/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Iran - Bush - Your Views



AvarAllahNoor
02-14-2007, 02:55 PM
Iran can start to control the world's oil supply. U.S would be at the mercy of Iran with Gasoline and other product prices. U.S would be able to stop Iran from creating nuclear weapons because of the oil threat. - Why shouldn't Iran have nukes, who the hell appointed the U.S to be the world spokesperson? Bullying every country that does not march to their drum beat.

I hope to God Iran sticks to their guns (pun intended) Resist another invasion at all costs. - They fail in Iraq, they fail in Afghanistan, now they attempt Iran. lol - It can't be anymore more ludicrious if it was in the funnies section.

If you want democracy, implement it in the US first. You can't even hold elections without them being rigged, so much for implementing it in foreign countries. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry for all the innocent americans who will be killed if this goes ahead. Think IRA, but only a 100 times worse, because they don't fear dying, so suicide bombers deployed all over the US.

Lets hope they see sense!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9T-XzeFuYk
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Woodrow
02-14-2007, 08:10 PM
I am not going to deny that there is some sort of agenda for the US to be involved in the mideast. But, it is not about oil.

Now, it is true that Iran has a very large reserve of crude, but it is buried deep in the ground and is not producing. I can not foresee any petroleum companies being willing to invest in Iran oil development, while there are still cheaper and safer sources.

I also suspect that in the very near future we will see mideastern oil replaced by Venezuelan, Canadian and Malaysian oil. Venezuela is already getting a good foot hold in the US and is aggressively advertising CITGO (The Venezuelan Government owned Co,) also with the current reduction of mid eastern oil to the US gasoline prices are dropping and they will drop even more once Venezuela gets a larger share of the US market.

I really do not know what the agenda is for the US to be in the Mid east. In the past it was because of Russia and the goal was that if a major confrontation occured between the US and Russia it would be fought in the Mid East and not on US soil.
Reply

Keltoi
02-14-2007, 08:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
Iran can start to control the world's oil supply. U.S would be at the mercy of Iran with Gasoline and other product prices. U.S would be able to stop Iran from creating nuclear weapons because of the oil threat. - Why shouldn't Iran have nukes, who the hell appointed the U.S to be the world spokesperson? Bullying every country that does not march to their drum beat.

I hope to God Iran sticks to their guns (pun intended) Resist another invasion at all costs. - They fail in Iraq, they fail in Afghanistan, now they attempt Iran. lol - It can't be anymore more ludicrious if it was in the funnies section.

If you want democracy, implement it in the US first. You can't even hold elections without them being rigged, so much for implementing it in foreign countries. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry for all the innocent americans who will be killed if this goes ahead. Think IRA, but only a 100 times worse, because they don't fear dying, so suicide bombers deployed all over the US.

Lets hope they see sense!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9T-XzeFuYk
First of all, the Iranian oil capacity isn't what it used to be, and their oil infrastructure has been eroding for quite some time. The major threat to the U.S. as far as oil leverage is Venezuela.

Secondly, there is no planned invasion. Any strike against Iran would be just that, a strike. Probably a very big one, but still only a strike, not an occupation.

As far as losing in Iraq, Afghanistan, blah blah, I don't see how you point to a "loss" or a "victory" in these circumstances. They are still playing out. Perhaps you wish to see a "loss", but don't count the eggs before they hatch.

Finally, as for your hypothetical "100 times worse than IRA" analogy, I don't see how that could be achieved. There is no Muslim country on the border to produce the kind of terrorist flow you are describing. I would also wager that there are plenty of normal Muslims who would take to action fairly quickly if they thought their communities were giving safe-haven to suicide bombers in the U.S.
Reply

MTAFFI
02-14-2007, 08:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
Iran can start to control the world's oil supply. U.S would be at the mercy of Iran with Gasoline and other product prices. U.S would be able to stop Iran from creating nuclear weapons because of the oil threat. - Why shouldn't Iran have nukes, who the hell appointed the U.S to be the world spokesperson? Bullying every country that does not march to their drum beat.

