.
Well, as you've probably noticed, I'm not exactly as isolationist as I used to be, but this is because, if we don't intervene, someone else typically does (like China in Sudan).

With the way the global economy currently is (and the rapidly deteriorating situation in Pakistan), I'm not exactly eager for us to mess with Iran, but funding an insurgency there might not be a bad idea.
China will fall on it's own sword, don't you worry about that. They're making the exact same mistakes that the west has been making for quite some time.
yes but they can always fall back on simply exploiting their enormous population, they don't have to worry about little things like democracy.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6443|North Carolina

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Well, as you've probably noticed, I'm not exactly as isolationist as I used to be, but this is because, if we don't intervene, someone else typically does (like China in Sudan).

With the way the global economy currently is (and the rapidly deteriorating situation in Pakistan), I'm not exactly eager for us to mess with Iran, but funding an insurgency there might not be a bad idea.
China will fall on it's own sword, don't you worry about that. They're making the exact same mistakes that the west has been making for quite some time.
yes but they can always fall back on simply exploiting their enormous population, they don't have to worry about little things like democracy.
Eh...  an uncomfortable truth indeed...  I guess we could set up an arrangement like the one we have with Israel.  We could get China to do our dirty work for us.

They certainly don't seem to care much about reputation.
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|6754
Aquavelvajihad defiant on 'free' Iran poll
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8099115.stm

"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has defended his "completely free" re-election as Iran's president, amid violent clashes on the streets over claims of election fraud."

He won by a landslide right... what does he have to worry about?   62.6 percent to 33.8 percent for Mousavi

Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2009-06-13 20:41:13)

Love is the answer
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6261|Escea

Dinnerjackets support were mostly rural people and poor people. But the high turnout means that it wasn't just those people, so like more people voted than the population of those two groups.

The guy definitely fixed it, especially as all protests against his win have resulted in beatings, the internet is down, phones are down, texts are down. Methinks this guy is going to completely cut off Iran and never give up his Presidency, like Mugabe.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6191|what

I do think the protests should give a wakeup call for those who have thought Iran is full of fanatical idiots akin to Ahmadinejad.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard