Orignal Earl
Diamond Member
- Oct 27, 2005
- 8,059
- 55
- 86
No it's not.
This is mostly a US thing, same as before.
70 % of Americans believe Iraq responsible for 911
70 % of Americans believe Iran has bomb.
No it's not.
This is mostly a US thing, same as before.
70 % of Americans believe Iraq responsible for 911
70 % of Americans believe Iran has bomb.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 173
- 106
If they are not concerned about it why are so many countries supporting tough sanctions?
Fern
Orignal Earl
Diamond Member
- Oct 27, 2005
- 8,059
- 55
- 86
Is there like 10 countries? or a 100?
Do any of those countries have sanctions against the US?
Would any of these countries level sanctions against another for purely economical reasons, while stating another?
im pretty sure whatever our military thinks, they wont let us or anyone else know about it until ~50 years later. any info they do let go to public you can assume is false, and probably something completely off base from what reality actually is. you cant even think opposite... if they say iran doesnt have nukes then my best guess is iran has oil that the us wants. who knows, its all just a guess. the only reason america stays in the game is because every other country is scared shirtless of our military and part of that image requires propaganda.
and we know what theyre doing. we have HD resolution video focused on their whole country 24/7. they would have to do everything underground and even then i would imagine we have ways to monitor that sort of activity too. i have no doubt the cia watched all the wmd's being trucked out of iraq years ago and i bet they told the military that too, but our strategic positioning required us to overthrow sadaam so thats what we did hell or high water.
and we know what theyre doing. we have HD resolution video focused on their whole country 24/7. they would have to do everything underground and even then i would imagine we have ways to monitor that sort of activity too. i have no doubt the cia watched all the wmd's being trucked out of iraq years ago and i bet they told the military that too, but our strategic positioning required us to overthrow sadaam so thats what we did hell or high water.
Last edited:
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,320
- 126
hardly.....you are entitled to your opinion...
But if you asked the other nations that have to live in that region you would find that you are greatly mistaken!
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 173
- 106
It's quite a few. The US, the EU, Canada, India and there are UN sanctions. Haven't been able to find a record of the vote to see who all approved so I don't know the number.
Fern
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,266
- 126
Both would be wrong and it has nothing to do with Iranian leaders trying to get a nuke.
I don't think that's accurate, at all, other than this being mostly a US thing & an Israeli thing. Uncle Sam can be very persuasive, so a lot of countries that don't really give a damn either way will line up behind him to curry favor... It's international astroturfing...
Orignal Earl
Diamond Member
- Oct 27, 2005
- 8,059
- 55
- 86
Orignal Earl
Diamond Member
- Oct 27, 2005
- 8,059
- 55
- 86
The poll about Iraq & 9/11 was from 2003, in the wake of the massive fearmongering campaign initiated by the Bushistas. I doubt it's anywhere near that today.
The other poll is a little dated, but shows just how much the know-nothings want their opinion to be heard. Most polls are tedious & stupid, so people with more than a few grey cells to rub together often refuse to participate...
Orignal Earl
Diamond Member
- Oct 27, 2005
- 8,059
- 55
- 86
ya, that's where I was going with the * same as before *
70% believed blah blah then
70% believe blah blah now
I hear ya
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,320
- 126
always the Muslim apologist?
Now it`s Uncle sams fault that bthere really are countries that are against Iran having Nuclear weapons?
These countries don`t have their own governments.....
So is it still Uncle Sam`s fault if one day you wake up to a mushroom cloud outside your bedroom window...lol
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,320
- 126
You're impervious to it, because you follow a "greater cause"- the Glory of Israel, and in that they can do no wrong. In your mind, that end justifies whatever means are necessary.
I would not say I dont believe Iran wants to build a nuclear reactor for power, but they can also build nuclear bombs also. I would classify Iran as a terrorist state based on their actions and how they fund terrorists. The worst part is probably the average Iranians are just living their lives. However, if you let your government get away with killing innocent people, then you are just as guilty. We let Oh'Bammah get involved in a war in Libya, and we let Bush get involved in a war in Iraq. Are we better for it or was it just a giant waste of blood and money? Maybe we should just get out of the middle east and quit interfering. Is the USA just a terrorist Nation also?
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For once, IMHO, piasabird asks some decent questions. But for some IMHO, answers, yes Iran, the USA, Israel, Russia, and a large number of other nations fund terrorism and proxy wars. Maybe the classic example was in the Russian occupation of Afghanistan during the 1980's, when the USA and our CIA trained and aided Afghan terrorists to attack the Russians. And better yet provided them with high tech stinker missiles able to shoot Russian helicopters down in massive numbers. And giving the Russians their own Vietnam.
