# Military strike on Iran



## Superfly (17 April 2008)

Should the west strike Iran and cripple any nuclear programme...


----------



## sam76 (17 April 2008)

Hey mate,

Perhaps you could put a poll up on this one.

(and before someone else jumps in) You should perhaps put up an argument for and against along with your own opinion.

I believe the mods get a little shirty when threads are started like this.

here's cheers!



Hmm perhaps the Israelis are thinking the same thing...


----------



## Santob (17 April 2008)

Here we go...again with this pre-emptive nonsense, because it was such a success in Iraq.


----------



## numbercruncher (17 April 2008)

Are we getting low on Oil again ?


----------



## Sean K (17 April 2008)

The US military economy must need a boost.


----------



## szandor (17 April 2008)

yes Iran is making nuclear weapons just like Iraq had weapons of mass destruction 
 However i do think Iran is next on USA's agenda,and like usual they will fabricate whatever is needed to convince the gullible moronic american public that 'we must go to war to stop these evil terrorists' blah blah blah.
 In reality we all know its all about business and MONEY,oil,the petrodollar which Iran is trying to get the other nations of the world to trade oil in euro's,which would devestate the american economy,something saddam hussein introduced before the invasion,and was one of the first things the american's changed when they had control of the country(the conversion of trading iraqi oil back to US dollars).
 Apart from the oil agenda,you have these american companies,who's ceo's and directors basically control the US govt through donations and other influences,such as KBR,which incidently Dick Cheney was a director before he became vice president,these companies including weapon and ammnuition companies recieve all the contracts,and make billions from war.
 The american taxpayer spends trillions of dollars on war and the country goes into further debt,but who cares,the people in power are making MONEY,and thats what its all about!


----------



## marklar (17 April 2008)

I voted yes because I think it's a good way for the proles to be distracted from the failing economy and housing crisis  

Therein lies the true agenda of the US government: "Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious."

Time to re-read Nineteen Eighty-Four again...

m.


----------



## Superfly (17 April 2008)

Hmmm... nothing about the danger of an nuclear Iran, just the usual anti-Americanism shinning through...


----------



## prawn_86 (17 April 2008)

Superfly said:


> Hmmm... nothing about the danger of an nuclear Iran, just the usual anti-Americanism shinning through...




Should China launch a pre-emptive strike against America to prevent future Iraqs/Afghanistans/Iran's happening?  :


----------



## Dukey (17 April 2008)

Superfly said:


> Hmmm... nothing about the danger of an nuclear Iran, just the usual anti-Americanism shinning through...




So when pray tell are you going to enlighten us as to what opinion we should have ?????????

and more importantly - why???????????

.... Mister Fly.


----------



## Santob (17 April 2008)

Superfly said:


> Hmmm... nothing about the danger of an nuclear Iran, just the usual anti-Americanism shinning through...




Yes there is a danger with a nuclear Iran
There is also a danger with a nuclear Israel
There is also a danger with a nuclear China, UK, France, Russia, India, Pakistan.
There is also a danger with a nuclear USA.

But lets not let war distract us from what is really going on. The collection of the common wealth of the USA into fewer and fewer hands prior to the collapse of the Pax Americana.


----------



## szandor (17 April 2008)

the only nuclear Iran is nuclear energy,just like australia has,usa,china etc etc.If you believe Iran is arming itself with nuclear weapons,what about  the fact that the usa,israel,ussr etc all have nuclear weapons?Does that mean Iran has the right to bomb the sh*t out of Israel because they have nuclear weapons?

The USA is just looking for another excuse,just like it did for iraq to go to war and make the people in power (and by power i dont mean puppets like bush) more MONEY.


----------



## juw177 (17 April 2008)

To the thread starter: you seem to have a lot of fallacious world views with no facts to back it up. You really are really full of neo con American propaganda. Your past posts include:

On Iran's (non existent) nuclear program


> So you think that the mad mullahs in Iran should be allowed to become nuclear... words will not stop them.... ..Iran works away to achieve it's goal... while some look & hope for a more humane & rational way of thinking to deal with the problem... but how do you deal with an unrational government...




On Hiroshima and the generations after it that suffered


> Have you any idea what a land invasion of mainland Japan would have cost in American / Australian / English lives... most estimates 200000 to 1+million... the bomb saved countless brave men & women




On Iraq war:


> When you are fighting an enemy that kills their own women and children, makes videos of cutting westerners heads off with knives.. what we do is nothing.




On China


> The US could probably decimate mainland China with its submarine fleet alone.. destorying most needed infustructure, resulting in millions of straving Chinese.. and even with conventional weapons it may just take a while longer.





*Iran has been proven to not have a nuclear weapons program so the first post of the thread is debunked. End of thread.*

Bush is only accusing Iran of having the capacity of developing nuclear weapons, which means nothing. And lets not forget the only country to ever use the bomb was USA, and it was used on civilians.


----------



## mayk (17 April 2008)

I think balancing of nuclear power in a region is really important:Some examples:

Russia & America.

Pakistan & India.

These countries use these weapons as nuclear detterent, so that a war will not start.

Iran & Isreal if both nuclear armed I guess will not pose such a huge problem. Then they might start thinking that it will be mutually assured destruction, why not work towards peace!

Just my 2 Cents


----------



## roland (17 April 2008)

mayk said:


> I think balancing of nuclear power in a region is really important:Some examples:
> 
> Russia & America.
> 
> ...




Sounds good, except when you are dealing with the possibility of the destructive power falling into the hands of people who consider self destruction as the ultimate religious sacrifice to their cause - the "Mexican Standoff" doesn't work in that scenerio


----------



## Prospector (17 April 2008)

Why not a strike on India - they are right next to Afghanistan/Pakistan aren't they.  
For what its worth, if someone did launch a real attack on the US I dont think they would have enough military power anymore to fight it.  And the US tends to judge everyone else on its own values, which, as juw has already pointed out, meant being the only country to launch a nuclear attack, and on civilians to boot!


----------



## disarray (17 April 2008)

Santob said:


> But lets not let war distract us from what is really going on. The collection of the common wealth of the USA into fewer and fewer hands prior to the collapse of the Pax Americana.




quoted for absolute truth.

if america attacked iran they would probably get their asses handed to them. the US is stretched very thin manpower wise so their chief force projection would be their gulf fleet. however in wargames the fleet takes heavy losses when confronted by large numbers of small agile craft which is irans strategy. added to this iran has a credible anti-ship defence with its sunburn missile system. the US does have undisputed air power but you can't defeat a country solely from the air.

i'm currently bearish on america


----------



## Santob (17 April 2008)

disarray said:


> quoted for absolute truth.
> 
> if america attacked iran they would probably get their asses handed to them. the US is stretched very thin manpower wise so their chief force projection would be their gulf fleet. however in wargames the fleet takes heavy losses when confronted by large numbers of small agile craft which is irans strategy. added to this iran has a credible anti-ship defence with its sunburn missile system. the US does have undisputed air power but you can't defeat a country solely from the air.
> 
> i'm currently bearish on america




And Iran does have some form of an airforce - which neither Afghanistan nor Iraq had.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 April 2008)

Anyone remember Bush having to admit (last Dec) that he should have known that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003. 
Trust Bush ? - yeah right 

  Bush : Iran is imminent threat Keith Olbermann MSNBC Part1

 Bush : Iran is imminent threat Keith Olbermann MSNBC Part2

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bush5dec05,0,6387210.story?coll=la-home-center



> Iran continues to be a threat, Bush says
> template_bas
> template_bas
> *The latest report on the country's halting of a nuclear weapons program in 2003 indicates the need for ongoing international pressure, he says*.
> ...



etc  etc


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 April 2008)

"Facts are of no consequence to this WhiteHouse." 

  Keith Olbermann: George Bush and His Iranian Masquerade

We have either a pathological presidential liar , 
or idiot in chief ? 

 Keith Olbermann - Bush: Pathological liar or idiot-in-chief?


----------



## ithatheekret (17 April 2008)

By West are we including Israel ?


----------



## So_Cynical (17 April 2008)

Some things in the world are maybes...others are certainty's

However it happens...Iran will not be allowed to have Nukes.


----------



## wayneL (17 April 2008)

So_Cynical said:


> Some things in the world are maybes...others are certainty's
> 
> However it happens...Iran will not be allowed to have Nukes.



Prolly, but I wonder about the cost of that.


----------



## mayk (18 April 2008)

> However it happens...Iran will not be allowed to have Nukes.




For how long? 10,20,50 100 years ?

At what cost? 10T,100T,1000T ?


Please study the recent history of Iran, they were among one of the most westernized nations in Muslim world (along with Afghanistan), before Uncle sam (and USSR) tried to play their nasty games in this region, to gain control over oil. 

Check out the 1960-1980 history of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq. They were the booming economiese of that era. Pakistan was split in to two in 1971, Iran's Shah was removed in 1979, Afghan was attacked by russia in 1979, and good old' Suddam Hussain retain control of Iraq in 1965 with USA help.

See a pattern? How a stable region was destroyed?

Funny fact is all of them are neighbours, and now all of a sudden all of them are destablised, fanatics. Were they not fanatics before 9/11 when west was eyeing the red army? It is all there to create an illusion of enemy presence so as to justify the means to keep pouring money in to the army of US of A

It is human nature to forget....


Just to quote a rare inseight in to people psychologyby a  US presenditial candidate


> Obama told wealthy supporters in San Francisco this month that embittered residents of hard-hit Pennsylvania and Midwest towns "cling to guns or religion or anti- pathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."




This is what people do in financial distress, and who created that financial/economical  distress in the first place in those countries...


----------



## jman2007 (18 April 2008)

disarray said:


> quoted for absolute truth.
> 
> if america attacked iran they would probably get their asses handed to them. the US is stretched very thin manpower wise so their chief force projection would be their gulf fleet. however in wargames the fleet takes heavy losses when confronted by large numbers of small agile craft which is irans strategy. added to this iran has a credible anti-ship defence with its sunburn missile system. the US does have undisputed air power but you can't defeat a country solely from the air.
> 
> i'm currently bearish on america




Well yes,

And don't forget to add in the fantatical support that the Mullahs would whip up. At the end of the day, no-one should forget that no matter how unpopular a particular regime may be, people will still gives their lives to defend every square millimeter of their homeland in the name of nationalism. Their airforce is certainly not the worst either.

When I was in Iran, I got a combination Turkish/Iranian massage from none other than an Iranian airforce pilot, he was about the size of a anti-tank barrier. By the time he'd finsihed with me, I felt like I'd been trampled by a pack of furious gorillas, and he was being gentle . 

I fail to see what effect bombing Iran would have. Many of their key technologies are spread all over the country, some in very well protected underground bunkers. I think with Iran even _hinting_ of threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, the US would be quaking at their knees .

That's Irans trump card .

jman


----------



## Lucky (18 April 2008)

mayk said:


> Please study the recent history of Iran, they were among one of the most westernized nations in Muslim world (along with Afghanistan), before Uncle sam (and USSR) tried to play their nasty games in this region, to gain control over oil.
> 
> Check out the 1960-1980 history of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq. They were the booming economiese of that era. Pakistan was split in to two in 1971, Iran's Shah was removed in 1979, Afghan was attacked by russia in 1979, and good old' Suddam Hussain retain control of Iraq in 1965 with USA help.
> 
> ...




As the powers that be once again throw the dice, I wonder how the developments in both Serbia/Kosovo and Georgia/Abkhazia will play out on their version of RISK?


----------



## rowes (18 April 2008)

I dont think the west would have to strike Iran.

Israel would strike first as they did in 81 at the Osiraq nuclear centre. They have already said that as long as they could do something about it they will by all means neccesary do whatever it takes to ensure Iran does not have nuclear arms. I think its only a matter of time, didnt Iran go public again just in the last week or two about the comission of a heap of new centrifuge's for uranium enrichment?

Anway the whole scenario is really scary,I hope for one they dont become nuclear and I hope they dont get bombed for tryin.


----------



## Superfly (18 April 2008)

ithatheekret said:


> By West are we including Israel ?




Yes...


----------



## Superfly (18 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Anyone remember Bush having to admit (last Dec) that he should have known that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
> Trust Bush ? - yeah right
> 
> Bush : Iran is imminent threat Keith Olbermann MSNBC Part1
> ...




Yes..take one old intelligence report and play it up... "20/20" your talking 2003... it is now 2008 and Iran has recently stated that it will resume unranium enrichment and never again suspend that process. 

Maybe...President Bush does not want to be remembered as the President who let the mad Mullahs get the bomb..


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 April 2008)

By Iran are we including anyone with opinins different from USA?


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 April 2008)

Superfly said:


> Yes..take one old intelligence report and play it up... "20/20" your talking 2003... it is now 2008 .




that was last december SF
Bush was the one who hadn't heard of it till then , 
despite happily talking up WWIII 

as Olbermann says 
the man is either a pathological liar 
or idiot in chief .

do yourself a favour - stop believing everything that Bush says.


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (18 April 2008)

I reakon the US will hit Iran because they can not let their control over the oil market be brought into question by countries such as Iran and venezula. If they were left alone they would sell huge amounts of oil in non US dollars and depeg alot of currencies from the USD. 

Realistically that would bring on very rapid and far reaching econmic changes that would probably force the US economy into collapse, which is probably a good thing because at the moment they are bleeding to death.

Also I think a big part of it is peak oil, alot of people think we are there or almost there and when that happens control of oil supplies will be the most important thing to most countries. When oil starts declining and prices keep rising we can all kiss strong world growth goodbye (all ready starting?)I think alot of countries will struggle to survive and I dont see lowering inflation is possible for a long time untill we cut dependance of deminishing oil supplies.

Food prices, fertiliser, transport prices, manufacturing prices will all continue to rise as oil rises. The US can not remain a superpower unless it has the worlds cheapest oil hence Iraq, Iran, sauid arabia, quatar etc they basically control most of the gulf oil already.

a bit of topic but has anyone else thought what the world and our standard of living is going to be like in 5-10 years when oil could be 300+ a barrel and millions upon millions of people are starving etc. Im about to have my first kid in Oct and honestly Im affraid to think what the world could be like in 2050. Barring a lot of tech innovation, move to new energy and shift to protecting the environment I think we could be on the path towards a potential civilisation collapse ?


----------



## metric (18 April 2008)

israel has illegal nukes. we dont see the us even talking about that!!! it must be because of israels great human rights record.....

iran hasnt invaded anyone to my knowledge. their war with iraq was inspired by the us and acted apon by their puppet saddam...

the us will do what israel tells it. either bomb iran or we (israel) will. its really about oil......


----------



## Sean K (18 April 2008)

I think pre-empive strikes (or 'invasions') are unlikely at this time.

(Even though the CIA are operating in Iran and Pakistan as we speak. Along with MI6, Mossad, and ASIS, and every other intelligence service with a military operations wing)

An open military strike or invasion will probably require some very hard evidence of imminent threat. Not some BS mobile 18 wheeler nuclear labs last presented as hard evidence. 

I doubt Israel will first strike, or even retaliate, because that would have more implications than taking a stick to hezbollah. A strike on Iran, or retaliation, will unite Sunni and Shiites and bring all Muslims against Israel and thus the West behind the US. Unacceptable risk. A real WWIII.

So, the odds are against Israel being involved, and the US can only act with some evidence that will convince Russia and China. I highly doubt anycurrent western government will back the US after the current debacle for a start.


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (18 April 2008)

Question is would you support a war on Iran if the choice was to keep living your current lifestyle or the alternative of putting the western world back into a severe long lasting depression where you have no job can't feed your kids etc.

It was only back in the 30's when sydney siders were joining the hungry mile at the ports where the queue was literraly km's long of people hunting for a days work.

I don't like the idea of plundering another country but in all seriousness the US has no choice now they either take others resources or push a large portion of their pop into poverty. 

Oz is somewhat shielded we have huge amounts of indeigenous resources and could prob replace oil with a larger electrical industry. The US has alot of coal but not many other large resources deposits to turn the balance of trade. 

If it really came down to the tough decision I doubt any of us wouldn't steal the oil. Fact is world governments aren't going to acknowledge that publically but the tough decisions are happening right now.


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (18 April 2008)

kennas said:


> I think pre-empive strikes (or 'invasions') are unlikely at this time.
> 
> (Even though the CIA are operating in Iran and Pakistan as we speak. Along with MI6, Mossad, and ASIS, and every other intelligence service with a military operations wing)
> 
> ...




I dont think they have a choice they either invade and take the risk of putting more economic pressure on the budget but have a fall back of huge oil supplies of they take the cheap option and bomb Iran back to the 19th century and try to covertly put in a US friendly gov. They will do it with or without world wide support. I mean the UN is a farce they didn't need China or russias approval to go into Iraq, I don't think the europeans will really stop them they may make a bit of noise but realistically they are is the same position as the US. No indigenous energy supplies and economies that are teatering. Spain, england and ireland are looking shaky, italy hasn't had good grwoth in over a decade the only countries doing well are the Germans and teh former warsaw pact countries to the east. The EU needs the new eastern members would than they make out.


----------



## wayneL (18 April 2008)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> I don't like the idea of plundering another country but in all seriousness the US has no choice now they either take others resources or push a large portion of their pop into poverty.
> 
> Oz is somewhat shielded we have huge amounts of indeigenous resources and could prob replace oil with a larger electrical industry. The US has alot of coal but not many other large resources deposits to turn the balance of trade.
> 
> If it really came down to the tough decision I doubt any of us wouldn't steal the oil. Fact is world governments aren't going to acknowledge that publically but the tough decisions are happening right now.