I hope to God Iran sticks to their guns (pun intended) Resist another invasion at all costs. - They fail in Iraq, they fail in Afghanistan, now they attempt Iran. lol - It can't be anymore more ludicrious if it was in the funnies section.

If you want democracy, implement it in the US first. You can't even hold elections without them being rigged, so much for implementing it in foreign countries. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry for all the innocent americans who will be killed if this goes ahead. Think IRA, but only a 100 times worse, because they don't fear dying, so suicide bombers deployed all over the US.

Lets hope they see sense!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9T-XzeFuYk
Boy ohh Boy can I see this one getting messy...LOL

Well I was going to start with the oil leverage thing but it seems that is pretty well known and already stated.

Second, Iran shouldnt have nukes because that is not just a threat to the US but the entire world, which is why sanctions were approved by the UN. As far as bullying, I would look at it more like looking after the security interests of our own country and the security interests of our allies in striking distance in the middle east and Europe.

Third, I dont think we are failing in Afghan or Iraq. It is always a difficult win when you dont know who you are fighting, or what the infrastructure is or how many you have left to kill before you win. Afghanistan is ruled by the Taliban so mission accomplished. Iraq isnt ruled by Saddam so again mission accomplished. What has the Taliban or the insurgency in Iraq done to deserve the victory flag? To me it seems both of these countries are doing more harm to themselves than the US.

As far as Iran goes I think that you have invasion (occupation) and war confused. The US has no interest in Iran other than to stop them from compromising the security of our troops and country. Iran would be simply destroyed, I doubt many ground troops would even be deployed, it would just be days and days of bombs blowing the infrastructure to rubble. Iran would not stand a chance, that goes for Syria as well, however I think that they are cowards and wouldnt want to interfere anyways.

I would say the US is a good democracy, every government has their own secrets, but I wouldnt say elections are rigged, if that were the case Bush wouldnt be a lame duck right now. Hillary Clinton wouldnt be running for president and neither would Barak Obama. That is more speculation from delusional outside sources who really have no real idea of what US politics are, and therefore speculate because of the injustices in their own governments that fail to provide adequate security, food, structure, etc.

And again here we go with the suicide bombers in the US, I have said before and will say again, Muslims would make it a sad day for their own peoples civil rights and lives if this were to happen. I am with Keltoi though, I think that enough Muslims in the US can see what is going on enough to where they would report anything like this and take action to protect their own welfare in our country.

Lets hope Iran see's sense!

(Who is worse Bush or Ahmadinejad?)

-The Yank:D
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
AvarAllahNoor
02-14-2007, 08:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MTAFFI

(Who is worse Bush or Ahmadinejad?)

-The Yank:D

Well, bad as each other I think - Fair concluson?
:D
Reply

MTAFFI
02-14-2007, 08:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor

Well, bad as each other I think - Fair concluson?
:D
very much so
Reply

wilberhum
02-14-2007, 09:03 PM
The US is hardly the only country that doesn’t want Iran to have nukes. More nuke capable countries will only ensure that they get used. The more radical the country the more real the threat is. That is why the DPRK is so scary. Iran has already made it clear that there wish is for Israel to be wiped off the map.
JFK said it the best. The taste of victory will be ashes in the mouth.
Reply

Cognescenti
02-14-2007, 09:05 PM
Let's hope this doesn't happen. It would be a nightmare...but not for the US. The US could absorb hundreds of suicide strikes (as long as they did not entail WMD's)...but it would immediately unite Americans of all stripes. After they got done burrying their dead they would call for action and I don't think they would settle for diplomacy.

The world would have a second Israel..one with 300,000,000 people and a trillion $ defence budget. :mad:
Reply

MTAFFI
02-14-2007, 09:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cognescenti
Let's hope this doesn't happen. It would be a nightmare...but not for the US. The US could absorb hundreds of suicide strikes (as long as they did not entail WMD's)...but it would immediately unite Americans of all stripes. After they got done burrying their dead they would call for action and I don't think they would settle for diplomacy.

The world would have a second Israel..one with 300,000,000 people and a trillion $ defence budget. :mad:
Now that is scary :mad: :raging: :scared: :anger: :uuh: :muddlehea

for those at least against the US, it seems all of those the US has defeated in the past have said the same things, and talked this big talk

You know there is always this talk, we are not afraid to die, but something tells me that when the number of people that wish to behave this way begins to drastically drop, the fear may become a little more prevalent, and they may find themself saying, why did we make it this way?
Reply

MTAFFI
02-14-2007, 09:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MTAFFI
Now that is scary :mad: :raging: :scared: :anger: :uuh: :muddlehea

for those at least against the US, it seems all of those the US has defeated in the past have said the same things, and talked this big talk

You know there is always this talk, we are not afraid to die, but something tells me that when the number of people that wish to behave this way begins to drastically drop, the fear may become a little more prevalent, and they may find themself saying, why did we make it this way?
If you notice the US never says "we are going to do this or that to you" we typically speak with our actions
Reply

Suomipoika
02-14-2007, 09:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
Why shouldn't Iran have nukes
Considering how much they talk about wiping out Israel, I think its very important that Iran is prevented from getting nukes.

Im also bit afraid, how much more will Iran start supporting terrorism, if they do get nuclear weapons and use them to shield their actions.
Reply

Um_ahmad
02-14-2007, 09:55 PM
I hope for peace in the world.
Reply

aamirsaab
02-14-2007, 10:25 PM
:sl:

format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
Why shouldn't Iran have nukes, who the hell appointed the U.S to be the world spokesperson? Bullying every country that does not march to their drum beat
My sentiments exactly.

If you want democracy, implement it in the US first. You can't even hold elections without them being rigged, so much for implementing it in foreign countries
:D

format_quote Originally Posted by Suomipoika
Considering how much they talk about wiping out Israel, I think its very important that Iran is prevented from getting nukes.
Well, North korea seemed pretty pumped up to blow the crap out of the US until the american government decided to fork some oil over. D'ya reckon the US could use the old 'hand em some oil' trick with the Iranians?


Im also bit afraid, how much more will Iran start supporting terrorism, if they do get nuclear weapons and use them to shield their actions.
My concern lies with the civilians who get caught up in the political parties vendettas who use nuclear weapons to shield their actions.
Reply

Woodrow
02-14-2007, 10:26 PM
Nukes are a 2 edged sword, and nobody has designed a sheath to hold them.

A nuke is a very expensive military waste. The money used to maintain a nuke greatly reduces the resources for other military options. It is very easy for a small country to soon exhaust it's military budget for any other options. A nuclear country soon becomes a nuclear country without the ability to conduct a conventional war.

As smaller countries become nuclear empowered the chances for limited local skirmishes is reduced and the chance for massive nuclear retaliation increases.

A nuclear power country is not likely to use a nuke against a non-nuclear nation. However, it is almost certain that a nuclear nation would use a nuke as a first strike weapon against any nation known to have nukes.

Any country having nukes poses a very grave danger to themselves, to their neighbors and to their allies.
Reply

wilberhum
02-14-2007, 10:33 PM
My concern lies with the civilians who get caught up in the political parties vendettas who use nuclear weapons to shield their actions.
So why do you want more nuks? How many nuks are enough?
Reply

aamirsaab
02-14-2007, 10:38 PM
:sl:
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
So why do you want more nuks? How many nuks are enough?
You misunderstand. Personally, I would love it if nukes were never invented - I think they're the most paradoxical creation ever built by and for mankind.

However, don't expect me to fall for blatant double standards: 'X country isn't allowed nukes but Y country is'.
Reply

Suomipoika
02-14-2007, 10:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Well, North korea seemed pretty pumped up to blow the crap out of the US until the american government decided to fork some oil over. D'ya reckon the US could use the old 'hand em some oil' trick with the Iranians?
EU has been trying to work a carrot deal with the Iranians for long time now, so far there doesnt seem to have been any real progress. To me it seems more like the Iranians are using the negotiations to buy more time until they do get nukes.

My concern lies with the civilians who get caught up in the political parties vendettas who use nuclear weapons to shield their actions.
What vendettas?

format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
However, don't expect me to fall for blatant double standards: 'X country isn't allowed nukes but Y country is'.
Double standars perhaps, but how often do you hear Bush saying he wants to wipe out Iran, or North Korea, or Syria or [insert whatever country you want here] from the map?
Reply

wilberhum
02-14-2007, 10:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
:sl:

You misunderstand. Personally, I would love it if nukes were never invented - I think they're the most paradoxical creation ever built by and for mankind.

However, don't expect me to fall for blatant double standards: 'X country isn't allowed nukes but Y country is'.
So since the US has them, every one should get them?
Like it or not they exist and everyone having them will not make things better.
Reply

aamirsaab
02-14-2007, 10:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Suomipoika
EU has been trying to work a carrot deal with the Iranians for long time now, so far there doesnt seem to have been any real progress. To me it seems more like the Iranians are using the negotiations to buy more time until they do get nukes.
Well I wouldn't put it past them to even think of that.

What vendettas?
Saddam, Osama bin Laden to name two.

Double standars perhaps, but how often do you hear Bush saying he wants to wipe out Iran, or North Korea, or Syria or [insert whatever country you want here] from the map?
Actions speak louder than words; the US army attacks on sudan, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Syria, Guatemala, vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan (to name but a few) are several examples of this. Though not all under the direction of Mr Bush, I admit.

Ahmadinajid, like many others, made a huge mistake of barking too loud.

format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
So since the US has them, every one should get them?
As I said before, you can't say 'no you cant have this, but I can' and expect people to fall for it. It's standard bullying tactics and blatant hypocrisy.

Like it or not they exist and everyone having them will not make things better.
As I said before, I'd rather nukes had never been created.

Please note, I'm as left-wing/pacifistic as Ghandi and in no way do I support Iran's military action.

I do however support the concept of standing your ground against a bully.
Reply

Cognescenti
02-14-2007, 11:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
...<snip>
Please note, I'm as left-wing/pacifistic as Ghandi and in no way do I support Iran's military action.

I do however support the concept of standing your ground against a bully.
Exactly which of these definitions for "bully" do you mean?

n. pl. bul·lies
1. A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing, especially to smaller or weaker people.
2. A hired ruffian; a thug.
3. A pimp.
4. Archaic A fine person.
5. Archaic A sweetheart.



Note that the first definition, which I suspect is what you intend, requires "habitual" behavior.

Now that you brought up Ghandi...what do you think Ghandi might have said about Indian nukes?
Reply

Suomipoika
02-15-2007, 12:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Saddam, Osama bin Laden to name two.
Do you really think its just vendetta from Republican party to go after Osama, and had there been President from some other political party during 9/11, there would not have been action taken against Osama?

Saddam Ill admit, is bit more trickier case. It does raise some questions. However, in the end, as you, I support the idea of standing against bullies, and Saddam was ruthless dictator, whose removal should have been really good thing. Maybe when this is all over, it still will be. Unfortunately, alot of people support the bullies USA is trying to fight against in Iraq.

Actions speak louder than words; the US army attacks on sudan, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Syria, Guatemala, vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan (to name but a few) are several examples of this. Though not all under the direction of Mr Bush, I admit.

Ahmadinajid, like many others, made a huge mistake of barking too loud.
USA certainly isnt perfect, and they have made mistakes, but many examples you give is where USA has been standing against bullies. Especially the more recent ones.

