Egypt and Saudi Arabia may try to go Nuclear if Iran does

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Stunt
magomago obviously missed the sarcasm :roll:

I missed it too.. it seemed like you support Bush and his buddies.. so I thought you would support their biggest CASH HEIST... Murder and Pillage are all the neocons are really about.

Haha...you guys have no clue what I support...you are too involved with your partisan crap to understand what people have to say. Too busy branding people.

You make it fairly easy to "brand" you. Unless you are claiming your account is hijacked most of the time.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: kingtas
The US has to stop invading other countries and let the UN invade countries for the sake of world peace and security.

We have to stop doing it alone. Our military men and women, and our country is paying too heavy a toll for policing the world.

But I really don't put too much faith in the UN Security Council, either.

that's the funniest thing I've read here today. Bush did not invade Iraq for the sake of world peace and security. That invasion was all about a strategic advantage for the US and damn the consequences for the rest of the world. The UN is a place for countries to talk. No-one should expect the UN to be a world police force.

But who then is going to defend the World from the U.S.?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: kingtas
The US has to stop invading other countries and let the UN invade countries for the sake of world peace and security.

We have to stop doing it alone. Our military men and women, and our country is paying too heavy a toll for policing the world.

But I really don't put too much faith in the UN Security Council, either.

that's the funniest thing I've read here today. Bush did not invade Iraq for the sake of world peace and security. That invasion was all about a strategic advantage for the US and damn the consequences for the rest of the world. The UN is a place for countries to talk. No-one should expect the UN to be a world police force.

But who then is going to defend the World from the U.S.?

The UN.

Maybe if the rest of the world also placed nice to their neighbors and own citizens, the US would not be requested by other countries to solve their internal problems.

They want the US to pretend to act like a policeman when it suits THEIR needs.

They want the US generosity when it suits THEIR needs.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: kingtas
The US has to stop invading other countries and let the UN invade countries for the sake of world peace and security.

We have to stop doing it alone. Our military men and women, and our country is paying too heavy a toll for policing the world.

But I really don't put too much faith in the UN Security Council, either.

It's not the job of the United Nations to "invade" anyone.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Stunt
magomago obviously missed the sarcasm :roll:

I missed it too.. it seemed like you support Bush and his buddies.. so I thought you would support their biggest CASH HEIST... Murder and Pillage are all the neocons are really about.

Haha...you guys have no clue what I support...you are too involved with your partisan crap to understand what people have to say. Too busy branding people.

You make it fairly easy to "brand" you. Unless you are claiming your account is hijacked most of the time.

What are my politcal views then? If I'm that easy to brand; tell me the parties I support, the candidates whom I've supported in the past and what my political stance on keys issues are.

If you cannot answer this...you are completely off base with your assumptions.

 

[TravisT]

I thought it was the Left's claim that the Right only used scare tactics?

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
what was Bush's motive for invading Iraq anyway?

It depends on what day of the week it is.

 

[ebaycj]

sounds like a good time to get into the weapons-grade plutonium/uranium business

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
what was Bush's motive for invading Iraq anyway?

Cause Saddam was an easy target that tried to kill his dad and has lots of potential oil.


WMD - While Saddam was adamantly denying he had WMD's and letting inspectors free reign on Iraq, Iran and NK were banging their drums loudly and one of them even asserted to continuing the nuke problem and having a nuke within the next few years.

Freedom/Liberty - Iraq is a secular dictatorship with limited censorship (on the level of Saudia Arabia). There are many many countries with much worse censorship and even more oppression.

Crimes against Humanity - Although Saddam supposedly killed Kurds #'ing in the thousands, there are much more genocides going on at the time... from Rwanda to Darfur to NK.

Actually if you think about it, North Korea tops the list in every one of the reasons Bush gave to invade Iraq. The only list it doesnt top is ease of defeat.

 

[SamurAchzar]

There's one thing I couldn't help but notice: Israel has had, reportedly, nuclear weapons since somewhere in the 60's, and yet neither Egypt or Saudi Arabia felt threatned. On the contrary, Egypt felt secure enough to attack Israel TWICE since Israel became supposedly nuclear, and never resorted to developing a nuclear program.

Yet the proliferation of Iran, a sister Muslim country, far more worries them. Maybe they know something you lot don't?
Maybe they are aware of the regional aspirations of Iran? Maybe they see it as a offensive weapon?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
There's one thing I couldn't help but notice: Israel has had, reportedly, nuclear weapons since somewhere in the 60's, and yet neither Egypt or Saudi Arabia felt threatned. On the contrary, Egypt felt secure enough to attack Israel TWICE since Israel became supposedly nuclear, and never resorted to developing a nuclear program.

Yet the proliferation of Iran, a sister Muslim country, far more worries them. Maybe they know something you lot don't?
Maybe they are aware of the regional aspirations of Iran? Maybe they see it as a offensive weapon?

That might be the best post of the whole thread. Someone who actual gets the article.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
There's one thing I couldn't help but notice: Israel has had, reportedly, nuclear weapons since somewhere in the 60's, and yet neither Egypt or Saudi Arabia felt threatned. On the contrary, Egypt felt secure enough to attack Israel TWICE since Israel became supposedly nuclear, and never resorted to developing a nuclear program.

Yet the proliferation of Iran, a sister Muslim country, far more worries them. Maybe they know something you lot don't?
Maybe they are aware of the regional aspirations of Iran? Maybe they see it as a offensive weapon?

That might be the best post of the whole thread. Someone who actual gets the article.

We're in a completely different political climate now. This country never exercised pre-emptive warfare before. A country like Iraq, which never directly attacked the United States, was invaded by it. Why reference old warfare tactics when new ones are in play?

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

Originally posted by: Stunt
Haha...you guys have no clue what I support...you are too involved with your partisan crap to understand what people have to say. Too busy branding people.

You make it fairly easy to "brand" you. Unless you are claiming your account is hijacked most of the time.

What are my politcal views then? If I'm that easy to brand; tell me the parties I support, the candidates whom I've supported in the past and what my political stance on keys issues are.

If you cannot answer this...you are completely off base with your assumptions.

Yup...thought so...duck and run IMC, dahunan.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
There's one thing I couldn't help but notice: Israel has had, reportedly, nuclear weapons since somewhere in the 60's, and yet neither Egypt or Saudi Arabia felt threatned. On the contrary, Egypt felt secure enough to attack Israel TWICE since Israel became supposedly nuclear, and never resorted to developing a nuclear program.

Yet the proliferation of Iran, a sister Muslim country, far more worries them. Maybe they know something you lot don't?
Maybe they are aware of the regional aspirations of Iran? Maybe they see it as a offensive weapon?

That might be the best post of the whole thread. Someone who actual gets the article.

We're in a completely different political climate now. This country never exercised pre-emptive warfare before. A country like Iraq, which never directly attacked the United States, was invaded by it. Why reference old warfare tactics when new ones are in play?

Are you deliberately trying to obfuscate the reality?

It looks like you are implying that either Egypt or SA is worried by possible invasion by the US? Both countries receive arms from the US on massive scale, and have very good relations with the US.

Both countries, as well as the countries around the Persian Gulf, are at panic over the Iran nuclear program. The Mullahs of Iran never did anything to mask their intentions of making the Middle East go their way. That's the reason they support Hizbullah and Syria.

I think Egypt and SA know the Mullahs much better than either of us do, and if they feel threatend, we should feel at danger.