That view means we are no better than the Mongolian hordes of the 13th century.

What about running the economy properly and buying the stuff.

We're going to kill 100's of 1000's of men women and children, so we can live frivolous lives filled by buying cheap Chinese tat? There is something amiss in our value system if that is the case!

FFS!

Prudence <> Poverty


----------



## metric (18 April 2008)

kennas said:


> I think pre-empive strikes (or 'invasions') are unlikely at this time.
> 
> (Even though the CIA are operating in Iran and Pakistan as we speak. Along with MI6, Mossad, and ASIS, and every other intelligence service with a military operations wing)
> 
> ...




you make sence kennas. unfortunately, nothing the puppet bush does, ever makes sence. it would surprise me none at all to wake up one morning an watch military video of smart bombs murdering factory workers of irans industrial complexes. of course, these factories will somehow be linked to the manufacture of nukes....

interestingly, 90% of irans oil is within 300km of the iraqi border. whats the chance of the us 'securing' these oil wells in the 'interests' of world stability, and 'potential' iranian 'sabotage' ?

kiwi. if the west (or the coallition of the willing) needs to murder iranian civilians in a bullcrap war, to protect their bottom line, we will not be the goody anymore. how would that effect the national psyce of those involved?


----------



## Sean K (18 April 2008)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> They will do it with or without world wide support. I mean the UN is a farce they didn't need China or russias approval to go into Iraq, I don't think the europeans will really stop them they may



Kiwi, I disagree in this regard. The US needed support for GWII. They had the UK, Australia, and I think Spain initially. This was enough to give the US credibility to move in. I do feel that they might have gone solo, but the risk would have been much greater and potentially unacceptable. 

In regard to Russia and China, these two countries are much, much stronger now and weilding a much bigger stick. I'd be very surprised if these two are not a serious military ally in the coming years and make the US their puppy. Give it another 15 years for a total change of leadership. We will see it.


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (18 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> That view means we are no better than the Mongolian hordes of the 13th century.
> 
> What about running the economy properly and buying the stuff.
> 
> ...




hahahaha
Well I would argue we aren't different, and that would be great to trade but what if you have nothing to trade with? We can afford to buy oil because we have so many other resources to drive our economy.

I think your forgetting pretty much every advanced, modern civilisation and country has become great from expoiting others resources. 

England had India, the Dutch had the east indies, spain had south america, France once had all of europe. It is a fact that without resources to back up your economy there is very little else by way of economics that could make a country have a high standard of living. With out resources what can you do? become a manufacturing base... then the only way your cometitive is to have cheap labour there for a lower standard of living.

To maintain our lifestyle in the west would be impossible without resources to back it up. The financial industry is only profitable because they invest in off shore resource plays and emerging economies. US banks and investment firms make money from oversea's venture I mean look what happens when they dive into local investments with no productive backing we end up with subprime.


----------



## nomore4s (18 April 2008)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> Question is would you support a war on Iran if the choice was to keep living your current lifestyle or the alternative of putting the western world back into a severe long lasting depression where you have no job can't feed your kids etc.
> 
> It was only back in the 30's when sydney siders were joining the hungry mile at the ports where the queue was literraly km's long of people hunting for a days work.
> 
> ...




Wow, what are we becoming if this is the veiw of our society?
Who gives a sh*t about the innocent people that will die over there and the fact they will be in pov and starving, as long as we're happy and have our oil. Very sad.



wayneL said:


> That view means we are no better than the Mongolian hordes of the 13th century.
> 
> What about running the economy properly and buying the stuff.
> 
> ...




Agree totally Wayne.



metric said:


> kiwi. if the west (or the coallition of the willing) needs to murder iranian civilians in a bullcrap war, to protect their bottom line, we will not be the goody anymore. how would that effect the national psyce of those involved?




I think we're closer to not being the goodie then many think. Some of the arguements to justify some of the actions of the west already leave alot to be desired imho.


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (18 April 2008)

kennas said:


> Kiwi, I disagree in this regard. The US needed support for GWII. They had the UK, Australia, and I think Spain initially. This was enough to give the US credibility to move in. I do feel that they might have gone solo, but the risk would have been much greater and potentially unacceptable.
> 
> In regard to Russia and China, these two countries are much, much stronger now and weilding a much bigger stick. I'd be very surprised if these two are not a serious military ally in the coming years and make the US their puppy. Give it another 15 years for a total change of leadership. We will see it.




just because alot of people won't agree with it won't mean it won't happen. There are so many puppet governments out their controlled by the US that would give their moral support. I mean half the countries that were in the coallition for iraq were back water tiny nations with no economic of population might and were by no means a real indication of world support. Who cares if isalnd nations like Naru or samoa join you if russia and china don't (even though they have combined over a quarter of the worlds population and economic power)

I think you are also not taking into account the influence the US can exert through covert means. Look at the Olympic games, as if the US isn't trying to turn public opinion against china they are doing a good job. They control or exert huge control over all the western media. So much so that countries like China and Iran cut of public access to the internet and news becuase they know they will be feeding their people the US agenda.

The US does not need support from anyone they believe that they set the moral benchmarks. I mean look at the latest amnesty international report (US fingerprints all over it) China worlds largest exucutioner followed by Iran ! if you keep telling people these people are the devil they will believe it. I mean look at palestine, the US puppet of israel has been systematically pushing them out of their country building a prison around the rest of them, starving them of food and energy for 40 years ! where is the mainstream public critism for that? Which i would argue is one of the worst atrocities committed in the 20/21st century. Not to mention the CIA rendition, guantanimo etc etc.


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (18 April 2008)

nomore4s said:


> Wow, what are we becoming if this is the veiw of our society?
> Who gives a sh*t about the innocent people that will die over there and the fact they will be in pov and starving, as long as we're happy and have our oil. Very sad.
> 
> 
> ...




hahahaha very sad

you are living in a fairy land mate. I dont want to see innocent people killed and I do care but im a realist.

I don't have to like it and i don't agree with it but for 2 billion years life on earth has been working on the principal of survival of the fittest, given it has a new context because we have developed so much intellectually.

But if you really cared about everyone in africa or iran as much as you do your family or yourself why aren't you doing all you can to improve their lives.

Fact is the world CAN NOT support 6 billion people living as you and I do, there has always been people with and with out. 

The very fact that you are living a consumer lifestyle is basically the same as doing the damage yourself.

You may not be shooting someone or dropping a bomb directly but those 1000 dollars worth of chinese made plastic gadets you give your family at xmas with no real need for them other than to get a smile from you kid is taking resources away from feeding hungry africans etc etc. 

Innaction and ignorance is no better than been directly involved in the persecution of others.


----------



## Sean K (18 April 2008)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> just because alot of people won't agree with it won't mean it won't happen. There are so many puppet governments out their controlled by the US that would give their moral support. I mean half the countries that were in the coallition for iraq were back water tiny nations with no economic of population .



Kiwi, need to check who actually supported the war in Iraq. 

I do agree on the 'puppet' comment, but only in the sence that anyone is a puppet when it suits their own needs. On the sum of it, those supporting the US need them, under their own sence of current reality. 



KIWIKARLOS said:


> I don't have to like it and i don't agree with it but for 2 billion years life on earth has been working on the principal of survival of the fittest,



Actually, it's natural selection.


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (18 April 2008)

kennas said:


> Kiwi, need to check who actually supported the war in Iraq.
> 
> I do agree on the 'puppet' comment, but only in the sence that anyone is a puppet when it suits their own needs. On the sum of it, those supporting the US need them, under their own sence of current reality.
> 
> Actually, it's natural selection.




True

I just get worked up on this topic because there are 19 year old US kids over in Iraq right now that really have no other reason to be there other than to get their education paid for at a 2nd rate college to better their lives. When in fact they will probably go home traumatised, scarred having nightmares for the rest of their life (if they dont end up disabled or dead) and the real reason they are they is to protect our way of life so people like you and I can sleep well at night in the nievity that even though we really are good people at heart the truth is we are indirectly just as responcible for actions and inactions that cause pain and suffering around the world.


----------



## nomore4s (18 April 2008)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> hahahaha very sad
> 
> you are living in a fairy land mate. I dont want to see innocent people killed and I do care but im a realist.
> 
> ...




lol, what I was trying to point out was if we are willing to start wars with countries only to secure oil and to keep living our excessive lifestyles and to keep our flawed economies running, that is pretty sad and desperate.

Surely there is a happy medium. And like Wayne said what's wrong with fixing our economies and buying the stuff.


----------



## Sean K (18 April 2008)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> True
> 
> I just get worked up on this topic because there are 19 year old US kids over in Iraq right now that really have no other reason to be there other than to get their education paid for at a 2nd rate college to better their lives. When in fact they will probably go home traumatised, scarred having nightmares for the rest of their life (if they dont end up disabled or dead) and the real reason they are they is to protect our way of life so people like you and I can sleep well at night in the nievity that even though we really are good people at heart the truth is we are indirectly just as responcible for actions and inactions that cause pain and suffering around the world.



I get worked up on it as well, especially in the lead up to every ANZAC day. I've just been reading about some of the Western Front calamity in WWI and it's just shocking. Just remember that military action is an extension of politics by other means. We have all signed up to the present government, and their alliances, and our military will do what out government sees fit. The military are extentions of ourselves. There's many Aussie troops returning traumatised from Iraq and Afghanistan because we sent them there.


----------



## Sean K (18 April 2008)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> True
> 
> I just get worked up on this topic because there are 19 year old US kids over in Iraq right now that really have no other reason to be there other than to get their education paid for at a 2nd rate college to better their lives. When in fact they will probably go home traumatised, scarred having nightmares for the rest of their life (if they dont end up disabled or dead) and the real reason they are they is to protect our way of life so people like you and I can sleep well at night in the nievity that even though we really are good people at heart the truth is we are indirectly just as responcible for actions and inactions that cause pain and suffering around the world.



I get worked up on it as well, especially in the lead up to every ANZAC day. I've just been reading about some of the Western Front calamity in WWI and it's just shocking. Just remember that military action is an extension of politics by other means. We have all signed up to the present government, and their alliances, and our military will do what our government sees fit. The military are extentions of ourselves. There's many Aussie troops returning traumatised from Iraq and Afghanistan because we sent them there. Kennas


----------



## Santob (18 April 2008)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> True
> 
> I just get worked up on this topic because there are 19 year old US kids over in Iraq right now that really have no other reason to be there other than to get their education paid for at a 2nd rate college to better their lives. When in fact they will probably go home traumatised, scarred having nightmares for the rest of their life (if they dont end up disabled or dead) and *the real reason they are they is to protect our way of life *so people like you and I can sleep well at night in the nievity that even though we really are good people at heart the truth is we are indirectly just as responcible for actions and inactions that cause pain and suffering around the world.




The section in bold..how has that actually happened in Iraq? 

WMDs were never there, so the WMD situation hasn't changed. You've asserted that the US is stealing oil, so howcome oil is getting more expensive and the US economy is tanking?

Sure Saddam is gone, whether life for Iraqi's is any better questionable. But its a moot point in terms of how it protected *our* way of life.

The terrorists how have a foothold in a part of the world they weren't in

Our "western" societies are becoming more draconian, invasive and in fact have resulted in less freedom *boo terrorism, need security, give money now or your family will DIE, and don't try complaining about it you terrorist sypmathiser * 

So remind me again why the young kids are over there?


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (18 April 2008)

Santob said:


> Here we go...again with this pre-emptive nonsense, because it was such a success in Iraq.






numbercruncher said:


> Are we getting low on Oil again ?






kennas said:


> The US military economy must need a boost.






prawn_86 said:


> Should China launch a pre-emptive strike against America to prevent future Iraqs/Afghanistans/Iran's happening?  :




lol funny comments guys


As for my 2 bob, I saw my neighbour look at me funny this morning, he's a different nationality to me and comes from a different background, unfortunatley I'm unedcuated and ignorant so I fear what I don't know or understand (which is alot) so I'm thinking of king hitting him next time I see him, you know sorta strike first ask questions later as to why he was looking at me wierd :

p.s. The bastard also recently got a guard dog, how dare he try and protect himself!

I'll keep you posted about this developing crisis :


----------



## juw177 (18 April 2008)

Do people still think that corporations and corporate funded governments care about human lives in non western countries?

They have all been following the same formula, the US are very good at it:
1. PR campaigns to rally public sympathy
2. PR campaign that an intervention will make things better
3. They go in and loot the crap out of the country while media keeps up the humanitarian intervention front.

Congo is the most extreme:
2 billion are dead as a result of keeping the western world supplied with coltan, an ore used in computer chips. But no one talks about that in the media. Instead they keep bringing up the Rwanda genocide and the endangered mountain gorillas as reason for occupation.

Sudan, Tibet and Lebanon next on the list?


Here is a bit of history for those who are still in doubt as to motives of any western intervention:
http://www.mltoday.com/Pages/Imperialism/Blum-USWars.html


----------



## Sean K (18 April 2008)

YOUNG_TRADER said:


> I'm unedcuated and ignorant




LOL 

I'm adding that on to the 'Little Noob', claim! 

he he


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (18 April 2008)

Santob said:


> The section in bold..how has that actually happened in Iraq?
> 
> WMDs were never there, so the WMD situation hasn't changed. You've asserted that the US is stealing oil, so howcome oil is getting more expensive and the US economy is tanking?
> 
> ...




OIL

our entire way of life is based on CHEAP abundant energy.

The huge increase in living standards from the 19 century is based on this and its coming to an end.

150 years ago if you wanted to live as you do today you would have to have a few slaves and horses and a huge amount of land. Now with one barrel of oil at 100 dollars you get the equivalent of 18000 man hours of work (chemical energy but lots of losses etc from refining etc etc) How do you transport a family of four 100 kms with luggage for about $20 of fuel any way else ? Without oil what do you do have 10 dogs pulling a sled, 4 horses 

The entire green revolution of the 1970's which led to the huge population we now have in the world was on the back of oil based fertilisers. There isn't enough bat poo i the world to replace it.

Do you think people will drink bottled water when the cost of the plastic container it comes in could be 10 -20 -30 dollars ?

If we were to replace oil with renewable technologies we would starve half the world. Even to repalce all shopping bags with corn starch based biodegradble bags would result in a massive increase in the price of corn more loss of natural habitates to grow the stuff.

If you want to learn more about exactly how dependant our entire way of life is based on the oil economy watch a doco called "the crude awakening" its available at vid stores. Its really quite astonishing to relise how complacent we are about the whole peak oil thing the reprocusions and inevitability of the whole thing really make you see the world in a different way.


----------



## metric (18 April 2008)

Santob said:


> Our "western" societies are becoming more draconian, invasive and in fact have resulted in less freedom *boo terrorism, need security, give money now or your family will DIE, and don't try complaining about it you terrorist sypmathiser *
> 
> So remind me again why the young kids are over there?




exactly.


----------



## Sean K (18 April 2008)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> OIL
> 
> our entire way of life is based on CHEAP abundant energy.



Kiwi,

Have you considered that there will be a transition period between fossil fuels, and 'natural' energy, or an alternative, like solar, wind, wave etc. Fossil fuels are not the ONLY solution. We will mearly go through an economic transition. The reason why we still live off fossil fuels is because they are abundent, and economic to process and use. Once the balance tips we will go to other means. Right now we are developing those means and one of the most significant enablers of those means is nano technology which is being held back because it is not required just yet. Nano is going to change EVERYTHING for us in the coming years. Think about a solar panel on your house and car roof that provides ALL the energy you need in your life. That is the outcome. At the moment it is not required because of world economic equilibrium. We will probably see it in our time however.


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (18 April 2008)

hang on think about it this way what should our goal be as humans?

world peace, every person fed, clothed and educated. A economy and way of life that works with the environment, equal opportunities..

Colonisation of space ?

How can we possibly get to any of these ideals without some form of WORLD government. I acknowledge the dangers of a world government but realistically think of the huge potential benefits. Trade couldn't be used as a weapon resources distributed evenly and a reduction of environmental destruction.

Religeon must be seperated from state across the globe if we are to ever make something really special of the human race and as bad as it can be regulated capitalism and democracy are really the only way we have of achiving this.

I think time is running out to start doing something toward this and I think the US knows this, there have been many papers written by neocons and scientists stating exactly this. The only way the world can continue on as it is now is with huge and far reaching governmental change and a fundamental shift is our economies and way of life.

We need to work as one world but there is so much vested interest in the status quo that to build a new world we have to tear down much of our existing world.


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (18 April 2008)

kennas said:


> Kiwi,
> 
> Have you considered that there will be a transition period between fossil fuels, and 'natural' energy, or an alternative, like solar, wind, wave etc. Fossil fuels are not the ONLY solution. We will mearly go through an economic transition. The reason why we still live off fossil fuels is because they are abundent, and economic to process and use. Once the balance tips we will go to other means. Right now we are developing those means and one of the most significant enablers of those means is nano technology which is being held back because it is not required just yet. Nano is going to change EVERYTHING for us in the coming years. Think about a solar panel on your house and car roof that provides ALL the energy you need in your life. That is the outcome. At the moment it is not required because of world economic equilibrium. We will probably see it in our time however.




Totally agree mate and the one thing about humans are we are good adapters.

I believe we can shift to natural energy, I work in the electrical industry and there are already huge stepps been taken.

In 20 years most transport will be based on electrical rather than fossil but the problems is unless we severly change our use of energy we will not be able to catch up with consumption.

By improving efficiency we can quickly improve at least 25% and that could be done within 5-10 years.

I strongly believe efficiency is the answer, why have 3 air conditioners powered by wind turnines when you can have a house that regulates its temp. Prob is we really need to harden up in the west and rather than insisting on 18 degrees in summer live with the fact that 25-30 is a realistic comfortable range. Why try to play god and turn summer into spring we cant fight nature.

Why import food why not just live and eat by the seasonal availability as our grandparents did.

We are spoiled and really need to wake up as a society IMHO oz shuld be aiming to be self sufficient


----------



## Sean K (18 April 2008)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> hang on think about it this way what should our goal be as humans?
> 
> world peace, every person fed, clothed and educated. A economy and way of life that works with the environment, equal opportunities..
> 
> How can we possibly get to any of these ideals without some form of WORLD government. I acknowledge the dangers of a world government but realistically think of the huge potential benefits.



Kiwi, I don't think it can be done. We can't even be best friends with our neighbours without a fence and council rules. And, we barely get on with the people inside our house because of differences. How is the world going to get on? Or the universe? 

As far as supporting anyone else in a country far, far, away, it's only to make my own world better.


----------



## derty (18 April 2008)

kennas said:


> Right now we are developing those means and one of the most significant enablers of those means is nano technology which is being held back because it is not required just yet. Nano is going to change EVERYTHING for us in the coming years.



Yep totally agree Kennas, nano will fundamentally change the world we live in, it will usher in a new 'age'. 

I just hope the Nano Age gets here before the big boys start to duke-it-out over the dwindling petro-resources.


----------



## Sean K (18 April 2008)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> Totally agree mate and the one thing about humans are we are good adapters.



YES! and it's why we have survived and become the dominant species. Having big brains and thumbs has aided in that regard. I think we've been lucky in a confluence of ideal circumstances that has allowed the caveman to survive. Who knows how it really happened, but here we are. Maybe it was blind luck!


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (18 April 2008)

that reminds me of this native american saying i read the other day it was along the lines of

" A man can not own the air we breath any more than he can own the land we live on"

Seemed very profound and made me think just because i live in a country what makes me OWN the country or any part of it. Generations before walked my footsteps and generations after will walk the same path. Oil made over 500 millions years we claim as ours.

It just makes the whole idea of ownership of anything seem rediculous because when it comes down to it we dont really own anything. You may have a piece of paper saying you own a piece of land but what truely makes it yours ?

There for how can i not share the resources of my country or sell them at profit ?

In jeruselum Muslims, jews and christians lived in harmony for centuries I have seen shows with israeli grandparents saying how they used to leave their kids with their palestinian friends to baby sit.

Many cultures had ways of living that worked well as mixed societies and worked with the environment its no secret we just seem to have forgotten.


----------



## Santob (18 April 2008)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> OIL
> 
> our entire way of life is based on CHEAP abundant energy.
> 
> The huge increase in living standards from the 19 century is based on this and its coming to an end.




I'll repeat my earlier post



			
				santob said:
			
		

> You've asserted that the US is stealing oil, so howcome oil is getting more expensive and the US economy is tanking?




What you're saying is, that if the US had not invaded Iraq, oil would have increased at an even greater rate. Given that Iraq has some of the worlds largest remaining oil reserves, how would have leaving Iraq alone, NOT have regulated oil prices on its own?


----------



## metric (18 April 2008)

like iraq was, now iran is talking about selling oil in euros NOT us dollars. no more swapping paper for oil for the us. man, thats gotta hurt!!


----------



## Santob (18 April 2008)

I'll repeat my earlier opinion, that the invasion of Iraq had little or nothing to do with oil, weapons, terrorism or getting rid of Saddam. It was daylight robbery of the American peoples money, by a ruling elite (assisted by their puppets in the administration), to protect their assets from the demise of the American economy.


----------



## metric (18 April 2008)

interesting. ive read simmilar before. i agree there is a non elected ruling elite. i agree the us (so far) middle class is getting robbed, and 'elected' politicians are puppets of the elite.

please expand.


----------



## juw177 (18 April 2008)

metric said:


> interesting. ive read simmilar before. i agree there is a non elected ruling elite. i agree the us (so far) middle class is getting robbed, and 'elected' politicians are puppets of the elite.
> 
> please expand.




You only need to look at what Ben Bernanke and his banker friends are doing right now. The illegal Bear Sterns bail out is a good start.


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (18 April 2008)

Santob said:


> I'll repeat my earlier opinion, that the invasion of Iraq had little or nothing to do with oil, weapons, terrorism or getting rid of Saddam. It was daylight robbery of the American peoples money, by a ruling elite (assisted by their puppets in the administration), to protect their assets from the demise of the American economy.




Interesting idea

How would invading Iraq protect their assets though? I though that it wouldn't really matter, if their assets are US based or in US dollars they would loose anyway right?

Maybe if their interests were in US oil companies i could see it, Iraq just released their fields up for international oil companies and we all know the US will prob get a large share of the reserves. We know Bush has huge oil interests and Cheny and rumsfield are into the military industry heavily (haliburton etc) so that would make sense and the democrats don't really have as much in oil etc.

I think the republicans are hoping that Obama and clinton destroy each others hope at a victory then swing in to pick up the pieces and role on with the master plan.

One thing is for sure the US military industrial complex has such deep rooted and legalised corruption that it has become a farce. The government has lost control and doesn't work for the people it is in fact become a lame company who is insolvent.

Prob is when these companies go multinational they operate without any countries laws and without any specific countries benefits in mind. They are in essence working for the directors and shareholders. I think nationalisation or at least good regulation is required of all big companies to ensure they work in the public interest rather than against it. Espiecially resource companies.

I like what the south americans are doing In political term sto I feel that the system with 4 year terms and two identical parties with slightly different agendas isn't working. we end up with polies who won't make the big painful decisions that are neccessary because they are scared of getting voted out next round. I personally think longer terms would be beneficial in getting real gains in society and we need to encourage more political parties and ideals to get more innovation


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (18 April 2008)

Also the prob with US is you dont have to vote and to become a president requires hundreds of millions of dollars.

Australia works well I think we all speak our mind at voting time.

The US citizens have really been sitting back let their country go downhill without demanding change although i think the lack of independant media prob has alot to do with that.


----------



## robert toms (18 April 2008)

As most of you no doubt know,the US is the only country in history to have a war time economy in peace time.Bill Bryson ,for one,points this out.
They are ready for war at anytime with their standing military.
If Rome wanted to start a campaign they had to raise an army and the finance to do so.
Russia was always worried about its borders...for the US.. have gun will travel.
If  they do not have dangers and enemies,conspiracy theories ,and the like the upkeep of this massive military cannot be justified....but we lurch from one threat to another....domino theories,communist ambitions.WMD's in Iraq,terrorists are everywhere,Iran nuclear,North Korea to attack US etc etc etc.
The president is called the Commander in chief...Hollywood glorifies the military  and the military life....and if they lose Rambo wins on the screen!
And they cannot even provide universal healthcare for their people.
Their economic and military policies are very closley linked.


----------



## Sean K (18 April 2008)

robert toms said:


> As most of you no doubt know,the US is the only country in history to have a war time economy in peace time.Bill Bryson ,for one,points this out.
> They are ready for war at anytime with their standing military.
> If Rome wanted to start a campaign they had to raise an army and the finance to do so.
> Russia was always worried about its borders...for the US.. have gun will travel.
> ...



Nice perspective RT, and probably on the mark to a large degree.

Although, not sure if BB should be a supporting argument.


----------



## Santob (18 April 2008)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> Interesting idea
> 
> How would invading Iraq protect their assets though? I though that it wouldn't really matter, if their assets are US based or in US dollars they would loose anyway right?




It wasn't the invasion of Iraq that protected their assets, it was the invasion full stop. They could've invaded Pakistan if they really wanted to crack down on terrorism. What declaring an unending war on terrorism allows is to bankroll any number of "classified in the name of nationa lsecurity" projects, like i said before, if you question it - you're a terrorist sympathiser. 

As for the US based assets, enough of *any* currency can still live you a good life, look at Zimbabwe for instance, Mugabe isn't exactly living a subsistence lifestyle now is he?




> Maybe if their interests were in US oil companies i could see it, Iraq just released their fields up for international oil companies and we all know the US will prob get a large share of the reserves. We know Bush has huge oil interests and Cheny and rumsfield are into the military industry heavily (haliburton etc) so that would make sense and the democrats don't really have as much in oil etc.




The pefect environment to offer no-bid contracts to your pals. By the way, how good are you and your mates at hiding cash in your pockets?



> *Are missing U.S. billions now funding Iraqi insurgents?*
> Published: February 7, 2007
> 
> WASHINGTON: A House committee report has questioned whether some of the billions of dollars in cash shipped to Iraq after the American invasion ”” mostly in huge, shrink-wrapped stacks of $100 bills ”” might have ended up with the insurgent groups now battling American troops.
> International Herald Tribune




See that kind of $12 Billion dollar stuff-up has nothing to do with Oil, Iraq, Saddam or Terrorism.



> I think the republicans are hoping that Obama and clinton destroy each others hope at a victory then swing in to pick up the pieces and role on with the master plan.




And that sort of bickering again plays into the "treat the public as ignorant fools". Jon Stewart despite, being a political comedian described it best when he said such partisan hackery only hurts America.




> One thing is for sure the US military industrial complex has such deep rooted and legalised corruption that it has become a farce. The government has lost control and doesn't work for the people it is in fact become a lame company who is insolvent.




Precisely, and what does any good CEO of a failing company do? put the assets into the wifes name.



> Prob is when these companies go multinational they operate without any countries laws and without any specific countries benefits in mind. They are in essence working for the directors and shareholders. I think nationalisation or at least good regulation is required of all big companies to ensure they work in the public interest rather than against it. Espiecially resource companies.
> 
> I like what the south americans are doing In political term sto I feel that the system with 4 year terms and two identical parties with slightly different agendas isn't working. we end up with polies who won't make the big painful decisions that are neccessary because they are scared of getting voted out next round. I personally think longer terms would be beneficial in getting real gains in society and we need to encourage more political parties and ideals to get more innovation




Now thats a whole other discussion.


----------



## Santob (18 April 2008)

robert toms said:


> As most of you no doubt know,the US is the only country in history to have a war time economy in peace time.Bill Bryson ,for one,points this out.
> They are ready for war at anytime with their standing military.
> If Rome wanted to start a campaign they had to raise an army and the finance to do so.
> Russia was always worried about its borders...for the US.. have gun will travel.
> ...




I much preferred it when hollywood considered Asteroids as the greatest threat to their lifestyles.


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (18 April 2008)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19764.htm

A good article on energy security and the changing world.
Shows that China and US are really going head on each other to gain control of resources.

Iran has 55% of world gas supplies! Russia in good shape for the next 200 years. As is oz

Also another reason why I only invest in energy at the moment and foreseable future.

Anyone know any good companies to get exposure to Aust NW gas shelf or the new PNG / QLD emerging gas infrastructure. I know of QGC which have been going from strength to strength but missed the big gains. 

Seems its the big boys getting into PNG Exxon etc but NW shelf is the one im really interested in.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 April 2008)

jman2007 said:


> Well yes,
> 
> And don't forget to add in the fantatical support that the Mullahs would whip up. At the end of the day, no-one should forget that no matter how unpopular a particular regime may be, people will still gives their lives to defend every square millimeter of their homeland in the name of nationalism. Their airforce is certainly not the worst either.
> 
> ...




The less nations who have nuclear capability the better.

Couldn't the Western Allies just bomb the crap out of the nuclear sites on a regular basis without actually invading the country. With satellites and star war technology this shouldn't be too difficult. 

Ahmadinejad and his cronies are quite mad enough as they are without having nuclear arms to get their jollies off and threaten us and all around them. 

gg


----------



## Santob (18 April 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The less nations who have nuclear capability the better.
> 
> Couldn't the Western Allies just bomb the crap out of the nuclear sites on a regular basis without actually invading the country. With satellites and star war technology this shouldn't be too difficult.
> 
> ...




So hang on, satellites and star wars, mad cronies, nuclear arms and jollies from threats to all and sundry..who are you arguing for and against here?

You are with us or against us right?


----------



## disarray (18 April 2008)

metric said:
			
		

> israel has illegal nukes. we dont see the us even talking about that!!! it must be because of israels great human rights record




israel has a small problem of millions of arabs who want to kill them and who have invaded their country several times.



			
				metric said:
			
		

> the us will do what israel tells it. either bomb iran or we (israel) will. its really about oil




thats a bit contradictory. they will do it for oil, or they will do it because israel tells them to do it. two different masters at play there.



			
				wayneL said:
			
		

> We're going to kill 100's of 1000's of men women and children, so we can live frivolous lives filled by buying cheap Chinese tat? There is something amiss in our value system if that is the case!




yeah our value system is pretty bad at the moment. the baby boomers killed god so theres a big hole where our society's spirituality should be. i've seen several videos of angry black people ranting about how white people have no soul, maybe they have a point.



			
				juw177 said:
			
		

> Do people still think that corporations and corporate funded governments care about human lives in non western countries?




its common knowledge that they don't even care about their own people. corporations care for profit first and foremost. and secondmost.



			
				KIWIKARLOS said:
			
		

> One thing is for sure the US military industrial complex has such deep rooted and legalised corruption that it has become a farce. The government has lost control and doesn't work for the people it is in fact become a lame company who is insolvent.
> 
> Prob is when these companies go multinational they operate without any countries laws and without any specific countries benefits in mind. They are in essence working for the directors and shareholders. I think nationalisation or at least good regulation is required of all big companies to ensure they work in the public interest rather than against it.




god yes. at the multinational level meaningful shareholders aren't people like us anyway, its banks and insurance companies and our superannuation money which is being used for private ends.


----------



## wayneL (18 April 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Ahmadinejad and his cronies are quite mad enough as they are without having nuclear arms to get their jollies off and threaten us and all around them.
> 
> gg




I'm just wondering who qualifies as the maddest....


----------



## jman2007 (18 April 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The less nations who have nuclear capability the better.
> 
> Couldn't the Western Allies just bomb the crap out of the nuclear sites on a regular basis without actually invading the country. With satellites and star war technology this shouldn't be too difficult.
> 
> ...




Well it comes down to who is madder than who?...Iran or the US?

No, bombing the crap out of them not an option, not even remotely:

1.) US bombs the crap out of Iranian suspected nuclear sites.

2.) Iran retaliates by firing missiles into Israel.

3.) Israel retaliates by bombing Iranian military installations.

4.) Syria attacks the Golan heights, and Hezbollah attack Israel from Lebanon.

5.) Turkey sends army units to its border with Syria.

You get the idea. WWIII in an instant.

*And factor in a world oil supply with the Straight of Hormuz closed. Say goodbye to your oil-dependent economy.*

jman


----------



## So_Cynical (19 April 2008)

jman2007 said:


> Well it comes down to who is madder than who?...Iran or the US?
> 
> No, bombing the crap out of them not an option, not even remotely:
> 
> ...



Thanks for getting this thread back on Topic....however ill have to disagree with your assumptions.

Israel will be the country doing the bombing...as Israel is the only country that could do it with any 
legitimacy...The Iranian Govt will know its coming, as will the US...the US will have 2 carrier Groups 
near by to lend assistance to Israel.

When the inevitable retaliation happens, most of the Iranian Air force and missile sites and military 
infrastructure etc will be destroyed in a couple of days....thus leaving Iran unable to do pretty 
much anything of significance. 

It will all be over in a week or less...the Syrians wont do anything as theres just no upside for them.


----------



## jman2007 (19 April 2008)

So_Cynical said:


> Thanks for getting this thread back on Topic....however ill have to disagree with your assumptions.
> 
> Israel will be the country doing the bombing...as Israel is the only country that could do it with any
> legitimacy...The Iranian Govt will know its coming, as will the US...the US will have 2 carrier Groups
> ...




I certainly wouldn't underestimate the long arm of Iran, or their capabilities.

Hezbollah are basically a proxy Iranian presence in Lebanon. Remember during the recent conflict with Israel, they were able to unleash barrages of rockets into Israel seemingly at will, with Israel unable to stop them or locate their firing positions quickly enough. 

The Iranians aren't stupid, and I doubt the US or Israel has adequate intelligence to pinpoint every single military target in the country simultaneously, or within a few days. Like their "nuclear" technology, it will be distributed right across their vast country, much of it out of sight.

The Iranians certainly wont be the first one's to kick this off, but I'm sure   they'll have a well thought out response if it comes to this. Remember the "west" wont be facing a half-assed, ill-equipped rabble this time, but a highly motivated and determined force, with a _significant_ bargaining chip up their sleeve.

Syria are still smarting after losing the Golan heights to Israel decades ago, technically the part under Israeli control still belongs to Syria. With Israel's attention diverted elsewhere, and a potentially wideneing regional conflict, I admit a land-grab would be unlikely...but hey, why the hell not? Emotions run high in this part of the world.

jman


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 April 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The less nations who have nuclear capability the better.
> 
> Couldn't the Western Allies just bomb the crap out of the nuclear sites on a regular basis without actually invading the country. With satellites and star war technology this shouldn't be too difficult.
> 
> ...






