BF2S Forums U.S. prepares to release evidence of Iran’s role in Iraq

That was a war between two sovereign nations. Not much better but there is a difference. Trying to incite a civil war and the Soviet war in Afghanistan are much different. I think the US/UK are aware of their credibility problem as well.

After some of the things that I hear the leader of Iran say about the western counrtys and what he has said about Israil ( like killing all jews and anyone in Israil he has said on record) then why not invaid Iran.  That guy is worst than Hitler in so many way Saddom too.  I dont think that countrys with radialc govermanets should have the nuke.  20kton nuke bad for 1 country, 5 20kton nukes = death to the planet.  SO YEAH IM SCARED who in there right mind wouldnt be.

Kmarion wrote:

You can't honestly see the difference between promoting violence and trying to quell it? Americans want the Government of Iraq to succeed and for peace to reign so they can get their troops home.

Could it not be argued that peace reigned in Iraq before America began launching air strikes and led it into civil war. I'm sorry but who are America to decide one regime or dictator is better than another. They install these crack pots in the first place and the minute they stop playing ball with the US they send in the war machine to 'liberate' the people. I don't agree with what Iran does in that part of the world but I don't see it as being any worse than what the US does.

I wouldn't be as annoyed at US foreign policy if it weren't for the fact that tries to insult my intelligence by claiming to have great ideological motives behind it's actions.

Fen321 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

That was a war between two sovereign nations. Not much better but there is a difference. Trying to incite a civil war and the Soviet war in Afghanistan are much different. I think the US/UK are aware of their credibility problem as well.

You do realize that Iraq qualifies as a nation, not so much now, and that the US is also a nation. You know what that makes it a a battle BETWEEN TWO sovereign nations. Doh!

How is it REMOTELY DIFFERENT from us funding al-qaeda and Osama to do the dirty work for us in Afghanistan? HOW, i implore you to differentiate the difference between the alleged Iranian' weapons and that of the hiring and supplying al-qaeda?

First I acknowledged that it wasn't "much better". A nations agenda changes over a few decades. Do you think this is new? Would you consider it horribly ironic that Britain and America are now allies after fighting a war a few hundred years ago? Times change and global policy changes with it. Civilization today dictates that positions and policies must change more rapidly. Especially in dealing with the instability of the Mid East.

Kmarion wrote:

Fen321 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

That was a war between two sovereign nations. Not much better but there is a difference. Trying to incite a civil war and the Soviet war in Afghanistan are much different. I think the US/UK are aware of their credibility problem as well.

You do realize that Iraq qualifies as a nation, not so much now, and that the US is also a nation. You know what that makes it a a battle BETWEEN TWO sovereign nations. Doh!

How is it REMOTELY DIFFERENT from us funding al-qaeda and Osama to do the dirty work for us in Afghanistan? HOW, i implore you to differentiate the difference between the alleged Iranian' weapons and that of the hiring and supplying al-qaeda?

First I acknowledged that it wasn't "much better". A nations agenda changes over a few decades. Do you think this is new? Would you consider it horribly ironic that Britain and America are now allies after fighting a war a few hundred years ago? Times change and global policy changes with it. Civilization today dictates that positions and policies must change more rapidly. Especially in dealing with the instability of the Mid East.

This is somewhat logical, but the overall problem is that we've grown so accustomed to intervening in volatile regions that we no longer seem to have the wisdom necessary to know who we can trust and who we can't.

What's the point of intervening in an area that is going to explode no matter how you try to aim your policy?  We befriend one group of militias one decade, and the next decade, they produce extremists who want to kill us.

We side with one dictator against another empire we fear, but then the empire falls and we have to remove the guy.

If anything, the Cold War should prove that remaining a superpower requires a country to assert influence economically to a massive extent, but to be very careful in military ventures.  We've fought far too many battles over the last few decades that we had no business in, and for the most part, we only gained enemies and debt from it.

Isolationism and domestic defense are the future of America, because soon, we won't be able to afford this military adventurism, and we'll have no choice but to acknowledge the lack of border security here.

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-02-14 18:06:27)

Kmarion wrote:

It's the nature of being a global superpower unfortunately. Throughout history all the major powers have had their fingers in worldly affairs. Having global interest everywhere can cause quite the problems. Watch China closely over the next couple of decades. If they are going to continue to grow at the rate they are now you can bet that shield of isolationism will be coming down.

Yet, with having spent $400 billion on Iraq with little success, wouldn't you say that interventionism has been draining us?

We racked up a similar debt with Vietnam.  WW2's debts were at least worthwhile, since we were able to end 2 major world threats and develop a modern global economy that kept us on top for a while.

But most of the time, war just drains a society.  We've been lucky that the modern wars we've fought haven't been on our own soil (barring a few incidents of terrorism).  Yet, even this luck hasn't kept us from heading toward financial ruin.  There are very real consequences for the federal and trade debts we now experience.  If we continue with this rampant interventionism, it will cause a significant drop in our currency value and standard of living.

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-02-14 18:20:06)

No Iran is not involved

jonnykill wrote:

I don't care either way. Bomb the fuck out of Iran.

What the hell are you talking about? IF you don't care, then stfu. I
Oh and forgot to mention bush said:

"What we do know is that the Quds Force was instrumental in providing these deadly IEDs to networks inside of Iraq. We know that. And we also know that the Quds Force is a part of the Iranian government.

"That's a known. What we don't know is whether or not the head leaders of Iran ordered the Quds Force to do what they did.

"There's no contradiction that they're there. I intend to do something about it. We're going to protect our troops."

Sound familiar don’t it? Where Have I heard this sort of rubbish before.. Oh my gosh its Iraq and WMD oh oh...

Oh and I suggest you read this:- Ex-CIA Agent: I was fired for showing Iraq was not developing WMD