So to that extent I totally agree with you piasabird, the USA used a proxy war to advance their foreign policy options,
The only area I disagree with you is that there is no comparing the Obama actions to GWB actions in Iraq. GWB led a coalition of the billing into Irag, lied our nation into war, under the assumption that Iraq was a paper tiger and easy to conquer. And after that it would be all gravy. And GWB and Dumsfeld instead they were only 50% right, Iraq was ripe for the pickings, but it was one of the most difficult nations on earth to run a military occupation in. And even if in theory, Obama has finally gotten the USA out of our multi trillion dollar quagmire, Iraq is still so unstable we may find the trillions of dollars we expended in Iraq w34ent down the toilet.
Obama in Libya is totally different, and instead joined a coalition of the Arab League, the French, and Italians, and supported by the UN as a junior junior partner to provide some air support to Libyan rebels. And now Gadoffie is dead, the Libyan rebels have won, and we can only hope the Rebels are able to form a popular and democratic government for Libya.
Net USA costs maybe under 10 billion, zero US loss of life, as no matter what, Libya will not become a US quagmire like Iraq. Now as Syria and Assad is the next rat fink that has to go IMHO, we in the USA may have to wait for the Arab League to finally say, Assad has to go in no uncertain terms And also use moral force to change Russian minds, because they now back Syria against international sanctions. As every day, Syria edges closer and closer to a Libyan style civil war.
These issues are almost always filled with deception.
Bush had his own agenda for why he wanted to go after Saddam. There were multiple reasons - a leading one was that he felt being a 'war president' would turn him from a barely got the office one term bad president into one with a lot more political capital to try to pass his agenda like privatizing social security - and he was right, it skyrocketed his ratings in the short term and he got big and terrible things passed like his borrowed tax cuts for the rich and the corrupt Maeicare part D.
Other reasons included all kinds of right-wing agendas - with a little-known plan to force radical right-wing economic policies on Iraq - and perhaps some history with his father and Saddam, where Saddam remained in power and his father lost re-election, and 'doing what his father didn't do', among others.
But it was almost never discussed in these terms; rather they asked 'what will sell the war', decided on WMD and then almost only talked about that trying to build a case.
Similarly, Iran is clearly in the sights of a lot of interests in the US, for reasons of power and economics - but an issue like 'fear of a nuclear weapon' will be used instead.
This makes it hard to sort out what's accurate and not, because the issue is useful to be misused for a war agenda.
This is the ways wars are usually started, find some issue that will 'sell the war' and sell it that way, avoiding the other issues.
Bush had his own agenda for why he wanted to go after Saddam. There were multiple reasons - a leading one was that he felt being a 'war president' would turn him from a barely got the office one term bad president into one with a lot more political capital to try to pass his agenda like privatizing social security - and he was right, it skyrocketed his ratings in the short term and he got big and terrible things passed like his borrowed tax cuts for the rich and the corrupt Maeicare part D.
Other reasons included all kinds of right-wing agendas - with a little-known plan to force radical right-wing economic policies on Iraq - and perhaps some history with his father and Saddam, where Saddam remained in power and his father lost re-election, and 'doing what his father didn't do', among others.
But it was almost never discussed in these terms; rather they asked 'what will sell the war', decided on WMD and then almost only talked about that trying to build a case.
Similarly, Iran is clearly in the sights of a lot of interests in the US, for reasons of power and economics - but an issue like 'fear of a nuclear weapon' will be used instead.
This makes it hard to sort out what's accurate and not, because the issue is useful to be misused for a war agenda.
This is the ways wars are usually started, find some issue that will 'sell the war' and sell it that way, avoiding the other issues.
It has been reported by mainstream news that Libyan rebels have strong ties to Al Qaeda.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/connections-between-al-qaeda-and-libyan-rebels-run-deep/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20048982-503543.html
Once again, we stick our noses into it and make it worse. Just like Iran for the past 60 years. Time we just mind our own damn business.
blankslate
Diamond Member
- Jun 16, 2008
- 8,702
- 507
- 126
Maybe if the C.I.A. didn't, oh I don't know, overthrow? well at least help instigate the overthrow Iran's democratically elected prime minister in the 50s they'd be more willing to listen to others in regards to their Nuclear power (weapons? well maybe considering the history they have) program today...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter