 |
|
mrmitchell
|
|
For the sake of all those poor souls there, North Korea better find oil, and soon.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:35
|
|
I don't think it will happen. The Axis of Evil is a joke IMO anyway. Why would you call it Axis of Evil anyway? This is not Star Wars? The guys who come up with this names are undermining everyones intelligence, it's an insult.
However, Yeah, I believe based on my feelings and past articles I've read that Iran is more in connections with the terrorists than Iraq. Well, Iraq turned out to be even less connected with the terrorists than it was first thought, but.. yeah I don't think there will be an invasion against Iran. First of all, there are already two fronts that require a lot of attention, Afghanistan and Iraq. Those two take up lot of resources, and I don't see why there would be enough resources to go after Iran if there is so much problems boosting up the amount of troops in Iraq, priority number one.
Basically it woudl be a mistake, if there was any actioin against Iran at this point, it would be a huge sign of .. it would mean that we are after ME as a whole, and that we don't have much in for them, except war. It would be dangerous sign of some kind of inevitable imperalism, that sign of a need to have more influence in that region, and quite frankly I think that this message, be it wrong or right, would be taken very badly in that region and causing the opposite results instead of what we'd be looking for.
Too much too soon. It's a mistake. No doubt there are some rogue dirty bastards there, but IMO it just doesnt' rank anywhere near the top of priorities and as such should be dealt with other ways. The odds for major FUBAR are too big.
.. NOW, what about Saudi Arabia?! I think if there needs to be fighting done, that's the place we should start.
Because basically I think that if we start goign after the lesser enemies, we are playing into the hands of terrorists and the real enemies. If we use distraction or somekind of other tactics, this will only strengthen the fundie leaders, no doubt. And this should be avoided to the last step, because it's all about acceptance, and at this rate there's no acceptance for basically all westerners in that area. So we should go straight to the source of many problems, Saudi Arabia. And then try to mediate things with other countries. If there's fighting needed to be done, I see that as only option. Or then there shouldn't be any fighting at all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
|
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:35
|
|
This is my major concern over the whole thing with these wars in that region:
basically I think, that there might be, and should be concerns that the west or the US is taking them one by one. They should go for stronger alliances together to fight us together. They don't want to get into it, because they're afraid they'll get some too, but at some point they will realize that it will happen anyway, and that it will be too late at some point to team up and fight.
And I'd say that fight we can't do, unless we're really prepared for, with strong alliance of our own, plus then it's up to many other questions too like what are the reasons, is this necessary etc.
They feel the rope tightening on their necks. At some point someone will act. Or, some countries that are targeted and unable to talk to form a real alliance, they'll start scrambling. Say, US declared war on Iran. Iran declares war on Pakistan if they grant the use of their soil for the troops to what ever. India gets nervous when Pakistan is at ready, everyone is reaching for their alliances, just too big of a mess, too many variables. Not worth it unless they are really threatning us and I think they're not threatning us.
And basically then it comes to how big of a mess it would be, chances are it would be something that would exceed Iraq and all other recent conflicts. If it goes all out war, there will be many casualties, including their casualties, and when it's all over, and we look at those thousands, tens of thousands at the worst case even hundreds of thousands of casualties from mostly their side, it comes down to why it went down and who started it and if it should be us who started the aggression.. that's just not good. We can say terrorism here terrorism there, but if there are casualties up to those numbers from their side, assuming mostly innocents or their soldiers, us starting it, well.. it's a question of one of ours means 1000 of yours, and that's just too ****ing biblical to make any sense. If we want to call them the Axis of Evil and what not, we better make sure we don't become the evil. And at the end, there would be more terrorists than in the beginning and as a bonus our own allied wouldn't be so strong anymore if there would be feelings we're not doing the right thing here anymore.