I do however support the concept of standing your ground against a bully.
You are kind of condraticting yourself. You are complaining about US actions when it has stood up against bullies like Japanese Empire, Osama Bin Laden or genocidal Sudanese goverment. Indeed Osama is one of the great vendettas from political party that we, the world, should be worried about.
Reply

snakelegs
02-15-2007, 02:19 AM
i'd like to see a nuclear-free world.
why not call for a nuclear-free middle east? i think it's wrong to demand that iran stop their program, while saying nothing about israel and their nukes.
also i think iran has signed the non-proliferation treaty, which israel has not.
Reply

north_malaysian
02-15-2007, 07:03 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
i'd like to see a nuclear-free world.
.
[BANANA]WE WANT A NUKE-FREE WORLD!!![/BANANA]
Reply

aamirsaab
02-15-2007, 10:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cognescenti
Exactly which of these definitions for "bully" do you mean?

n. pl. bul&#183;lies
1. A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing, especially to smaller or weaker people.
2. A hired ruffian; a thug.
3. A pimp.
4. Archaic A fine person.
5. Archaic A sweetheart.



Note that the first definition, which I suspect is what you intend, requires "habitual" behavior.
And the list of countries that have been attacked by the US forces doesn't count as habitual?

Now that you brought up Ghandi...what do you think Ghandi might have said about Indian nukes?
Shoot them all into space.

format_quote Originally Posted by Suomipoika
Do you really think its just vendetta from Republican party to go after Osama, and had there been President from some other political party during 9/11, there would not have been action taken against Osama?
The vendetta on OBL/Afghanistan from the Republican party was as a result of the 9/11 attacks. Had a non-republican party had the same experience and intention, I think the outcome would have been similar.

Saddam Ill admit, is bit more trickier case. It does raise some questions. However, in the end, as you, I support the idea of standing against bullies, and Saddam was ruthless dictator, whose removal should have been really good thing.
I agree, but realistically saddam should have been removed long ago.

USA certainly isnt perfect, and they have made mistakes, but many examples you give is where USA has been standing against bullies. Especially the more recent ones.
It has only stood against 'bullies' when they have benefited from it (oil). Super powers rarely expose altruistic behaviour when it comes to war.

You are kind of condraticting yourself. You are complaining about US actions when it has stood up against bullies like Japanese Empire,
In no way were the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks in Japan any form of standing up to bullies - that was overkill. I understand the need to retaliate, but dropping two atom bombs?

Indeed Osama is one of the great vendettas from political party that we, the world, should be worried about.
I understand this, however what I don't understand is who appointed the US army to be the saviour of all mankind?
Reply

Muezzin
02-15-2007, 10:35 AM
I hope aliens invade Earth so we are forced to use all of our nuclear weapons to down their mother ship in space. Furthermore, paradoxically, by uniting against a common enemy we would get finally get world peace.

Back to reality.

format_quote Originally Posted by Suomipoika
Double standars perhaps, but how often do you hear Bush saying he wants to wipe out Iran, or North Korea, or Syria or [insert whatever country you want here] from the map?
Bush has teeth. Ahmadinejad just barks.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
02-15-2007, 10:57 AM
Armageddon
Reply

MTAFFI
02-15-2007, 02:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
And the list of countries that have been attacked by the US forces doesn't count as habitual?
Please tell me do you truly think that the US had no good reason to make attacks on any of the countries you listed? Each of those countries had at the very least a security threat to the US, does the US not have the right to protect itself and its interests?

format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
I agree, but realistically saddam should have been removed long ago.
So does that mean he should just be allowed to continue his reign?

format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
It has only stood against 'bullies' when they have benefited from it (oil). Super powers rarely expose altruistic behaviour when it comes to war.
Please do tell what oil the US has recieved from any country it has gone to war with... In fact other than acheiving its goals in war what has the US benefited from any war?

format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
In no way were the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks in Japan any form of standing up to bullies - that was overkill. I understand the need to retaliate, but dropping two atom bombs?
I guess if you werent in Pearl Harbor at the time you might say that... I would say Pearl Harbor was overkill too.. You have to remember war is exactly that, WAR. A war cannot be won by saying "Well they only killed X amount of people so we will give an equal reaction and do the same" War is won by showing the enemy that you cannot and will not be messed with.