So_Cynical said:


> Thanks for getting this thread back on Topic....however ill have to disagree with your assumptions.
> 
> Israel will be the country doing the bombing...as Israel is the only country that could do it with any
> legitimacy...The Iranian Govt will know its coming, as will the US...the US will have 2 carrier Groups
> ...




I must apologise.

I thought that a military strike on Iran would involve bombing the nuclear sites.

Perhaps it might be more appropriate to send four 747s with our Dear Leader Lu Kewen and the mob from the 2020 summit to subject the Iranian leadership to two days of boring elitist waffle.

That would sort them out. 

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Perhaps it might be more appropriate to send four 747s with our Dear Leader Lu Kewen and the mob from the 2020 summit to subject the Iranian leadership to two days of boring elitist waffle.



"so cynical" has been out-cynic'ed I think


----------



## STRAT (19 April 2008)

So_Cynical said:


> It will all be over in a week or less....



I love a good cynic but you have to be an American Millitary General with a comment like that  What are you doing moonlighting on an Aussie share site?


----------



## So_Cynical (20 April 2008)

STRAT said:


> I love a good cynic but you have to be an American Millitary General with a comment like that  What are you doing moonlighting on an Aussie share site?



Its usually pretty easy to see whats gona happen...i successfully predicted the out come of Gulf war 1 
with the statement that.....It will be all over with thin 40 days, and the allies will kill more of there own 
troops than the Iraqis do.

I think it took 45 days...give or take.

There was a Doco on SBS the other week....subject, suicide bombers.

The phenomenon was sorta invented by the Iranians during the darkest days of the Iran Iraq war 
and perfected with the bombing of the US marines barracks in Beirut, 1983...this attack has always 
gone "unclaimed", thats to say that no 1 group wants to take responsibility for it and the death 
toll of 241 American servicemen....the Yanks just don't forget about that sorta stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing

They know who was behind it and will be more than happy to have a legitimate excuse 
to bomb them into the stone age.

In Iran suicide bombing is called "martyrdom" 

The civilized world will not allow Iran to have Nukes.


----------



## metric (20 April 2008)

cynic. iran is not making bombs. just like there were no wmd's in iraq. 

if you want to bomb a country that has illegal nukes, bad human rights record, attacks other countries at random, murders its neighbours civillians, and ignores international law, bomb israel into submittion.


----------



## numbercruncher (20 April 2008)

metric said:


> iran is not making bombs.




How could you possibly know that with such absolute conviction?


----------



## metric (20 April 2008)

firstly. be honest and admit you agreed that iraq had wmd's and you supported the 'war'. which of course makes you complicit in the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent iraqis.

that not being good enough for you, you now want to argue the case for the wholesale slaughter of iranian civillians because the same intel agencies that told you of wmd's, now tell you that iran is making a bomb!!!!

think!!!! why would iran build 1 or 2 or 10 nukes, when the use of even one of them would see them wiped off the face of the earth???? and why would you believe the us intel agencies?


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 April 2008)

sometimes you see books written by idiots like this bloke. 

and you wonder "maybe this is a self-fulfilling prophecy - and maybe he'll be able to cliam he was right all along?" 

http://the-end.com/2008GodsFinalWitness/?gclid=CKzTiueE6JICFScvagodQBMe5A



> 2008 - God's Final Witness
> As these events unfold, the world will increasingly become aware of the authenticity of the words in this book and realize that Ronald Weinland has been sent by God as His end-time prophet.




Personally I think that the sabre-rattling at Iran likewise ends up to some extent as a self fulfilling prophesy - if not for nuclear weapons then for a stronger defensive military/ airforce etc - which in turn can become offensive.    The poor bugas are terrified of USA going insane (again). 

PS "There are many fictional books ...
THis book is NONFICTION !"  lol

PS It predicts the end of the USA this year. 

I predict that they won't need to make many reprints after December 
(which works either way !!) 

btw, we've all only got 3.5 years of "self-rule" (?)  left 



> From now until the latter part of 2008, many prophecies are going to begin to be fulfilled, especially the Seven Thunders of the Book of Revelation, *which the apostle John saw but was restricted from recording*. Those thunders are revealed in this book, as well as detailed accounts of the final three and one-half years of man's self-rule on earth, which are recorded in the account of the Seventh Seal of Revelation.
> 
> Some of these prophecies concern the demise of the United States over the next year, which will be followed by man's final world war.... etc


----------



## Superfly (20 April 2008)

jman2007 said:


> Well it comes down to who is madder than who?...Iran or the US?
> 
> No, bombing the crap out of them not an option, not even remotely:
> 
> ...





How about...

1 - Israel's crack air force bomb Iranian sites along with US submission bombing to dull any Iranian response. 

2 - Iraq settles down as insurgents stop getting arm shipments from Iran. 

3 - Iran is now in internal turmoil as the moderates have had enough of the mullahs taking them to the brink of destruction and the government falls. 

4. Kevin Rudd talks about a Republic. 

5. Oil prices hit US150+ barrel. 

6. Iran starts a new path to world acceptance, backed at the start by high oil revenue. 

8. Syria remains a problem but has lost a close friend. 

9. China eye's Taiwan....


----------



## Superfly (20 April 2008)

metric said:


> cynic. iran is not making bombs. just like there were no wmd's in iraq.




How can you say that....

So whats Iran doing under the mountains... !!

...so in the 11 years that UN weapon inspector's were searching Iraq, but with restricted access, you knew the whole time that there were no weapons to be found... you do realize that Saddam never gave unrestricted access to UN weapons inspector's... 

Why is Iran not giving access to all sites ?? what does Iran have to hide ...


----------



## disarray (20 April 2008)

metric said:


> cynic. iran is not making bombs. just like there were no wmd's in iraq.
> 
> if you want to bomb a country that has illegal nukes, bad human rights record, attacks other countries at random, murders its neighbours civillians, and ignores international law, bomb israel into submittion.




you're being a bit over the top metric, israel is hardly the big bad boy on the block surrounded by peace loving, reasonable neighbours. hamas and hezbollah launch almost daily rocket attacks against israeli civilians and break just about every ceasefire / peace process the world tries to broker. they do this because they are stupid tribal arab muslims from the 16th century. from the creation of israel (whether it was legal, moral or not) they have been repeatedly invaded by their neighbours and live under constant threat of extermination. this isn't some paranoia but based on muslim politicians and religious leaders continually jumping up and down in public preaching murder and death to israel and the jews.

iraq had MWD's. the west sold them to iraq and we all saw on tv how saddaam used them. iran wants MWD's. they keep ranting that they want "ultimate weapons" to annihilate israel. 



			
				metric said:
			
		

> think!!!! why would iran build 1 or 2 or 10 nukes, when the use of even one of them would see them wiped off the face of the earth???? and why would you believe the us intel agencies?




you think! iran have publicly and repeatedly stated that they want nukes, they want to nuke israel and they reckon they can handle the retaliation. how much more of a hint do you need? and even if they can't handle retaliation they'll be martyred anyway because they are doing gods will. you seem to have the impression that you are dealing with rational, reasonable people who can be negotiated with. there is no negotiation with radical islam.


----------



## Superfly (20 April 2008)

disarray said:


> there is no negotiation with radical islam.




This is what the loud minority forget... or choose to ignore...


----------



## prawn_86 (20 April 2008)

Superfly said:


> This is what the loud minority forget... or choose to ignore...




Quite obviously from this sample not a minority, Superfly.


----------



## jman2007 (20 April 2008)

So_Cynical said:


> Its usually pretty easy to see whats gona happen...i successfully predicted the out come of Gulf war 1
> with the statement that.....It will be all over with thin 40 days, and the allies will kill more of there own troops than the Iraqis do.
> 
> I think it took 45 days...give or take.




Well I hope you didn't try to predict the outcome of Iraq Round 2, cos you'd still be counting today.



metric said:


> cynic. iran is not making bombs. just like there were no wmd's in iraq.




The admission below was a major embarassment for the Bush administration, and is probably one of the more acccurate intelligence assessment that we have available.

A recent assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies concludes *Iran shelved its nuclear weapons program over four years ago. *
"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program," reads a declassified version of the National Intelligence Estimate key findings.



Superfly said:


> How about...
> 
> 1 - Israel's crack air force bomb Iranian sites along with US submission bombing to dull any Iranian response.
> 
> ...




Superfly, with any aggressive action, there will always be a reaction, sooner or later. The Iranian response wouldn't necessarily have to come from Iran either, as Hezbollah have basically created a "state within a state" in Southern Lebanon, so right on Israel's doorstep.

For all their technological wizadry and weapons, the Israelis aren't as good as they think they are. In the recent conflict Hezbollah managed to listen in on their communications as the IDF were using unsecured frequencies, so they basically new what they were going to do, and gave them a bloody nose.

Can't see the Iranian Govt falling if they come under attack just yet, if anything it may play into their hands as the Iraq invasion did during the Iran-Iraq War....which is called the "Holy Defense" in Iran. Even if they are distinctly unpopular among the middle class, they still have the military firmly in their corner, and to be seen as a victim of an unjustified attack can have the effect of gelling a country together.

jman


----------



## jman2007 (20 April 2008)

disarray said:


> . you seem to have the impression that you are dealing with rational, reasonable people who can be negotiated with. there is no negotiation with radical islam.




Hhhmmm...

Funny, I could have sworn you were talking about the good ol' US of A here. Some people might argue there is no negotiation with radical nationalistic, defense-obsessed, global bulllies either.

jman


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 April 2008)

Blix says Iran situation reminiscent of Iraq - 27 Oct 07
AlJazeeraEnglish



> Hans Blix former head of UN inspection team in Iraq
> Current Chairman of the WDM Commission
> 
> no I don't think US has any evidence  ... of a will on the part of Iran to want nuclear weapons
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 April 2008)

superfly]This is what the loud minority forget... or choose to ignore[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=prawn_86 said:


> Quite obviously from this sample not a minority, Superfly.




classic


----------



## disarray (20 April 2008)

jman2007 said:


> Funny, I could have sworn you were talking about the good ol' US of A here. Some people might argue there is no negotiation with radical nationalistic, defense-obsessed, global bulllies either.




fair call. but as we all know in america money talks loudest, you can always buy your way out of trouble with them


----------



## Superfly (20 April 2008)

> A recent assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies concludes *Iran shelved its nuclear weapons program over four years ago. *
> "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program," reads a declassified version of the National Intelligence Estimate key findings.



Iran has resumed its programme of enrichment, that is stated...which also produces weapon grade material...




> Superfly, with any aggressive action, there will always be a reaction, sooner or later. The Iranian response wouldn't necessarily have to come from Iran either, as Hezbollah have basically created a "state within a state" in Southern Lebanon, so right on Israel's doorstep.
> 
> For all their technological wizadry and weapons, the Israelis aren't as good as they think they are. In the recent conflict Hezbollah managed to listen in on their communications as the IDF were using unsecured frequencies, so they basically new what they were going to do, and gave them a bloody nose.
> 
> Can't see the Iranian Govt falling if they come under attack just yet, if anything it may play into their hands as the Iraq invasion did during the Iran-Iraq War....which is called the "Holy Defense" in Iran. Even if they are distinctly unpopular among the middle class, they still have the military firmly in their corner, and to be seen as a victim of an unjustified attack can have the effect of gelling a country together.




Yes many many outcomes from a strike... but as for Hezbollah, they are local trouble for Israel. As for Iran, yes it could be the Holy defence with Syrian fighters joining...


----------



## Superfly (20 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> classic




So you think that a "stock market" forum is a true representative gauge of the entire Australian community....

Just like all those anti-Iraq marches... school kids being marched by their left wing teachers, and few thousand (maybe) marched in Sydney... hmmm last time I looked there was 3+ million people in Sydney...


----------



## metric (20 April 2008)

jman2007 said:


> Hhhmmm...
> 
> Funny, I could have sworn you were talking about the good ol' US of A here. Some people might argue there is no negotiation with radical nationalistic, defense-obsessed, global bulllies either.
> 
> jman






funny, sad, but true. and we are their lap dog followers...


----------



## juw177 (20 April 2008)

Superfly said:


> So you think that a "stock market" forum is a true representative gauge of the entire Australian community....
> 
> Just like all those anti-Iraq marches... school kids being marched by their left wing teachers, and few thousand (maybe) marched in Sydney... hmmm last time I looked there was 3+ million people in Sydney...




If you support the Iraq war you are the minority. That is you Superfly. Despite what you might believe, repeating what Bush says on an internet forum does not win support.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (20 April 2008)

juw177 said:


> If you support the Iraq war you are the brainwashed minority (or you are high up in the CIA / *Blackwater* / Exxon / Haliburton). That is you Superfly. Despite what you might believe, repeating what Bush says on an internet forum does not win support.




I thought the organisation was Blackbriar not blackwater http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Blackbriar 

I believe their controlled by treadstone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Treadstone#Treadstone_71 :


p.s. Superfly umm you might want to check out this group, see if you can't get some help? http://www.beyondblue.org.au/index.aspx?


----------



## mayk (20 April 2008)

Pop Quiz: Name the most radical country in Middle east?
Hint : _Allegdly_ most of the sept 9/11 pilots were from this country.


Recently Hilliary clinton said that they will protect the said country with the US  army? 

Reason: OIL, OIL, and OIL.....OIL.

Do you think secretly all the Arab countries wish Isreal well? If they do not  say it openly, they covertly do not oppose Isreal extintion.

Kingdom, will be very happy, if Isreal and Iran both of them are wiped off the face of this earth. They do not have any love for either...

Remember Iran does not have any good relations with any of its neighbours, they follow a different sect of Islam and are not liked by its muslim neighbours.

There is a lot more politics involved in that region than visible to a naked eye. Covert and overt operations are protecting the nations with significant oil resources. 

Lets look at the demands of these so called 'Islamist'. They want western forces to leave their land. While this may come as a surprise to many. They also want to live in peace. Please note 'Islamist' are not alqaeda, they are the people who want to live life according to their culture, religion and do not want interference from other nations into their national and political affairs. 

But the 'white man' burden is so huge, that they want to democratize these nations. I ask why? Why interfere with other countries internal politics. Especially resource rich nations? Why not interfere in regions where heinous crimes against humanity are commited.


I do not believe west will feel any safer after invading Iran or bombing them to stone age. 

No interference from US in these regions is necesasry for the long term peace. Because as I said before, USA has this magical ability to transform a simple problem into an unsolvable catastrophie, proven time and time again. except Kosovo ( largely thanks to  NATO ) they are not able to solve any conflict in the past. Korean war, Iraq war, Vitnam War...Afghan war....Need I say more.


----------



## Superfly (20 April 2008)

YOUNG_TRADER said:


> I thought the organisation was Blackbriar not blackwater http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Blackbriar
> 
> I believe their controlled by treadstone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Treadstone#Treadstone_71 :
> 
> ...




Yeh whatever.... your input to the thread is about as much use as Kevin Rudd is as a Prime Minister...


----------



## onebytwo (20 April 2008)

Superfly said:


> So you think that a "stock market" forum is a true representative gauge of the entire Australian community....



Of course not. There are more than 75% opposing any military strike.


Superfly said:


> Just like all those anti-Iraq marches... school kids being marched by their left wing teachers, and few thousand (maybe) marched in Sydney... hmmm last time I looked there was 3+ million people in Sydney...



Sorry, no school kids are forced to march with their "left wing teachers" at any rallies.
A few thousand? More like 100 thousand. And not everybody opposing the war came out to march.
How many Australians marched in support of the iraq war? Let me guess. None. "hmmm last time I looked there was 3+ million people in Sydney."
Democracy in Action


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 April 2008)

onebytwo said:


> How many Australians marched in support of the iraq war? Let me guess. None. "hmmm last time I looked there was 3+ million people in Sydney."
> Democracy in Action



1x2,   lol
I suspect superfly is happier arguing against demonstrations 
except of course if they're against China - 

then I'm sure he's right out there with his placard - surrounded by those loony lefties 



			
				superfly said:
			
		

> So you think that a "stock market" forum is a true representative gauge of the entire Australian community



so you think that 25-75 would somehow become 51-49 if it went to the (presumably less educated) non-ASF audience?
you're dreaming !


----------



## jman2007 (20 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> "Facts are of no consequence to this WhiteHouse."
> 
> Keith Olbermann - Bush: "Pathological liar or idiot-in-chief?"




Uuuh,

I'd say all of the above.:

Never heard of this Olbermann chap before, but he's great! Gives me some hope that the US still has people who care, and will ask the tough questions.

Some great quotable quotes in these vids:

Keith Olbermann - On Bush's performance in the press conference: "This is like a guy falling off a roof into a camp fire" Lol...

Keith Olbermann - On the threat of _other_ nations pursuing nuclear technology: "Better watch out for those Carthaginians, they may make a comeback". Hahahahah!!...

