the people that put us in iraq are the ones that did everything they could to avoid military service in vietnamSgtHeihn wrote:
7-P's, you don't follow them you get burned. In Vietnam they had the whiz-kids, we must have their kids planning shit now.Braddock wrote:
So what you guys are saying is that 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' has resulted in 'Operation Iranian Annexation'?
Take a bow guys... next time let the Marx brothers draw up the plans.
None of those Middle Eastern countries want to annex Palestine. This is one of the great illusions of our time... the idea that Iran or Saudi Arabia or any of these Islamic countries actually want to see Israel destroyed. Why that's about as preposterous as the idea that America would actually like to completely eradicate terror... then they would have nothing to fight for and profit from!God Save the Queen wrote:
the same way the iranians took over lebanon, and how they have their eyes set on palestine through hamas.
I'll have to look that one up in the Constitution. We've become exactly what our forefathers fought against.God Save the Queen wrote:
if losing influence over the region is a threat, then yes.Kmarion wrote:
Is Iran an immediate threat to our sovereignty?God Save the Queen wrote:
to keep iran from taking over officially. to keep saudi arabia happy from the buffer
the islamic republic wants mecca. thats the ultimate goal
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I don't think anyone doubts that Iran seek to spread their influence in the region. But petty thievery (looting) through which you risk your life? Bit of a stretch. In many ways Iran and large swathes of Iraq are natural bedfellows given their shared belief in Shi'a Islam. That doesn't bode well for Iraqi Sunnis or Kurds, hence the reason I think it would be in their interests to declare independent nations for themselves.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-10-20 09:44:37)
its the same reason why we sent marines to north africa within 2 decades after the formation of the country.Kmarion wrote:
I'll have to look that one up in the Constitution. We've become exactly what our forefathers fought against.God Save the Queen wrote:
if losing influence over the region is a threat, then yes.Kmarion wrote:
Is Iran an immediate threat to our sovereignty?
Interfering with commerce is an attack on sovereignty.
That is so morally objectionable and imperialistic I don't know where to begin.God Save the Queen wrote:
Interfering with commerce is an attack on sovereignty.
its much more complicated than "theyre both shia"CameronPoe wrote:
I don't think anyone doubts that Iran seek to spread their influence in the region. But petty thievery (looting) through which you risk your life? Bit of a stretch. In many ways Iran and large swathes of Iraq are natural bedfellows given their shared belief in Shi'a Islam. That doesn't bode well for Iraqi Sunnis or Kurds, hence the reason I think it would be in their interests to declare independent nations for themselves.
I mean, would you really say that the violence that has gone on in your country had more to do with religion or nationalism?
pretty sure its in the constitution. Its what justified this countries first deployment. Its what started the war of 1812CameronPoe wrote:
That is so morally objectionable and imperialistic I don't know where to begin.God Save the Queen wrote:
Interfering with commerce is an attack on sovereignty.
Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-10-20 09:47:23)
I would say nationalism but some may disagree. The answer is a mixture of both. I'm not saying Sh'ia Iraq should be subsumed into Iran - I'm just saying they make natural bedfellows - like Syria and Iraq under the Ba'athist regimes.God Save the Queen wrote:
its much more complicated than "theyre both shia"
I mean, would you really say that the violence that has gone on in your country had more to do with religion or nationalism?
Define interfering. That is a very open ended line of logic.God Save the Queen wrote:
Interfering with commerce is an attack on sovereignty.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
A nuclear weapon doesn't need to be a missile. A crudely made device that could be made in a garage and stuffed into a suitcase can be just as if not more deadly.CameronPoe wrote:
Nice pictures. Where are they from?
but the syrian baathists arent even sunni, they are alawites. Baathism did everything it could to steer itself away from theocracy. Baathism was Arab nationalism.
I don't really care whether it's constitutional or not - it's plain wrong.God Save the Queen wrote:
pretty sure its in the constitution. Its what justified this countries first deployment. Its what started the war of 1812
Invade every nation that has garages then.M.O.A.B wrote:
A nuclear weapon doesn't need to be a missile. A crudely made device that could be made in a garage and stuffed into a suitcase can be just as if not more deadly.CameronPoe wrote:
Nice pictures. Where are they from?
sabotage. kidnappings for ransom. piracy. all attacks on a nation's sovereignty.Kmarion wrote:
Define interfering. That is a very open ended line of logic.God Save the Queen wrote:
Interfering with commerce is an attack on sovereignty.
It happened after WWII, how do you think the space program started? Or how jet technology got a huge influx?CameronPoe wrote:
I don't think anyone doubts that Iran seek to spread their influence in the region. But petty thievery (looting) through which you risk your life? Bit of a stretch. In many ways Iran and large swathes of Iraq are natural bedfellows given their shared belief in Shi'a Islam. That doesn't bode well for Iraqi Sunnis or Kurds, hence the reason I think it would be in their interests to declare independent nations for themselves.
You are not dealing with people that view their lives the same as us. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard has battalions of suicide bombers.
If people don't want to have an answer put to them, then don't suggest that something he clearly had at one point simply evaporated.Braddock wrote:
Invade every nation that has garages then.M.O.A.B wrote:
A nuclear weapon doesn't need to be a missile. A crudely made device that could be made in a garage and stuffed into a suitcase can be just as if not more deadly.CameronPoe wrote:
Nice pictures. Where are they from?