format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
I understand this, however what I don't understand is who appointed the US army to be the saviour of all mankind?
I suppose we should remember that before sending the mass amounts of aid to countries all over the world. Really who did appoint us for this task? Why should we care about the Iraqis, or AIDS in Africa, or who needs our technological advances, or our advanced medicines, or anything really that comes from our great country? I dont hear you complaining about that
Reply

aamirsaab
02-15-2007, 04:49 PM
:sl:
format_quote Originally Posted by MTAFFI
Please tell me do you truly think that the US had no good reason to make attacks on any of the countries you listed? Each of those countries had at the very least a security threat to the US, does the US not have the right to protect itself and its interests?
Yes the US does have a right to protect itself, in defence. Posing a threat (though what we really mean is possessing WMD) is not a valid offence to launch an attack though. Surely you can see this?


So does that mean he should just be allowed to continue his reign?
Of course not, What I meant was, if it the US wanted saddam out why leave it till so late? Why have to make up a load of BS excuses for invading Iraq?

Please do tell what oil the US has recieved from any country it has gone to war with...
Oil reserves in Iraq as of mid-late 2006 = 112 (which is pretty large considered that most middle eastern countries, where oil is still rich in quantites, averages out from 30 to 50). I'm pretty sure after setting up democracy in Iraq, the ellected leader will donate favourably to the US. You could refer to it as a thank you payment.

In fact other than acheiving its goals in war what has the US benefited from any war?
* Prevention of communism/or other ruling party (taliban, dictatorship)
* Spreading of democracy
* allies (though, this is now debatable)
* Import/export increase

I guess if you werent in Pearl Harbor at the time you might say that... I would say Pearl Harbor was overkill too.. You have to remember war is exactly that, WAR. A war cannot be won by saying "Well they only killed X amount of people so we will give an equal reaction and do the same"
I agree, but as I stated before, two atom bombs? (which were actually, under dictionary definition, acts of terrorism just as much as pearl harbour was).

War is won by showing the enemy that you cannot and will not be messed with.
This is where some people go wrong: In war, there are those who lose, and those who lose even more.

I suppose we should remember that before sending the mass amounts of aid to countries all over the world. Really who did appoint us for this task? Why should we care about the Iraqis, or AIDS in Africa, or who needs our technological advances, or our advanced medicines, or anything really that comes from our great country? I dont hear you complaining about that
I admire them for giving aid and technology, I think it is great that they are doing so. I just wish they'd stop invading/attacking other countries whilst doing so. Or is this one of those occasions where you can't have one without another?
Reply

Keltoi
02-15-2007, 04:58 PM
Americans will have a different view than others about the justification of certain actions, and it can't be denied that many mistakes in foreign policy have been made. I think everyone down to Einstein wished the atomic bomb had never been made, much less dropped, but if it wasn't the U.S. it would have been Russia, Germany, etc. That is a different topic though.

Iran's president is a loud barker, and is good at yelling "Death to Israel" at home and sounding fairly reasonable talking to Western journalists. I think the threat from Iran is being downplayed personally. History has taught us that one should stop threats when they are small, not when they are big.
Reply

MTAFFI
02-15-2007, 05:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
:sl:

Yes the US does have a right to protect itself, in defence. Posing a threat (though what we really mean is possessing WMD) is not a valid offence to launch an attack though. Surely you can see this?
I can see where simply posing a threat is not valid, but producing WMD's, claiming to have WMD's, Chemical weapons or otherwise is a different story, especially when we are talking about an unpredictable, conscious less people like Saddam, the Taliban and other extreme groups and even Iran. Who do you think Iran would love to use a WMD against? DO you not think they could cloak it with a terrorist group, then who would the US go after? Stopping the problem before there is a problem is the only good response in a situation like this. We are talking about the deaths of hundreds of thousand and maybe millions depending on where and what type of strike, and if I am the leader of the US, I have to say it would be the people of Iran before the people of the US.