Good stuff
jman


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 April 2008)

jman2007 said:


> Never heard of this Olbermann chap before, but he's great! Gives me some hope that the US still has people who care, and will ask the tough questions.... Good stuff



he's brilliant isn't he 

how about where the press are ALL asking tough questions of Bush - INCLUDING Murdoch's Fox News , (probably one of the most right wing operating in USA)  “even they seemed incredulous at the President’s claims , etc” 

  Keith Olbermann: George Bush and His Iranian Masquerade

“the president seems to think he’s a genius because he knows where Iran is” lol

“the intelligence will not be morphing to take into account the new intelligence”
better not to get too involved with intelligence George baby – you obviously can’t handle it 
"military intelligence" - the original oxymoron! (especially in the hands of a moron like GWB)

“NEI talks about how carrot and stick approach can work”
meanwhile John Bolton (remember him – US representative to the UN ?) 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton
and this is one of my all time favourite quotes 


> “we don’t do carrots!”




final questoin - imagine having a beer with Keith Olbermann 
or having one with Bush lol.  - weave duck weave duck etc


----------



## prawn_86 (20 April 2008)

Others have covered this for me, but since it was i direct response to me i will also.



Superfly said:


> So you think that a "stock market" forum is a true representative gauge of the entire Australian community....




I never said it was a representative sample. Hence why i said it was a sample...

On this site at least you are in the minority, either deal with it and discuss the matter politely, or dont deal with it, and dont discuss it.


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 April 2008)

btw lol
here he is talking about questions for McCain to answer 

 Keith Olbermann: Questions for John McCain

ps millions more here
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Keith+Olbermann+&search_type=


----------



## jman2007 (20 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> he's brilliant isn't he
> 
> how about where the press are ALL asking tough questions of Bush - INCLUDING Murdoch's Fox News , (probably one of the most right wing operating in USA)  “even they seemed incredulous at the President’s claims , etc”




Yep,

I don't think I've ever seen a leader squirm as much during an interview.  His blatant lack of preparation for these questions, which he must have known were coming, is breathtaking. 

I used to love how he pronounced nuclear as "_Nucular_ all the time, that must have made his speechwriters just groan and shake their heads! At least we know he's made his first faltering steps towards conquering the English language. 

jman


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 April 2008)

:topic Here's one where he shows that Fox  even rewrites history in their published transcripts (of Bill OReilly show - the man is also a moron)

Rupert Murdoch permits OReilly to stay on the air. - thanks God Murdoch is an ex- Australian  

(Since we are heading into Anzac Day ) 

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Keith+Olbermann+&search_type=

btw, Here's what he thinks of Bil O'Reilly (Fox News) 
 Bill O Reily Wrong Again

PS speaking of OReilly, here's another pet topic of mine 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ&NR=1


----------



## Superfly (21 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> > 1x2,   lol
> > I suspect superfly is happier arguing against demonstrations
> > except of course if they're against China -
> >
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 April 2008)

Superfly said:


> 1. .. but its only if it is America that the left ( like you ) gets all excited, only worry about a war if it involves America... and if I think that athletes from my home country should not take part in an event being held in a country being run by a murderous government, then thats does not make me a left winger... koh jai mai ...
> 
> 2. And you are saying that FOX gets it wong !! ... when did I post anything of this meaning... and you are the one big mouthing about how President Bush lies and B O'R lies and here you are doing the same thing.
> 
> ...




1. so are you gonna demonstrate or aren't you?

and (sequel) do people who demonstrate (left right or middle) deserve a contemptuous sneer ?  - (mind you some do  )

PS better make that "do they ALWAYS deserve a contemptuous sneer" lol - some appear to be real funny (see below) until you realise that they're serious.  

2. yes Fox often get it wrong , if you're after a fair discussion of the facts.  Try AlJazeeraEnglish's interview with Hans Blix back there - see if you can find that sort of fair analysis on Fox anywhere 

I didn't say you lied - although anyone who laps up what Bill OReilly says (including Abu Grahib etc)  should get out more.  If you qualify - hey, they I was discussing you I guess. 

Here's an analysis of how he interviews people btw (the same interview posted at the end of my most recent post , viz  


> PS speaking of OReilly, here's another pet topic of mine etc




 Dawkins vs. O'Reilly, Analyzed

3.  So -  Are you're saying a poll that included less educated people would take it from 25-75 to 51-49?   And then you can claim that the 49 are the loud minority?  like I said , you're dreaming on both counts (if you are saying that).


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 April 2008)

and speaking of Abu Ghraib (gee - anyone else have words they keep  forgetting how to spell ? )

Have you ever heard Peter Cosgrove on the subject?
Mind you he was quick to move onto the next topic , but (interviewed last Anzac Day) he made it crystal clear that "the Yanks aren't playing by the rules" etc.



			
				Superfly said:
			
		

> 1. .. but its only if it is America that the left ( like you ) gets all excited, only worry about a war if it involves America...



so superfly
did you contribute to the thread on Burma that I started ?  (I forget - maybe you did - in which case you've forgotten that I also post on matters other than USA)


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 April 2008)

or the other thread ... Musharraf letting down the team in Pakistan by thinking he could kick out the judges (who are now back at their benches). - Not that he was doing anything about the Taliban.  

btw, seen the news lately about the US Democrats making serious accusations about the Taliban & AQ being allowed to roam free in those hills , - regrouping massively etc - (and hence making the efforts of our SAS etc almost futile)  

and only red faces by the Whitehouse Spokesmen when they try to justify their *total lack of any sort of plan *!


----------



## STRAT (21 April 2008)

So_Cynical said:


> In Iran suicide bombing is called "martyrdom"
> 
> The civilized world will not allow Iran to have Nukes.



In the US a terrorist is anyone who disagrees with the Bush Administration and Countries to be invaded are selected on the basis that they have something the US wants and doesnt want to pay for. Being civilized has bugger all to do with any of it.


----------



## Superfly (21 April 2008)

STRAT said:


> > In the US a terrorist is anyone who disagrees with the Bush Administration and Countries to be invaded are selected on the basis that they have something the US wants and doesnt want to pay for.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## juw177 (21 April 2008)

Superfly said:


> So where does the revenue from Iraq's oil exports go...




Exxon and others of Bush's friends, duh. Were you thinking of something different? Or are you still in your dream.


----------



## Superfly (21 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> and speaking of Abu Ghraib (gee - anyone else have words they keep  forgetting how to spell ? )
> 
> Have you ever heard Peter Cosgrove on the subject?
> Mind you he was quick to move onto the next topic , but (interviewed last Anzac Day) he made it crystal clear that "the Yanks aren't playing by the rules" etc.
> ...




Burma thread no... but would have if seen it...esp coz been there and I spend most of my time in that part of the world. 

People are in uproar about Guantanamo Bay, but do not blink an eye lid at China hosting the Olympics... 

Because of Guantanamo no longer can the Muslims laugh in our guys faces saying "see you in New York with my lawyer"...


----------



## Stan 101 (21 April 2008)

Superfly said:


> Why is Iran not giving access to all sites ?? what does Iran have to hide ...




Officer Stan 101 here. I have reason to believe that you, Superfly have been implicated in some nefarious activity by the local town drunk. He has a track record of not being all that accurate and will say just about anything to further his agenda (get more booze) but I'd still like to enter your house on short notice on a regular basis and sift through your undies drawer amongst other places..

How do you feel about that?



cheers,


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 April 2008)

Superfly said:


> Because of Guantanamo no longer can the Muslims laugh in our guys faces saying "see you in New York with my lawyer"...




question is will they blow themselves up in our faces as well 

violence begets violence
stupidity begets stupidity
torture begets torture
beheadings beget beheadings
etc

the PNG natives call it "payback"
then again they are a lot more inteligent than Abu Ghraib ever was. 

GWB might brag "He who lives by the sword, dies by the smartbomb"

trouble is 
how will "he who presses the trigger of the smartbomb" die?


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 April 2008)

speaking of WWIII
Einstein I think it was

"I'm not sure exactly how WWIII will be fought,
but I can tell you that WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones"


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (21 April 2008)

I don't believe that the world can avoid a large scale war or a large number of regional wars.

Why
1. There are 6 billion people on the planet and by 2020 that could be 10 billion the earth can not support that many people so either naturally or un naturally the balance will be restored.
2. Energy, food and water will become more and more scarse and expensive
3. There is no global body that has effective means of settling disputes or solving any world problems such as hunger or aids. The UN is a farce and no individual country is going to sacrifice its prosperity to help others without every one else doing the same.
4. Religeon is still very closly and if not increasingly tied to the state. When you mix religeon and politics you loose the ability to make the right decisions. Policy based on religeons thousands of years old will push our progress backwards.

There is always a balance and IMO that balance is screwed across the globe in trade, environment and politics. These imbalances tend to adjust very quickly.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (22 April 2008)

Superfly said:


> Because of Guantanamo no longer can the Muslims laugh in our guys faces saying "see you in New York with my lawyer"...




Thats a pretty big generalisation, see I know I haven't taken this thread seriously but then when you make generalisations like that well its hard to,

Perhaps you should replace the word Muslim with terrorist? 

Also who is "our guys faces"?

And do you really know what goes on at Guantanamo? 

What about the stories coming out of Iraq, ie military crimes etc etc?

There is 2 sides to a coin


----------



## metric (22 April 2008)

it would be hard to argue that any invaded country in history didnt have some type of suicide action or other. the french did in ww11. if oz was invaded and whole families were murdered, friends and family murdered, suburbs blown up, infrastructure devestated, peoples future ruined, you were starving, no sanitation, oppression, etc, etc, im pretty sure there would be aussies that wold take the same action the "terrorist" iraqis do.


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (22 April 2008)

thats right mate, people do start commiting SUICIDE (bombings)
when they get to a point of desperation. You don't see israelies launching suicide attacks in Gaza.

People say but they have tanks and guns why shouldn't they use them....
They are using tanks and helicopters against a general population not an army or significantly armed force.

Katusha rockets are a joke compared to any of the arsenal Israel has.

And YT i totally agree with the lack and distorting of the news reported by our mainstream media. There is a tonne of documentary evidence showing exactly what is going on in the middle east at the moment. 

That said i think that the innocet people are caught in a power struggle bewtwen the US / Allies and the emerging powers and russian comback. 

I don't think the chinese are having to much concern about killing civilians in Tibet any more than the US does in Iraq


----------



## disarray (22 April 2008)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> That said i think that the innocet people are caught in a power struggle bewtwen the US / Allies and the emerging powers and russian comback.




i disagree. most innocent people are caught in a power struggle between old, established factions and the US / russia / china are taking advantage of this to pursue their own goals in their own power struggles.

look at the palestinians breaking up into hamas and fatah, or tribal genocides in africa - these places have been fought over since they were settled by man, the civilised and stable parts of the world are just profiting from the conflict. this also is nothing new, ther persians profited from a divided greece, rome profited from a divided gaul, england profited from a divided india, pick an empire, any empire.


----------



## juw177 (22 April 2008)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> And YT i totally agree with the lack and distorting of the news reported by our mainstream media. There is a tonne of documentary evidence showing exactly what is going on in the middle east at the moment.
> 
> I don't think the chinese are having to much concern about killing civilians in Tibet any more than the US does in Iraq




ahem.. (on China) and I thought you knew a thing or two about news distortion. There is also a tonne of documentary evidence showing exactly how CIA is manipulating Tibetan people and western public opinion for their causes.

disarray you have the right idea about the powerful dividing other countries.... why would you view Tibet and China any different?


----------



## doctorj (22 April 2008)

:topic

There are plenty of other threads discussing China/Tibet - could we please try to keep the discussion of that issue there and keep this one as on-topic as possible.

Cheers!


----------



## Superfly (23 April 2008)

YOUNG_TRADER said:


> Thats a pretty big generalisation, see I know I haven't taken this thread seriously but then when you make generalisations like that well its hard to,
> 
> Perhaps you should replace the word Muslim with terrorist?
> 
> ...




Would be nice to not take this subject seriously, but with Iran now enriching and refusing to stop enriching ever again, there are real storm clouds on the horizon... 

Yes ok, will replace that with Islamic terrorist with muslim sympathizers...  and because of Guantanamo these dangerous inmates can not get a lawyer and start using the law to evade being held (out of circualtion) where they can do no harm to ordinary people or until they have given up the infomation that they may hold. 
Why don't you start looking at the reasons why those people are being held in the first place, not the current position they are in, D Hicks is a prime example.

The 9/11 hijackers broke no laws did nothing wrong until 9/11... !

Considering how many troops are in Iraq and the vicious cowardly attacks that these troops face day in day out in some areas of that country, the amount of crimes coming out is minor..


----------



## mayk (23 April 2008)

Superfly said:


> Considering how many troops are in Iraq and the vicious cowardly attacks that these troops face day in day out in some areas of that country, the amount of crimes coming out is minor..




can't argue with a person who is lacking the skills of perception, and knowing the feeling of putting oneself in another person shoes.


Were Nazis not the victims of cowardly acts by french freedom fighters? Did they not think the same about jews, crimes commited are just minors...

Even the presedential candidates of USA acknowledge that the Iraq war was unjust , unfair and want to withdraw troops. Your prime minister is withdrawing troops, Uk is withdrawing troops, and you still believe that Iraq war is a right cause?

Which reality are you living in mate, what happened to Justice and innocent until proven guilty doctorine? Are the great principles of west crumbling under terrorist threat? Then I concur that Terrorist have already won...


----------



## Santob (23 April 2008)

Superfly said:


> Considering how many troops are in Iraq and the vicious cowardly attacks that these troops face day in day out in some areas of that country, the amount of crimes coming out is minor..





Who asked them to be there in the first place?


----------



## robert toms (23 April 2008)

I thought that the vicious cowards were the coalition of the willing...After they killed at least ten thousand in a cowardly indiscriminate bombing attack on Baghdad,Bush starting bragging about the victory.
The old make sure that your opponent is defenceless then attack them.
In Vietnam the Americans published their kill rates...In Iraq they either do not value human life,or the truth about their cowardice would not be good for propaganda.
Americans publish their death rate in Iraq....but are we meant to have sympathy  for them?
Criminal invaders should not get sympathy,
I can empathise with the ordinary ideologically conditioned soldiers,but not with their masters in the White house and the Pentagon
I was ideologically conditioned once like Superfly,but I transcended myself..


----------



## treefrog (23 April 2008)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> I don't believe that the world can avoid a large scale war or a large number of regional wars.
> 
> Why
> 1. There are 6 billion people on the planet and by 2020 that could be 10 billion the earth can not support that many people so either naturally or un naturally the balance will be restored.
> ...




great summary Karlos - only thing needed to add is that homo sapiens are by nature self serving and religious: sure there are many who don't like or accept this and appear to display more desirable altruistic tendencies, but when the chips are down its back to the fundamentals we were born with.
any equation(s) trying to solve world issues must factor this in or it simply will not solve the issue(s).


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (23 April 2008)

Terrorism is a war tactic not group of people.

By having a war on "terror" you essentially justify endless rolling wars against any advesary you label a terrorist.

who are we actually fighting against ?
Al quada ?
Iran ?
China?
russia?
are we fighting against freedom and self determination
or is it just national soveighty.


----------



## derty (23 April 2008)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> Terrorism is a war tactic not group of people.
> 
> By having a war on "terror" you essentially justify endless rolling wars against any advesary you label a terrorist.




"Oceania is at war with Eastasia.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Eurasia is our ally.  Eurasia has always been our ally."


----------



## metric (23 April 2008)

al CIAda. its a lie. its a phanton organisation. the us invented an enemy.


----------



## disarray (23 April 2008)

well not exactly, but kinda.

The Power of Nightmares

Part 1 on Youtube


----------



## metric (23 April 2008)

ziopedia. tread carefully. youtube (rhymes with you...).

mainstream media is an instrument used by the elite to form governments, brainwash the cattle, spread propaganda, etc. wikipedia and youtube are an extention of that...


----------



## disarray (23 April 2008)

dude at least watch the documentary before you go slagging off internet sources  i linked wikipaedia because it is a summary of the documentary and i linked youtube because it is the easiest way to show it without having to download torrents from the BBC.

and i disagree with the internet being "used" by anyone. its the free-est media available to us here in the unfirewalled west and its difficult, if not impossible, to control content if people want to get to it.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (23 April 2008)

Superfly I just think you need to realise that there are extremists everywhere and its not fair to label the whole group ie "Muslims" as trouble makers,

ie not all Earth conscious conservationists are like Green Peace,

Not all Westerns want to bomb Iran

I'm Christian and sometimes when I hear some of the stuff that the extremist Christians preach about the end of day, well its a little scary, but that doens't mean all Christians are bible bashers

Anyway you seem pretty passionate about all this and sound like quite a "tough guy"

So why not enlist and go over there and do something about it?

I mean its easy for you to be a keyboard/internet warrior why not do something about it if you fell so strongly about it?

p.s. Just so you know the Israelis will take care of any Iranian threat 



Superfly said:


> Would be nice to not take this subject seriously, but with Iran now enriching and refusing to stop enriching ever again, there are real storm clouds on the horizon...
> 
> Yes ok, will replace that with Islamic terrorist with muslim sympathizers...  and because of Guantanamo these dangerous inmates can not get a lawyer and start using the law to evade being held (out of circualtion) where they can do no harm to ordinary people or until they have given up the infomation that they may hold.
> Why don't you start looking at the reasons why those people are being held in the first place, not the current position they are in, D Hicks is a prime example.
> ...


----------



## metric (23 April 2008)

not having a go at you at all disaray. ive read a bit about youtube and some of the content that gets pulled because it is sensitive to governments etc. also wikipedia is known to distort facts, leave out facts, etc. but a reference none the less.