The bottom line is, we can't contain that war. I mean it's a possibility, but the cards are in the hands of Iran. And this wouldn't stabilize the area at all. Except if we think that sending our officials to be our puppets and we'd be the masters, that just won't work. It would be a plan, but I think that's just a bad plan. What I think we could do is to support some kind of resistance in there if there was one, or try diplomatic ways. Threatning wouldn't get us nowhere. Except to a factory with full of **** and we'd all need to swim in it.
Last edited by Pekka on 19-07-2004 at 18:56
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drake Tungsten
|
 |
Knee deep in alien womyn...
Oct 2001
time: 14:35
|
|
quote:
Iran General Helped 9/11 Plotters' Transit-Report
DUBAI (Reuters) - An Iranian general collaborated with al Qaeda to arrange the transit through Iran of nine of the September 11 hijackers, the Arabic newspaper Asharq al-Awsat reported on Monday.
"A general in the apparatus (Revolutionary Guard) coordinated with the number two man in al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahri, to provide 'safe passage' to around nine of those who carried out the attacks," the London-based paper said.
It cited as its source an official in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and said Zawahri, who requested the help, had links with the general going back to the early 1990s.
Iranian government spokesman Abdollah Ramazanzadeh challenged the newspaper to back up its story.
"If they have concrete proof they should hand it over to the United Nations, and if they really trust their sources they should let us know too," he told a weekly news conference when asked about the report.
A U.S. commission is expected to say in a report this week on the September 11 attacks that some of the hijackers passed through Iran on their way to the United States, but the CIA's Acting Director has said there is no evidence of official Iranian complicity.
Iran acknowledged that some of the 19 attackers may have passed through illegally, but said it had since tightened border controls. It said any attempts to tie the country to Osama bin Laden's group were part of U.S. election-year propaganda.
The disclosure has again raised the question in the United States of whether the Bush administration, facing a re-election contest in November, has focused too much on Iraq in seeking state connections to the attacks.
Some 3,000 people died when suicide hijackers flew airliners into U.S. landmarks. The attacks were blamed on al Qaeda, which was then based in Iran's neighbor, Afghanistan.
The New York Times reported on Sunday that Iran had ordered its border guards not to stamp the passports of Saudi al Qaeda members moving through Iran after training in Afghanistan.
An Iranian stamp could have made the al Qaeda members subject to additional scrutiny upon entering the United States. (Additional reporting by Amir Paivar in Tehran) |
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=5703763
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The Times of London had an article on our future plans regarding Iran a few days back. I'll see if I can dig it up...
edit: You have to pay to read the whole article. **** that. Anyway, here's the excerpt I read.
quote:
THE US will mount a concerted attempt to overturn the regime in Iran if President Bush is elected for a second term.
It would work strenuously to foment a revolt against the ruling theocracy by Iran's "hugely dissatisfied" population, a senior official has told The Times.
The United States would not use military force, as in Iraq, but "if Bush is re-elected there will be much more intervention in the internal affairs of Iran", declared the official, who is determined that there should be no let-up in the Administration's War on Terror.
To what extent the official, known to be hawkish, was speaking for the White House was unclear, but his remarks are nevertheless likely to cause alarm in Europe. He hinted at a possible military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, saying that there was a window of opportunity for destroying Iran's main nuclear complex at Bushehr next year that would close if Russia delivered crucial fuel rods. |
Sounds good to me...  |
Yes, they'll be dancing and welcoming us in the streets this time, for sure. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Xeones
|
|
What is left for us to do to foster rebellion from outside the country? Are the Iranian rebels supposed to be encouraged that they are doing our will? Do you think maybe they noticed the end of Gulf War I when we tried to start an Iraqi rebellion against Saddam? The recent shining examples of Afghanistan or Iraq? Perhaps they were asleep the last 3-13 years? Maybe we should try reverse psychology on them...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-07-2004 14:08
at the "plans" of the admin. thought I seriously doubt the validity of any of the speakers save the commission.
), they'll of course all be America loving, freedom loving, democracy loving types. After all, we have such a deep and profound understanding of the middle east and it's peoples, how could they be anything but pro-American? 
-->
|