It's not in the constitution. The threat has to be be clear and present (immediate). The Iraq war Authorization of military force was neither. Why do you think there was such a push to sell WMD's and their delivery systems?CameronPoe wrote:
I don't really care whether it's constitutional or not - it's plain wrong.God Save the Queen wrote:
pretty sure its in the constitution. Its what justified this countries first deployment. Its what started the war of 1812
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The IRG may well do but ordinary Iranians on the street are certainly not of that mind I would imagine. And with respect to looting I thought you referred to shops, museums, mosques, etc. Personally I find it somewhat difficult for Iran to have operated something as major as what you imply under the noses of the Americans.SgtHeihn wrote:
It happened after WWII, how do you think the space program started? Or how jet technology got a huge influx?
You are not dealing with people that view their lives the same as us. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard has battalions of suicide bombers.
PS Why did Saddam not launch his chemical weapons on the Americans when they invaded?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-10-20 09:57:03)
Then we should invade Columbia, Mexico, Peru, Somalia ..God Save the Queen wrote:
sabotage. kidnappings for ransom. piracy. all attacks on a nation's sovereignty.Kmarion wrote:
Define interfering. That is a very open ended line of logic.God Save the Queen wrote:
Interfering with commerce is an attack on sovereignty.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
well we have/had a military mission in all of those countries. so there ya go.Kmarion wrote:
Then we should invade Columbia, Mexico, Peru, Somalia ..God Save the Queen wrote:
sabotage. kidnappings for ransom. piracy. all attacks on a nation's sovereignty.Kmarion wrote:
Define interfering. That is a very open ended line of logic.
Im not making an argument here, Im stating the facts.
also a reason why we send military aid to friendly countries.
Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-10-20 09:59:58)
One can tapdance around the WMD/nuclear weapon issue all day but at the end of the day while ye lot were out looking under rocks in the desert for weapons Kim Jong Il was building himself an actual nuclear weapon, so in terms of a domestic defence exercise Iraq was a bit of a failure. There's also no real reason to believe that Saddam wouldn't have followed Kim's example of using his nukes as a bargaining chip to lift sanctions against his country. He had his ass handed to him in the first Gulf war, why would he do the same thing again... he wasn't totally stupid.M.O.A.B wrote:
If people don't want to have an answer put to them, then don't suggest that something he clearly had at one point simply evaporated.Braddock wrote:
Invade every nation that has garages then.M.O.A.B wrote:
A nuclear weapon doesn't need to be a missile. A crudely made device that could be made in a garage and stuffed into a suitcase can be just as if not more deadly.
Because of hole in the ground was more appealing than certain obliteration.CameronPoe wrote:
The IRG may well do but ordinary Iranians on the street are certainly not of that mind I would imagine. And with respect to looting I thought you referred to shops, museums, mosques, etc. Personally I find it somewhat difficult for Iran to have operated something as major as what you imply under the noses of the Americans.SgtHeihn wrote:
It happened after WWII, how do you think the space program started? Or how jet technology got a huge influx?
You are not dealing with people that view their lives the same as us. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard has battalions of suicide bombers.
PS Why did Saddam not launch his chemical weapons on the Americans when they invaded?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Even more to the point.. while Pakistan was developing Nuclear weapons and selling them on the black market.Braddock wrote:
One can tapdance around the WMD/nuclear weapon issue all day but at the end of the day while ye lot were out looking under rocks in the desert for weapons Kim Jong Il was building himself an actual nuclear weapon, so in terms of a domestic defence exercise Iraq was a bit of a failure. There's also no real reason to believe that Saddam wouldn't have followed Kim's example of using his nukes as a bargaining chip to lift sanctions against his country. He had his ass handed to him in the first Gulf war, why would he do the same thing again... he wasn't totally stupid.M.O.A.B wrote:
If people don't want to have an answer put to them, then don't suggest that something he clearly had at one point simply evaporated.Braddock wrote:
Invade every nation that has garages then.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=58582
Xbone Stormsurgezz
He forgot the launch codes.CameronPoe wrote:
The IRG may well do but ordinary Iranians on the street are certainly not of that mind I would imagine. And with respect to looting I thought you referred to shops, museums, mosques, etc. Personally I find it somewhat difficult for Iran to have operated something as major as what you imply under the noses of the Americans.SgtHeihn wrote:
It happened after WWII, how do you think the space program started? Or how jet technology got a huge influx?
You are not dealing with people that view their lives the same as us. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard has battalions of suicide bombers.
PS Why did Saddam not launch his chemical weapons on the Americans when they invaded?
I watched that documentary, it was very interesting... now who can argue against the idea that smashing that black market itself would have been a far greater achievement in consolidating domestic security than any reckless invasion of a country who may or may not have availed of said market's services?Kmarion wrote:
Even more to the point.. while Pakistan was developing Nuclear weapons and selling them on the black market.Braddock wrote:
One can tapdance around the WMD/nuclear weapon issue all day but at the end of the day while ye lot were out looking under rocks in the desert for weapons Kim Jong Il was building himself an actual nuclear weapon, so in terms of a domestic defence exercise Iraq was a bit of a failure. There's also no real reason to believe that Saddam wouldn't have followed Kim's example of using his nukes as a bargaining chip to lift sanctions against his country. He had his ass handed to him in the first Gulf war, why would he do the same thing again... he wasn't totally stupid.M.O.A.B wrote:
If people don't want to have an answer put to them, then don't suggest that something he clearly had at one point simply evaporated.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=58582
And why are the US so casual about AQ khan being able to chillax in his pad in Pakistan after what he has done during his career? Not that they have any right to complain given that they allowed their old pals Israel to do the same thing he did.