----------



## disarray (23 April 2008)

metric said:


> also wikipedia is known to distort facts, leave out facts, etc. but a reference none the less.




for sure, but its strength is its openness. dissenting opinions can (and often do) edit their own side of the story into entries. this is excellent because it means content isn't static and theres a public ebb and flow of ideas competing with each other.

you have to use reference materials to learn about topics so you can form opinions on them, and the internet has got to be the coolest reference material ever because you can read just about every side of the story. if people are forming "bad" opinions then its their fault for not collecting information from a wide enough base, its not the fault of the CNN's or the FOXes who push their obviously biased and made-for-tv infobites. if a video is pulled from youtube it is still out there, it just needs a bit more digging to find it.


----------



## derty (23 April 2008)

disarray said:


> well not exactly, but kinda.
> 
> The Power of Nightmares
> 
> Part 1 on Youtube



Yes that is a very interesting documentary disarray, there are three parts to it if I remember correctly. 

It is interesting to see the rise of the NeoCon and the Islamic Fundamentalist movement and the similarities of the reasons for their rise. 

Not sure if it is that doco or another that goes into the detail of Osama and his aims, his bankrolling of an existing group in their activities and the effect of the US and the media in naming and allowing Al Qaeda to be galvanised from a small disorganised group into what they are touted to be today. 


metric said:


> al CIAda. its a lie. its a phanton organisation. the us invented an enemy.



I don't think metric is too far of the point there at all.


----------



## Superfly (24 April 2008)

YOUNG_TRADER said:


> Superfly I just think you need to realise that there are extremists everywhere and its not fair to label the whole group ie "Muslims" as trouble makers,
> 
> ie not all Earth conscious conservationists are like Green Peace,
> 
> ...




Hmmmm this is becoming somewhat of a routine... 

The "tough guy" part was funny, I thought that "Young Trader" was a pun, but really must be young using that line... how do you know if havent been in that part of the world and regularly,... not that I would tell you either way... 


P.S.... Just to let you know that if you had read the thread you would have found that I have already said that Israel will take care of Iran. 
Hope that you do better research when you do your stock comments, any chance of looking at ARX again, mate !!


----------



## ithatheekret (24 April 2008)

I think many miss the point , that it is Israel that will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapon capabilities , not the US . The US will bring out the rhetoric and sanctions care of the UN , but Israel will be the ones to strike if the UN twiddles its thumbs once more . 

For an example of the underlying conflict within the UN security council , just take a look who has the chair and decide for yourselves .

An Iran with nuclear capabilities is not an option at all , it is a threat to the entire region , that threat will not be tolerated .


----------



## jonojpsg (24 April 2008)

Israel - US is there a difference?  Don't Israel get all their money from Jews in the US (or who made their money there) and all their weapons from there too?


----------



## disarray (24 April 2008)

yeah the whole jewish angle is ignored because to bring it up immediately labels you racist and the thought patrol gets on your case. i'm not going to wade into the whole "jewish conspiracy" debate or even suggest there is some grand zionist plan underway, but what is very clear to me is that jews are pretty much the oldest, continuing, civilised, segregated and widely travelled race in the world. jews keep their bloodline pretty clean, i remember going out with a jewish chick and she made it clear she would only be marrying a jew.

it seems perfectly reasonable that jews were there at the formation of western societies to introduce systems and gain influence in areas like finance, politics and media. for a small population people they weild some serious global clout. if you want to research any of it though it's almost completely hosted by right wing nutter sites which unfortunately spout a lot of insane racial crap. i'd go out with a chick of any race if she was cute


----------



## numbercruncher (1 May 2008)

> (CBS) A second American aircraft carrier steamed into the Persian Gulf on Tuesday as the Pentagon ordered military commanders to develop new options for attacking Iran. CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports that the planning is being driven by what one officer called the "increasingly hostile role" Iran is playing in Iraq - smuggling weapons into Iraq for use against American troops.
> 
> "What the Iranians are doing is killing American servicemen and -women inside Iraq," said Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
> 
> ...




http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/29/eveningnews/main4056941.shtml?source=mostpop_story

Seems any Iran War will just be about destroying capabilities ie/ no occupation.

Something ive noticed lately and on a slightly different note is our Russian mates have been quiet as Mouses ? Not just on Iran but on everything ...


----------



## So_Cynical (1 May 2008)

I saw this joke in a war gaming forum and thought it would be 
very appropriate here.

The Iranian Ambassador to the UN had just finished giving a speech, and walked out 
into the lobby where he met President Bush.

They shook hands, and as they walked the Iranian said, "You know, I have just one 
question about what I have seen in America."

President Bush said, "Well, anything I can do to help you, I will."

The Iranian whispered "My son watches this show Star Trek and in it there is Chekhov 
who is Russian, Scotty who is Scottish, and Sulu who is Chinese, but no Arabs. My 
son is very upset and doesn't understand why there aren't any Iranians on Star Trek."

President Bush laughed, leaned toward the Iranian ambassador, and whispered 
back, "It's because it takes place in the future."


----------



## disarray (1 May 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> Something ive noticed lately and on a slightly different note is our Russian mates have been quiet as Mouses ? Not just on Iran but on everything ...




they just had a power transfer, and today they reinforced abkhazia and south ossetia which has the georgians all pissed off. they are probably just consolidating.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7377049.stm


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 May 2008)

THEY'RE MAKING IT ALL UP ABOUT IRAN!!! ~Olbermann


----------



## Superfly (5 July 2008)

Israeli Airforce conducts an excerise with over 100 aircraft including refueling tankers for mock strikes the same distances as what the Iranian nuclear sites what be to attack...

and this.. 

In a briefing in Vienna last week, IAEA deputy director-general Olli Heinonen described as alarming the fact that a drawing in Iran's possession in 2003-04 showed how to make part of a nuclear warhead. 

The IAEA report that went to the security council last week  ( May 2008 ) included 18 documents indicating Iran was involved in activities not necessarily consistent with it's persistent claims that it was not seeking to develop nuclear weapons. 

The IAEA is continuing to press Iran to "PROVE" that it has abandonded it's nuclear weapons ambitions.


----------



## Superfly (5 July 2008)

juw177 said:


> Do people still think that corporations and corporate funded governments care about human lives in non western countries?
> 
> They have all been following the same formula, the US are very good at it:
> 1. PR campaigns to rally public sympathy
> ...




Sudan !!! .. President Bush is trying to place santions on the Sudanise government because of Dafur and send in a powerful UN peace keeping force... but what country is standing in the way.. CHINA ... with 10 billion worth of investments in Sudan, basically being given a free hand to rape the Sudan resources by gifting the government, even supply high tech weapons to the Sudanise army (one of the most irresponsible arms sales in recent times ) and CHINA has demanded that the Sudan government gets to say what countries will make up any peace keeping force and what ROE they operate under. End result is a badly equipped peace keeping force, with it's hands tied with no western armies part of that peace keeping force. Innocent people still die everyday, women are getting raped, millions live in misery....this is CHINA in Africa....


----------



## Sean K (5 July 2008)

Superfly said:


> Sudan !!! .. President Bush is trying to place santions on the Sudanise government because of Dafur and send in a powerful UN peace keeping force... but what country is standing in the way.. CHINA ... with 10 billion worth of investments in Sudan, basically being given a free hand to rape the Sudan resources by gifting the government, even supply high tech weapons to the Sudanise army (one of the most irresponsible arms sales in recent times ) and CHINA has demanded that the Sudan government gets to say what countries will make up any peace keeping force and what ROE they operate under. End result is a badly equipped peace keeping force, with it's hands tied with no western armies part of that peace keeping force. Innocent people still die everyday, women are getting raped, millions live in misery....this is CHINA in Africa....



China have no moral position in the world after what they have done in Sudan. They are just the same as the US, using their strength to secure resources and security for themselves while being complicit in the destruction of other peoples. It's an outrage, but just a normal thing that we do to each other. Why hasn't the rest of the world taken action? Because it doesn't really effect us. Really, who cares about central Africa? Just a few left wing vegie munchie greenies really. And your odd celebrity feeling guilty about taking $5m to make a movie and trying to develop some good karma so they don't go to hell. Africa is a distraction really. Best we just put a fence around it drop in lots of machetes and let them go for it. But, we should take out all the resources first of course. 

Humans suck.


----------



## Superfly (5 July 2008)

and this...

Iran has been negotiating the supply of Russian short range surface-to-air defence misslies, but more worrying for the Israelis and Americans are reports that Russia may be considering supplying it's longer range S-300 anti-aircraft systems that would dramatically raise the cost of air strikes.

Getting in before the deployment of new air defence systems would not be the least compelling arguement for pre-emptive strikes.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 July 2008)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/05/2295250.htm?section=justin



> Iran responds to world powers' nuclear offer
> Posted 5 hours 31 minutes ago
> 
> Iran has responded to an incentives package offered by six world powers aimed at resolving a stand-off over its disputed nuclear ambitions.
> ...


----------



## Superfly (6 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/05/2295250.htm?section=justin




So... so what... just more of the same, Iran stalling for time..talks about talks about talks...

Those lastest Israeli military excerises must be causing some sleepness nights for Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs...


----------



## Superfly (6 July 2008)

juw177 said:


> *Iran has been proven to not have a nuclear weapons program so the first post of the thread is debunked. End of thread.*





Maybe this will go down as statement of 2008 ( so far )...


----------



## redsmartie (6 July 2008)

The americans seem to be winning this war so far.


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 July 2008)

Superfly said:


> So... so what... just more of the same, Iran stalling for time..talks about talks about talks...
> 
> Those lastest Israeli military excerises must be causing some sleepness nights for Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs...




Thank God you're not in any position of authority superfly 
In fact thank God you're not even in the army (I assume that's the case - most of you armchair generals are not and never have been)

These days our soldiers have a sense of responsibility first and foremost - 
and believe it or not (as we've just done in Iraq - now that we have withdrawn)  they try to WHAM "win the hearts and minds" first rather than your shoot-em-up john-wayne-high-noon stuff. 

The leaders of our troops just returned have said how much better we do it than the American GI's.   No better example than East Timor.


----------



## Superfly (6 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Thank God you're not in any position of authority superfly




Coming from someone who stated that "all school children" should have to watch M Moore films...


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 July 2008)

Superfly said:


> Coming from someone who stated that "all school children" should have to watch M Moore films...




superfly
Can I suggest that you post with more care.

Whenever you leave 

"[Q UOTE=2020hindsight;311348]" 
 without a 
"[/Q UOTE] at the end to balance it, 

then the post, when someone refers to it, will show up as mine.

The result?
Note how the top of this post says that I posted what YOU said. 

let's call it attention to detail shall we.


----------



## juw177 (7 July 2008)

kennas said:


> China have no moral position in the world after what they have done in Sudan. They are just the same as the US, using their strength to secure resources and security for themselves while being complicit in the destruction of other peoples.




The difference is, China does not sponsor coups and assassinations, they do not threaten governments with sanctions. They do not intervene with politics under the claim that they are do-gooder, humanitarian peace keepers. They just sign the resource contracts.


----------



## Superfly (7 July 2008)

juw177 said:


> The difference is, China does not sponsor coups and assassinations, they do not threaten governments with sanctions. They do not intervene with politics under the claim that they are do-gooder, humanitarian peace keepers. They just sign the resource contracts.




No.. China just supports North Korea, supported Pol Pot which lead to one of the worst 3 years in modern history for any counrty, all courtesy of China, China supports Burma, China has no leg to stand on with human rights. Where did Pol Pots army get their weapons ?... from China and lots of them, that is sponsoring coups and it cost over a quarter of the population their lives takes care of the assassinations part. What about the democarcy protesters that are still in jail from 1989 in Tianamen square, the ones that were not shot or run over by tanks of the PLR...  

So China does not threaten Taiwan ???..



From a web page...

Ding Zilin, who lost her 17-year-old son in the 1989 massacre, pulled herself out of her despair by taking action to seek justice. For the last fifteen years, she has been at the forefront of a network of people who have worked to document the brutal crackdown in a systematic fashion by collecting the names of real victims and recording their individual stories. For this, she has been subjected to persistent persecution - she has endured interrogations, threats of violence, a period of detention and frequent house arrest, but she refuses to give up her fight.

Click here to read her testimony and those of other mothers.

Under the banner of the Tiananmen Mothers, a group of courageous family members of victims of the Beijing massacre has banded together to challenge the official claims about what really happened. Those in this network provide support to each other and work together to gather information about what really happened in those tragic days at the beginning of June. In addition, they collect and distribute humanitarian funds donated to assist the injured and the families of the dead.

The efforts of the Mothers have been met with persecution from the Chinese government. Their repeated requests for dialogue with the government and for a proper investigation of the events have been met with stony silence. Yet the Mothers have refused to give up their fight against the cycle of impunity that has allowed perpetrators of gross violations of human rights in China to go unpunished again and again. Their demands for accountability have been joined by other calls and open letters, including Dr. Jiang Yanyong. 


The Story of the Bouquet 

Years after the massacre, a student who participated in the 1989 demonstrations posted a message on the Internet explaining her ritual of gathering a June Fourth bouquet (six white roses and four red roses) to mark each anniversary. Her dream is to place such a bouquet in Tiananmen Square, publicly commemorating the massacre victims without danger of government reprisal. Until that time comes, FillTheSquare.org allows all supporters to realize this dream in cyberspace. 


China.... and they give the murderers the Olympics !!


----------



## Superfly (7 July 2008)

Some light reading for you Juw177...!!


From Times OnlineJune 3, 2004

What happened to the student heroes of Tianamen?
Fifteen years ago the world recoiled at images of China's brutal crushing of student protest. The Chinese put 21 of the leaders on a most wanted list. Some are still defiant, others have fled the country, most pursue studies and careers in the US
By Oliver August and Sophie Roell 
IN THE TERRIFYING days after the crackdown, Wang Dan, No 1 on China’s Most Wanted list, was shunted out of Beijing by his friend Wang Juntao. Dan was incapable of sleep and was losing his self-control. Unable to stand life on the run, he returned to Beijing and was immediately arrested. He spent most of his twenties in jail, a strange fate for the earnest history student whose “crime” had been to organise a democracy salon in 1988, inviting guest speakers to speak once a week (the US Ambassador came once) and editing a magazine not contentious by any standards other than those of the Chinese Government. 
But in the end the “most wanted” epithet helped him by making him the most high-profile political prisoner in the country. In 1998 he was allowed out to the US on medical parole, part of negotiations that accompanied Bill Clinton’s visit to China that year. Even in prison he received special care, normally having a cell to himself. “I’m not joking,” he says, “I enjoyed life in jail quite a bit ”” because I had time to read and they treated me well.” What he is bitter about is his mother, who received the more usual Chinese prison treatment. She still does not walk normally as a result of the 50 days she spent squashed in a crowded cell. “They treated her much worse than me, because I was famous and she wasn’t. My mother did nothing: she was arrested just because she was my mother.” 

In a way, he has taken up life where he left off in 1989: he is a PhD student at Harvard, studying history again. His main goal now is to get Beijing to allow back to China the dozens of people exiled for their role in the 1989 movement. He hopes that the UN and Western governments will put pressure on Beijing. 

THE UNKNOWN 

One image from the student protest dominates the history books. A lone man walks on to Beijing’s main thoroughfare in broad daylight on June 5 as a column of tanks advances into the city centre. He is holding a plastic bag and stands still in the middle of the road. The tanks halt and eventually try to pass him on the side, but he moves with them. After several agonising minutes, another man hurries him off the road. All of it was filmed by a TV camera on a building high above. Kate Adie reported the event that night on the BBC’s Nine O’Clock News and newspapers around the world carried his picture the next day. 

The mystery man was never identified, despite becoming a global poster boy for human courage. He might simply have slipped back into the crowds around Tiananmen Square, or he might not. He could still be working in a factory in Beijing making slippers or bicycles. Or he could be in a labour camp. Meanwhile, he has appeared in a Wim Wenders film, been lionised by presidents and pressed on to T-shirts. Time magazine proclaimed him one of the 20th century’s top 20 leaders and revolutionaries, along with Mao Zedong. The Chinese Government has cited the fact that the man was not run over by the lead tank as an example of how carefully the army proceeded. Eyewitnesses, however, say that away from the cameras plenty of tanks squashed protesters. 

THE IDEALIST 

“I went to the US three months ago, directly from jail,” says Wang Youcai. He was a graduate student in physics in 1989, and the ghastly events of June 4 prompted him to abandon everything to set up the Opposition China Democracy Party. 

“Our goal was to institutionalise a multi-party system,” says Wang. “It was a peaceful, reasonable, open and moderate platform that did not directly challenge the top Chinese Communist Party leaders. I want China to become a true democracy, so that a tragedy like 1989 will never, ever happen again.” 

He is a visiting scholar at Harvard University for the year. Of his feelings in 1989, he has little recollection. “Maybe when China becomes a democracy I’ll be able to speak about it.” 

THE STEADFAST 

Five of the Top 21 Tiananmen Square leaders still live in China. Ma Shaofang is one of them. He decided to stay despite harassment by the authorities and the unexplained death of a university friend in police custody. “I didn’t want to leave because I would become a stranger to China and could not see the changes in society,” he says. 

Fear of the unknown was another reason to stay. “I can’t speak English and think I would have a terrible life in America. Anyway, I love China. I may not love the Communist Party or socialism, but I very much love the land where I grew up.” After his arrest in 1989 he spent three years in prison for counter-revolutionary activities, an experience that scarred his health but has not dented his political convictions, even if he sees little reason to be optimistic. “The tanks crushed the hopes of the Chinese nations,” he said. “Few people dare to mention June 4 but it is deep in their hearts.” Ma will hold a one-day hunger strike as he has done every anniversary since he left prison. But he will do so alone. He is no longer in contact with other protesters.


----------



## Superfly (7 July 2008)

Israel has been doing some fence mending in recent weeks with neighbours such as Eygpt, Hezbollah ( prisoner release / exchange )... maybe for the fact that if a strick on Iran goes ahead, Iran could / may retaliate by the ****e insurgents it has trained and armed in Iraq, by Hezbollah, Syria and by trying a bring together the Arab world. The first strike maybe easier than a second or third, as Arab nations may ban Israeli aircraft from their airspace needed to get to Iran.


----------



## Superfly (7 July 2008)

May 5th 2008...

Militants from the Lebanese group Hezbollah have been training Iraqi militia fighters at a camp near Tehran, according to American interrogation reports that the United States has supplied to the Iraqi government.
An American official said the account of Hezbollah’s role was provided by four Shiite militia members who were captured in Iraq late last year and questioned separately…
In a possible effort to be less obtrusive, it appears that Iran is now bringing small groups of Iraqi Shiite militants to camps in Iran, where they are taught how to do their own training, American officials say.
The militants then return to Iraq to teach comrades how to fire rockets and mortars, fight as snipers or assemble explosively formed penetrators, a particularly lethal type of roadside bomb made of Iranian components, according to American officials. The officials describe this approach as “training the trainers.”
The training, the Americans say, is carried out at several camps near Tehran that are overseen by the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Command, and the instruction is carried out by militants from Hezbollah, which has long been supported by the Quds Force.


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 July 2008)

Words don`t feel the pain of a bullet ripping into flesh, words don`t feel the searing heat and choking lungs from a napalm explosion, words don`t feel the pain of mother with limp child, words don`t feel anger of the sight of dead friends, words don`t feel the fear of each day. 

Words don`t feel what it`s like to kill another human being.

Get it!!!


----------



## Superfly (7 July 2008)

The Sunday Times May 4, 2008

United States is drawing up plans to strike on Iranian insurgency camp

The US military is drawing up plans for a “surgical strike” against an insurgent training camp inside Iran if Republican Guards continue with attempts to destabilise Iraq, western intelligence sources said last week. One source said the Americans were growing increasingly angry at the involvement of the Guards’ special-operations Quds force inside Iraq, training Shi’ite militias and smuggling weapons into the country. 

Despite a belligerent stance by Vice-President Dick Cheney, the administration has put plans for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities on the back burner since Robert Gates replaced Donald Rumsfeld as defence secretary in 2006, the sources said. 

However, US commanders are increasingly concerned by Iranian interference in Iraq and are determined that recent successes by joint Iraqi and US forces in the southern port city of Basra should not be reversed by the Quds Force. 

“If the situation in Basra goes back to what it was like before, America is likely to blame Iran and carry out a surgical strike on a militant training camp across the border in Khuzestan,” said one source, referring to a frontier province. 

They acknowledged Iran was unlikely to cease involvement in Iraq and that, however limited a US attack might be, the fighting could escalate. 

Although American defence chiefs are firmly opposed to any attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, they believe a raid on one of the camps training Shi’ite militiamen would deliver a powerful message to Tehran. 

British officials believe the US military tends to overestimate the effect of the Iranian involvement in Iraq. 

But they say there is little doubt that the Revolutionary Guard exercises significant influence over splinter groups of the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army, who were the main targets of recent operations in Basra. 

The CBS television network reported last week that plans were being drawn up for an attack on Iran, citing an officer who blamed the “increasingly hostile role” Iran was playing in Iraq. 

The American news reports were unclear about the precise target of such an action and referred to Iran’s nuclear facilities as the likely objective. 

According to the intelligence sources there will not be an attack on Iran’s nuclear capacity. “The Pentagon is not keen on that at all. If an attack happens it will be on a training camp to send a clear message to Iran not to interfere.” 

President George W Bush is known to be determined that he should not hand over what he sees as “the Iran problem” to his successor. A limited attack on a training camp may give an impression of tough action, while at the same time being something that both Gates and the US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, could accept.


----------



## Superfly (7 July 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Words don`t feel the pain of a bullet ripping into flesh, words don`t feel the searing heat and choking lungs from a napalm explosion, words don`t feel the pain of mother with limp child, words don`t feel anger of the sight of dead friends, words don`t feel the fear of each day.
> 
> Words don`t feel what it`s like to kill another human being.
> 
> Get it!!!




... how many western troops are being killed due to Iran backing the unrest in Iraq...

Lets hope that Iran comes clean and PROVES that is not going nuclear, and stops backing the trouble in Iraq...

......"Words dont feel what it would be like" if Iran engulfed the whole region in war though Syria, Hezbollah and in Iraq.... get it !!!


----------



## Superfly (7 July 2008)

From The Sunday Times July 6, 2008

Al-Qaeda was also bleeding support as allied Iraqi insurgents accepted an amnesty. It did not apply to Al-Qaeda. “If you are fighting to install sharia [Islamic law] on this country, you are going to have to be killed,” said Colonel David Brown, an American adviser to 2nd Division. WITH its supply lines disrupted, Al-Qaeda is increasingly turning to extortion and kidnapping, further alienating the population. 

In the past week, as the weapons finds slowed to a trickle and the attacks declined to just 13, Americans and Iraqis alike were elated but not complacent. A car bomb that killed 18 people and wounded 80 in Mosul 10 days ago served as a reminder that the enemy has yet to be eliminated. 

Nevertheless, the speed of Al-Qaeda’s decline in Iraq – not only in the north but throughout the country – has taken many military strategists and observers by surprise. 

In Zarqawi’s day, a ruthless campaign of suicide bombings, abductions and beheadings paralysed the country and thwarted US efforts to pacify it. By the end of 2006 some were predicting an American defeat. 

The reversal of fortunes is attributed to the “surge” strategy of General David Petraeus, the commander of US forces, who targeted Al-Qaeda in Iraq above all else after securing an extra 30,000 troops last year. 

His officers exploited local resentment of the terrorists and promised to protect those who resisted them. Under Petraeus’s plan, they established awakening councils, or groups calling themselves concerned local citizens. These Sunni groups helped to drive Al-Qaeda from many of its bastions. 

US and Iraqi forces were then able to retake large swathes of the country and complete the “clearing” of cities such as Ramadi and Falluja and large areas of Baghdad. The overall number of attacks in Iraq has fallen by 80% in the past year alone. 
The signs this weekend were positive. Major Erich Campbell, operations officer for the US advisers, said: “Earlier this year we could have gone down the street waving fistfuls of dollars in the air. 

“We couldn’t buy anything. Iraqis told us, ‘If we sell to you, we will be killed’. Now we can buy things from shops.” 

The last word was left to the beleaguered people of Mosul. Sa’ad Aziz, 47, stood in his shop, with ice-cream in the freezer and fizzy drinks and sweets on the shelves, watching the search for the Zanjali bomb in virtual darkness because there was no electricity. 

His concerns were far removed from Al-Qaeda’s jihad: “We have only two hours of electricity out of 10. I need it for my business. There is only a little water in this area. We need jobs. My son has a university degree but he has no wok. We’re all very tired of this insurgency.”


----------



## Superfly (7 July 2008)

( some of a ) Report from Soldier to his Dad from Camp "Blue Diamond" near Ramadi 

Who Are The Bad Guys ?

Most enter Iraq through Syria with the knowledge and complicity of the Syrian government, and then travel down the Ã¢€œrat lineÃ¢€  which is the trail of towns along the Euphrates River that we've been hitting hard for the last few months. 

Some are virtually untrained young Jihadis that often end up as suicide bombers or in Ã¢€œsacrifice squads.Ã¢€  Most, however, are hard core terrorists from all the usual suspects (Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.) These are the guys running around murdering civilians en masse and cutting heads off. 

In the Baghdad area and south, most of the insurgents are Iranian inspired (and led) Iraqi Shiites. The Iranian Shiia have been very adept at infiltrating the Iraqi local governments, police forces and military. The have had a massive spy and agitator network there since the Iran-Iraq war in the early 80's. Most of the Saddam Ã¢€œBaathistÃ¢€  loyalists were killed, captured or gave up long ago.
Morale among our guys is very high. We not only believe we are winning, but that we are winning decisively. 

Our guys are stunned and dismayed by what they see in the American press, whom they almost universally view as against them. The embedded reporters are despised and distrusted. We are inflicting casualties at a rate of 25-1 and then see garbage like Ã¢€œAre we losing in Iraq?Ã¢€  on TV and the print media. The ultimate bottom line is the enemy death toll. So far we have killed around 50,000. From all over the Moslem world, terrorists are coming to Iraq so we can kill them. ThatÃ¢€™s why we call it AllahÃ¢€™s Waiting Room.


----------



## Superfly (7 July 2008)

Part of the Dad's response:

Speaking of the Socialist Media, they are traitors of the first order along with the seditious politicians who aid and abet the enemy by disclosing military secrets and denouncing the military and the war. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and had politicians arrested when necessary. And, I admit that my major disappointment of Bush is that he does NOT put the pedal to the metal, jail the seditious press and politicans, send another 150,000 of our best to Mesopotamia, begin using special forces to decapitate the Syrian and Iranian leadership and move full speed ahead to WIN by allowing the military to use all means they see fit to execute this war.
Ooh-Rah!


He has a good point with the media...


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 July 2008)

Superfly said:


> The Sunday Times May 4, 2008
> 
> United States is drawing up plans to strike on Iranian insurgency camp
> 
> The US military is drawing up plans for a “surgical strike” against an insurgent training camp inside Iran if Republican Guards continue with ..



If Iraq is anything to go on ....   there won't be enough doctors in the world  to sort out the carnage from this "surgical strike" thingo 

why don't they just admit that their military uses twice the oil that they get out these exercises.... 

PS I think it's called " get those war drums going fellas,   McCain needs a miracle !"


----------



## Stan 101 (7 July 2008)

Superfly said:


> supported Pol Pot which lead to one of the worst 3 years in modern history for any counrty, all courtesy of China,





Superfly,  

one could easily substitute, Pol Pot with Saddam Hussien, and China with the good ole US of A.


----------



## juw177 (7 July 2008)

And to add to the last post, who overthrew Pol Pot and installed Khmer Rouge in Cambodia?


----------



## doctorj (7 July 2008)

Superfly said:


> And, I admit that my major disappointment of Bush is that he does NOT put the pedal to the metal, jail the seditious press and politicans



And when people gather to protest, why not just run over them with tanks...

The American people would never have supported going to Iraq after 9/11 without the manipulation of and by the media...


----------



## Superfly (7 July 2008)

juw177 said:


> And to add to the last post, who overthrew Pol Pot and installed Khmer Rouge in Cambodia?




Ahhh.... "Nightshift Juw177" think you should retire from posting and leave the replies and left wing Chinese ravings to "Dayshift Juw177"...

Vietnam overthrew the Khmer Rogue in 1979.... much to the dismay of China..

Pol Pot was the leader of the Khmer Rogue..


----------



## juw177 (7 July 2008)

^^ got things mixed a bit. My point is that the CIA supported the Khmer Rouge (and Pol Pot).


----------



## Superfly (7 July 2008)

> And when people gather to protest, why not just run over them with tanks...



In China they do... if they have not shot you first.. 



> The American people would never have supported going to Iraq after 9/11 without the manipulation of and by the media...




Well cast your mind back and remember how Saddam had been playing cat and mouse for 12 years with the UN, in total breach of many UN mandates... it's something that the left chooses to ingnore these days, but how was anyone to know the the WMD's where no longer... in a post 9/11 world were we in the west to take Saddam's word for it ???  The media had to play it up for what it was... which was Saddam's 12 years of standing in the way of UN weapon inspectors.. Saddam thumbing his nose at the UN... Saddam's documented use of WMD'S....even the left wing media couldn't rule out Saddam...


----------



## Superfly (7 July 2008)

juw177 said:


> ^^ got things mixed a bit. My point is that the CIA supported the Khmer Rouge (and Pol Pot).




BULL#****... 

China supported POL POT... read up. Pol Pot suffered from  cancer and was treated in China while in power... China back the far left Khmer Rogue regime. 

The US were backing the government that the Khmer Rogue overthrew in 1975. 

Once Vietnam had ousted the K Rogue in 1979, Pol and his men retreated to areas on the Thai border and controlled much of these area's for years and may have been aided by the Thai's,because the Thai's were not comfortable with the battle harded experienced large Vietnamese forces being on the border, the Khumer Rogue were used as a buffer. 
Madelene Albright attempted an covert opertaion to snatch POL POT from his jungle camps to face trail for his crimes, but it is rumoured that once began the Thai's shut it down by refusing to allow any of that operation to be conducted in Thai territory


----------



## juw177 (7 July 2008)

No Superfly, *YOU read up*.
Khmer Rogue came to power as a direct result of the US. And the CIA had continue to support them.


----------



## Superfly (7 July 2008)

juw177 said:


> No Superfly, *YOU read up*.
> Khmer Rogue came to power as a direct result of the US. And the CIA had continue to support them.




Prove it ...


----------



## juw177 (7 July 2008)

um, google?

Superfly, what on earth can motivate you to be so utterly brainwashed that you do not see any moral issues with dropping bombs on countries that pose no threat to blood thirsty USA?


----------



## Superfly (7 July 2008)

FYI  Juw177...  

The Cambodian Genocide was a time period in the early 1970’s where Cambodians were slaughtered and placed under a “pure” communist society. The Cambodian genocide involved bombing, rebellion, a civil war, propaganda and an estimated two million deaths. When looking at the relationship between the Khmer Rogue, the Cambodian Government and the International World, perhaps the genocide was never the Khmer Rogues fault to begin with. Although they were the cause of the genocide, if certain actions were not taken, the Khmer Rogue would have never had the opportunity to take control of Cambodia (Peace Pledge Unition).
   Cambodia is a country in Southern Asia, neighboring Vietnam. Originally a neutral country during the Vietnam War, certain area’s of Cambodia were used as trade routes to import food and military supplies to Northern Vietnam. The United States bombed parts of Cambodia because of the trade routes going through Cambodia which provided supplies to North Vietnam as well as the sanctuaries provided in Cambodia that helped wounded soldiers (Peace Pledge Unition).
   During this time frame, President Nixon was the Commanding Chief for the United States, He originally tried to stop the Vietnam War but ended up expanding it to Cambodia. The first attempt to bomb Cambodia was called, Operation Breakfast, this bombardment targeted both trade routes and sanctuaries, but failed miserably. Following Operation Breakfast came Operation Lunch, Snack, Dinner, Desert and Supper. The bombing lasted a total of fourteen months, hurting both Vietnam and Cambodia 
(The Cambodian Genocide).
   Events soon followed after the bombardment including the use of Napalm, a flame substance used to incinerate buildings and help spread the fire. United States infantry were deployed into Cambodia on April 1970. It was now that a rebel group known as the Khmer Rogue had the chance to strike at the Cambodian government. The Khmer Rogue were a group of teenagers that were tired of the Cambodian government, under the control of Pol Pot, they rose together to try to end the Cambodian government and start communism in Cambodia. Given the opportunity, they aligned themselves with North Vietnam and waged war against the Cambodian government leading into a five year Civil War in Cambodia. The United States sided with the Buddhist Cambodians (the government of Cambodia) while the Vietnamese forces lead by Lon Nol joined the Khmer Rogue (The Cambodian Genocide).   Prince Silhanouk; the current ruler of Cambodia, agreed to join the Americans as siding with the Khmer Rogue was considered a act of rebellion. The Buddhist Cambodians were considered puppets of the Americans by the Cambodian people while the Khmer Rogue were considered loyal and honest.The Americans were issued to lead air raids to rend the Khmer Rogue infantry useless, the bombing was intense and killed tens of thousands Khmer Rogue members and Cambodian Civilians. Not only did the air raid decimate homes, it caused the exact opposite of the effect it was purposely intended to cause. Initially used to wipe out the Khmer Rogue, the air raids caused the Cambodian people to fear the government and the Americans, causing them to join the Khmer Rogue. By 1969, an estimated 540,000 tons of bombs were dropped in Cambodia, destroying the countries economy. By 1973, inflation in Cambodia topped 275%, almost half of the roads and bridges in Cambodia were considered un usable (Peace Pledge Unition). 
Because of the affects of the United States bombardment, the government of Cambodia asked the United States to withdraw. The Khmer Rogue took this as an advantage and over threw the Cambodians, allowing the leader Pol Pot to take control of Cambodia starting the Cambodian Genocide (The Cambodian Genocide).

Basing his communism after the Chinese, Pol Pot successfully rounded up all the civilians of Cambodia to the capital, he then demanded that they marched to the rice fields picking food for their country. The harvest lasted from 4 A.M to 10 P.M giving the Cambodians little time to rest and only half a bowl of rice to eat per day. Any form of resistance ended in quick death, but this was just the beginning of the “pure” communist country (Peace Pledge Unition).
   Pol Pot soon made rules that all Cambodians must abide by, These were clear indications of the early stages of the genocide. Pol Pot had the civilians wear scarfs, and along with this, he separated Cambodian family members and disallowed communication. Communication was illegal and must be moderated by an officer. Least to say, Pol Pot was a very paranoid man, making unnecessary rules that only caused his people harm (Peace Pledge Unition).
A few months after Pol Pots rule, he began to become even more paranoid than he already was, he wanted all Cambodians with intelligence to be executed. All forms of education were considered illegal and anyone that showed a sign of education was sent to S-21, originally a High School but turned into a prison when Pol Pot became ruler of Cambodia. Out of the 17,000 prisoners inside S-21, only 7 managed to survive because of their exceptional skills in certain area’s such as painting or weaving. Although the majority of the prisoners of S-21 were falsely accused, they were tortured until they confessed what they did that could have possibly sent to prison, resulting in execution. Although the prisoners confessed, many of the confessions were lies, either to end their pain or for an attempt to escape the prison (Peace Pledge Unition).
   Outside S-21, The farm workers were over worked and died from starvation and lack of sleep. Pol Pot felt no remorse and continued his “pure” communist country by executing any other ethnic group other than Cambodian. He had a hatred for the Vietnamese and ended up executing 50% of the Vietnamese living in Cambodia, a total of 450,000. This was considered his way of “ethnically cleansing” Cambodia. 
   Fearful that the Vietnamese might attack Cambodia, he launched an attack towards Vietnam but was thwarted by the Vietnamese Forces. The Vietnamese counter attacked Cambodia resulting in many more deaths and of course, the over throwing of the Cambodian capital city, Phnom Penh. When the Vietnamese raided Cambodia, they located S-21 and raided the prison, looting the documents and revealing that Pol Pot lead a genocide towards his own people. Pol Pot was sentenced to court but was never tried due to heart failure at the age of eighty three (The Cambodian Genocide).
   The Cambodian Genocide caused 2.3 million deaths but was this Pol Pots fault. If the Americans never joined the civil war, would Pol Pot had the opportunity to attack Cambodia with such a large force? What if the Americans stayed. Would Cambodia be faced with this horrible genocide. Perhaps it was Vietnams fault for allowing Pol Pot to conquer Phnom Penh. If Vietnam never waged a Civil War, would Cambodia be the same as it is today? Although the Khmer Rouge caused the genocide, if actions were taken and the Cambodian Government didn’t allow the Khmer Rogue to strike, the Cambodian Genocide would have never began.


----------



## doctorj (7 July 2008)

Gents, I'm all for passionate discussion, but could we maintain some decorum please.


----------



## Superfly (7 July 2008)

and surprise surprise .... from some years ago...



BEIJING, Feb. 9 Kyodo... China indicated Tuesday it would not join international efforts to bring former Khmer Rogue leaders to trial


----------



## ironchef (7 July 2008)

If USA government is such a peace loving and humanitarian government, why haven't they done anything about the countless African countries that are being run by dictators? Why was Iraq such a priority?

Oh and isn't Iraq a lovely place now. Living standards have obviously improved... Especially for all the US companies that have monopoly contracts on 'construction' and utilities. 

All the crippling embargoes and sanctions before the Blood4Oil war weren't enough. Lets go in and blow everything up. We'll make THEM pay for reconstruction with money they make from us selling their oil to ourselves at peanut prices.

<3


----------



## juw177 (7 July 2008)

Superfly, repeating something over and over to drown out opposing views may get you a job with the US administration, but here you are just spamming (with bad punctuation).


edit: decorum


----------



## Superfly (7 July 2008)

ironchef said:


> If USA government is such a peace loving and humanitarian government, why haven't they done anything about the countless African countries that are being run by dictators? Why was Iraq such a priority?
> 
> Oh and isn't Iraq a lovely place now. Living standards have obviously improved... Especially for all the US companies that have monopoly contracts on 'construction' and utilities.
> 
> ...




Another Chinese post... :headshake

You want to talk about Africa... read some earlier posts on this thread.. Sudan.. !!!

Bob Geldof, recently defended President Bush's record on aid to Africa.

Fact: The United States donates more than any other country in Official Development Assistance, to the tune of $16 billion. That is up from $10 billion in 2000. For fiscal 2006, Mr. Bush has requested an additional $3 billion. American increases in official development assistance over the period of Mr. Bush's presidency have far outpaced those of the European Union.

Fact: The United States is the largest single donor to international organizations, paying $362 million (or 22 percent) of the U.N. budget. We contribute more than $1 billion to the World Food Program. We contributed $194 (or 19 percent) to the U.N. Development Program and $288 million to the U.N. Children's Fund.

Fact: The U.S. government counts less than half of its foreign assistance as development aid. Excluded is aid to Israel, to the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and the Baltic countries, peacekeeping and military aid, educational and cultural exchanges, the National Endowment of Democracy, educational and cultural exchanges, funding to the Export-Import Bank, the Inter-American-Foundation, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. All of this amounted to $12.7 billion in 2002.

Fact: The United States has a great tradition of private giving, unequalled in most of the other countries with whom we are regularly compared. In 2004, private assistance flowing from the United States totaled $48 billion. This includes charity from private foundations, corporations, colleges and universities, religious organizations and NGOs, as well as individuals. It also includes personal remittances, about $28 billion. The U.S. government, of course, has no role in directing remittances, but facilitates these transactions through immigration and commerce legislation.

Fact: Americans donated nearly $700 million in tsunami relief to the stricken people of the Indian Ocean.
In total flows of international aid, the United States far and away leads the world. It is only in terms of an arbitrary percentage of GNP that our numbers look inadequate. Americans have nothing to apologize for when it comes to giving. Mr. Bush ought to hammer that message home when he speaks to the world leaders today in Scotland. In fact, his administration has set a standard for others to emulate. 

These figures are a few years old now...


----------



## Superfly (7 July 2008)

juw177 said:


> Superfly, repeating something over and over to drown out opposing views may get you a job with the US administration, but here you are just spamming (with bad punctuation).
> 
> 
> edit: decorum




Still waiting for your answer on the TET offensive and on the Khmer Rogue..

This is not a party meeting in Beijing... you can not just mouth off and all will just blindly agree for fear of being shot.


----------



## Superfly (7 July 2008)

juw177 said:


> No Superfly, *YOU read up*.
> Khmer Rogue came to power as a direct result of the US. And the CIA had continue to support them.




Have you finished reading yet Juw177

Just incase you missed this... this proves you totally and as usual incorrect..

The Khmer Rogue were a group of teenagers that were tired of the Cambodian government, under the control of Pol Pot, they rose together to try to end the Cambodian government and start communism in Cambodia. Given the opportunity, they aligned themselves with North Vietnam and waged war against the Cambodian government leading into a five year Civil War in Cambodia. The United States sided with the Buddhist Cambodians (the government of Cambodia) while the Vietnamese forces lead by Lon Nol joined the Khmer Rogue (The Cambodian Genocide). 

The Buddhist Cambodians were considered puppets of the Americans by the Cambodian people while the Khmer Rogue were considered loyal and honest.


Because of the affects of the United States bombardment, the government of Cambodia asked the United States to withdraw. The Khmer Rogue took this as an advantage and over threw the Cambodians, allowing the leader Pol Pot to take control of Cambodia starting the Cambodian Genocide (The Cambodian Genocide).


----------



## juw177 (7 July 2008)

Great, more propaganda. Why do I bother.

Those billions that US spends on *"aid"* goes towards military aid for the corrupt warlords in resource rich areas, as well as US companies that exploit those areas. Oh, and all those US military bases too. *(Read: AFRICOM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africom*


And Superfly, I was waiting for your answer. I said that the CIA supported the Khmer Rogue and you responded by saying China backed Pol Pot (which I don't argue with).

Here is wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Cambodia
For more, google "cia pol pot".

Stop spamming the thread please.


----------



## Superfly (7 July 2008)

juw177 said:


> Superfly, repeating something over and over to drown out opposing views may get you a job with the US administration, but here you are just spamming (with bad punctuation).
> 
> 
> edit: decorum




LOL ... and you getting everything wrong all the time will draw attention to you from your embassy boss and you will get you sent back to China to clean toilets at the Olympics...


----------



## Superfly (7 July 2008)

juw177 said:


> Those billions that US spends on "aid" goes towards military aid for the corrupt warlords in resource rich areas, as well as US companies that exploit those areas. Oh, and all those US military bases too. (Read: AFRICOM)
> 
> 
> And Superfly, I was waiting for your answer. I said that the CIA backed Khmer Rogue and you responded by saying China backed Pol Pot (which I don't argue with). Go and google "cia pol pot".
> ...




 LOL ....

You have shown NOTHING to out your arguement forward... NOTHING ...

Are you going to post anything other than your Chinese must be a CIA plot type posts ?


----------



## Superfly (7 July 2008)

juw177 said:


> Those billions that US spends on *"aid"* goes towards military aid for the corrupt warlords in resource rich areas, as well as US companies that exploit those areas. Oh, and all those US military bases too. *(Read: AFRICOM)*
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africom
> 
> 
> ...




Ok Juw177.... you have to read who writes such Bull*hit.. here we have a "socialist" US foreign policy critic making claims... not worth 2 cents..  

Not even close Juw177... no cigar..

 According to socialist U.S. foreign policy critic William Blum, the CIA supplied arms directly to Khmer Rouge forces and also funneled more than $20 million/year of "non-lethal" aid to a coalition which included the Khmer Rouge, without Congressional approval.[7]


----------



## Superfly (7 July 2008)

This thread is on Iran...

Start a thread on Cambodia if you want to carry this on Juw177...


----------



## ironchef (7 July 2008)

Superfly said:


> Another Chinese post... :headshake
> 
> Fact: The United States has a great tradition of private giving, unequalled in most of the other countries with whom we are regularly compared. In 2004, private assistance flowing from the United States totaled $48 billion. This includes charity from private foundations, corporations, colleges and universities, religious organizations and NGOs, as well as individuals. It also includes personal remittances, about $28 billion. The U.S. government, of course, has no role in directing remittances, but facilitates these transactions through immigration and commerce legislation.




Yes yes, USA is well known for its under the table 'charity'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Politics_of_Heroin:_CIA_Complicity_in_the_Global_Drug_Trade
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/docs/pak.htm

I'll leave it at that. I don't want you to choke on your words too badly.


----------



## Superfly (7 July 2008)

ironchef said:


> Yes yes, USA is well known for its under the table 'charity'.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Politics_of_Heroin:_CIA_Complicity_in_the_Global_Drug_Trade
> ...




Juw177 has been doing that already...


----------



## Superfly (7 July 2008)

ironchef said:


> Yes yes, USA is well known for its under the table 'charity'.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Politics_of_Heroin:_CIA_Complicity_in_the_Global_Drug_Trade
> ...




So... so what .. and if you want to post crap, then make sure you post who wrote it... Iran-Contra was what it was. The left played it up a usual and still are by your post. 

What about the Chinese selling high tech arms to Sudan ? the UN has said thatit isone of the most irresponsible arms sales in recent history. 

I can tell you that western companies in Africa give their local workers much better conditions and treat enviromental issues with much higher regard than the plundering Chinese.... 

This thread is about IRAN... start another thread if you wish to continue pushing your Chinese tribble.


----------



## Superfly (7 July 2008)

ironchef said:


> Yes yes, USA is well known for its under the table 'charity'.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Politics_of_Heroin:_CIA_Complicity_in_the_Global_Drug_Trade
> ...




Before you and Juw177 choke on your rice and fishheads, just one last post on selling weapons that you bought up... ahhh China..

China, Africa, and Oil 
Author:  Stephanie Hanson, News Editor   Council on Foreign Relations

June 6, 2008

In the period from 2003 to 2006, China's arms sales to Africa made up 15.4 percent ($500 million) of all conventional arms transfers to the continent. Notable weapons sales include those to Sudan, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Burundi, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe. Beijing has also sent Chinese military trainers to help their African counterparts. 

Arms sales and military relationships help China gain important African allies in the United Nations—including —for its Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Nigeriaolitical goals, including preventing Taiwanese independence and diverting attention from its own human rights record.

Concerns about China's role in Africa have been voiced by a range of actors—from human rights groups to international observers to Africans themselves. Many Africans are concerned over how China operates in Africa, accusing Chinese companies of underbidding local firms and not hiring Africans. Chinese infrastructure deals often stipulate that up to 70 percent of the labor must be Chinese, according to CFR's Economy. 

International observers say the way China does business—particularly its willingness to pay bribes, as documented by Transparency International, and attach no conditions to aid money—undermines local efforts to increase good governance and international efforts at macroeconomic reform by institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Sudan !!! Zimbabwe !!! ahhh China ...


----------



## juw177 (7 July 2008)

^^ I will bet that USA makes up most of the other 85% of arm sales, so prove me wrong.

Why don't you ever post who your sources if you are going to disregard any source that isn't from a blind Bush nationalist like yourself?

Why are you telling people to post about US-Iran when you are derailing this thread with every post? We are trying to discuss what the US is doing and when you cannot defend your empire, you talk about China and Cambodia.


----------



## Superfly (8 July 2008)

juw177 said:


> ^^ I will bet that USA makes up most of the other 85% of arm sales, so prove me wrong.
> 
> Why don't you ever post who your sources if you are going to disregard any source that isn't from a blind Bush nationalist like yourself?
> 
> Why are you telling people to post about US-Iran when you are derailing this thread with every post? We are trying to discuss what the US is doing and when you cannot defend your empire, you talk about China and Cambodia.




Prove you wrong....never said that the us doesn't sell arms.  I have been and am still waiting for you to back up the TET offensive, the CIA backing K Rogue... 

Yes but with arm sales it not only the cost % its what it is and what type of government the arms are sold to. 

On China's list is Sudan, Zimbabwe, nothing more needs to said there, a river patrol boat or cargo aircraft may cost the same 1000's of small arms...


----------



## Superfly (8 July 2008)

Coming soon....


----------



## wayneL (8 July 2008)

Superfly said:


> Coming soon....




Yes, and the world will change in a most terrible way.


----------



## Superfly (8 July 2008)

Iran can not be allowed to gain nuclear weapons.. 

Iranian police...


----------



## wayneL (8 July 2008)

I don't know if Iran is pursuing a weapons program, and if so, whether or not we have the moral authority to allow them or not.

But I do know that those photographs do zip to support your contention. Particularly the nuclear weapon detonation... which was in all probability, was carried out by the US.

Here is an equally irrelevant photo of US police beating up a harmless, overweight, middle aged lady.


----------



## gav (8 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> I don't know if Iran is pursuing a weapons program, and if so, whether or not we have the moral authority to allow them or not.
> 
> But I do know that those photographs do zip to support your contention. Particularly the nuclear weapon detonation... which was in all probability, was carried out by the US.
> 
> Here is an equally irrelevant photo of US police beating up a harmless, overweight, middle aged lady.




that photo doesnt show what happened leading up to that.  who knows, she may have even deserved it...


----------



## wayneL (8 July 2008)

gav said:


> that photo doesnt show what happened leading up to that.  who knows, she may have even deserved it...



Ummmmm......yeah.....

That's why I said it was irrelevant. I did that to demonstrate why the Fly's photos were also irrelevant.

Do try to keep up.


----------



## DB008 (8 September 2012)

Wired Magazine

Iran - US Preventive Strikes (PDF below)
+
U.S. Attack on Iran Would Take Hundreds of Planes, Ships, and Missiles


> Should the U.S. actually take Benjamin Netanyahu’s advice and attack Iran, don’t expect a few sorties flown by a couple of fighter jocks. Setting back Iran’s nuclear efforts will need to be an all-out effort, with squadrons of bombers and fighter jets, teams of commandos, rings of interceptor missiles and whole Navy carrier strike groups ”” plus enough drones, surveillance gear, tanker aircraft and logistical support to make such a massive mission go. And all of it, at best, would buy the U.S. and Israel another decade of a nuke-free Iran.
> 
> * “Israel does not have the capability to carry out preventive strikes that could do more than delay Iran’s efforts for a year or two.” Despite the increasingly sharp rhetoric coming out of Jerusalem, the idea of Israel launching a unilateral attack is almost as bad as allowing Tehran to continue its nuclear work unchallenged.  It would invite wave after wave of Iranian counterattacks ”” by missile, terrorist, and a boat ”” jeopardizing countries throughout the region. It would wreak havoc with the world’s oil supply. And that’s if Israel even manages to pull the mission off ”” something Cordesman very much doubts.
> 
> ...


----------



## DB008 (5 February 2013)

Propaganda at it's finest

*Yesterday's* headlines...

Iran unveils its very own stealth fighter

Iran unveils homegrown Qaher F-313 "stealth" fighter

Iran Claims It’s Rolled out a Stealth Fighter Jet ”” But Is it Real?

Fast Forward 24 hours, to *today's* headlines...

Iran's New 'Super' Stealth Fighter Jet Is Totally Fake 

Here’s why Iran’s new stealth fighter jet can’t fly February 4, 2013


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 February 2013)

The Persians I have met are not a bad bunch of people.

It seems that the religious extreme Islamist knuckle draggers, have hijacked that nation.

I would hope that Iran would not be attacked, but it looks increasingly likely.

gg


----------



## CanOz (5 February 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The Persians I have met are not a bad bunch of people.
> 
> It seems that the religious extreme Islamist knuckle draggers, have hijacked that nation.
> 
> ...




I worked with an Iranian, top bloke. Smart as a whip too

He was not Muslim...can't recall exactly his religion but he left for greener pastures in Australia.

CanOz


----------