format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
:
Of course not, What I meant was, if it the US wanted saddam out why leave it till so late? Why have to make up a load of BS excuses for invading Iraq?
Who knows, maybe past presidents were afraid.. Saddam claimed to have WMD's and was known to have chemical weapons, to me oon top of what he was doing to his people, that was plenty of reason to attack him.

format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
:
Oil reserves in Iraq as of mid-late 2006 = 112 (which is pretty large considered that most middle eastern countries, where oil is still rich in quantites, averages out from 30 to 50). I'm pretty sure after setting up democracy in Iraq, the ellected leader will donate favourably to the US. You could refer to it as a thank you payment.
I guess we will have to see, it isnt an unreasonable thought so I wont say you are wrong, however I will say it hasnt happened yet, and it hasnt been asked for either.

format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
:
* Prevention of communism/or other ruling party (taliban, dictatorship)
* Spreading of democracy
* allies (though, this is now debatable)
* Import/export increase
None of which is wrong, all good reasons to go to war

format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
:
I agree, but as I stated before, two atom bombs? (which were actually, under dictionary definition, acts of terrorism just as much as pearl harbour was).
I agree, overkill, however this did end the war didnt it? Who know how many more may have died had this not been done

format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
:
This is where some people go wrong: In war, there are those who lose, and those who lose even more.
I have to agree

format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
:
I admire them for giving aid and technology, I think it is great that they are doing so. I just wish they'd stop invading/attacking other countries whilst doing so. Or is this one of those occasions where you can't have one without another?
I believe the US has had just cause for its recent endeavors in the Mid East, this can be argued but it just depends on what you support, I dont support dictatorship, mass murders, oppressive regimes, or terrorist countries, so I feel we have a right to do what we are doing in Iraq and Afghan to protect the future of our country and people
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
02-15-2007, 05:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MTAFFI
I suppose we should remember that before sending the mass amounts of aid to countries all over the world. Really who did appoint us for this task? Why should we care about the Iraqis, or AIDS in Africa, or who needs our technological advances, or our advanced medicines, or anything really that comes from our great country? I dont hear you complaining about that
Din't forget to supply arms the world over to everyone too. So they can kill each otherthat litte bit faster. :D

Russia is guilty of that too and UK!
Reply

Woodrow
02-15-2007, 06:12 PM
The greatest danger I see of Iran having nuke capability is that the fact they can have nukes, is going to encourage Israel to make a first strike to neutralize the capability before it happens. I would say the only reason they have not done so already is because they have fear the US would retaliate against Israel either financially or militarily.

As Iran gets closer to having Nukes and the more involved the US gets in other issues around the world the higher the risk for an Israeli first strike becomes. Keep in mind massive retaliation, against Israel is almost guaranteed genocide for Palestine.

A military destruction of Israel would most likely result in sacrificing Palestine.
Reply

Suomipoika
02-15-2007, 06:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
The vendetta on OBL/Afghanistan from the Republican party was as a result of the 9/11 attacks. Had a non-republican party had the same experience and intention, I think the outcome would have been similar.
So what are you actually saying? We should be worried because USA defends itself? And because USA defends itself, we should ignore their complaints about Iranian nuclear program?

I agree, but realistically saddam should have been removed long ago.
Yes, but better late than never.

It has only stood against 'bullies' when they have benefited from it (oil). Super powers rarely expose altruistic behaviour when it comes to war.
What are you actually saying? It would have been better if USA had done nothing in cases like when Kuwait was invaded by Iraq, or when Kosovo muslims were slaughtered by Serbs?

Better for USA to do nothing to stop bullies if they actually benefit from it one way or another? What does it matter if sometimes they benefit from doing good things?

Personally Im very happy there is country like USA who tries to prevent the likes of North Korea and Iran getting nukes, bombs the genocidal maniacs in Belgrade, fights people who have urges to fly planes into tall buildings, guarantees small nations like Taiwan from countries who want to invade them, removes brutal dictators like Saddam and so on. If they benefit from any of those actions, fine, very good. At the same time, I realise, like all humans, they arent perfect and sometimes do mistakes aswell.

In no way were the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks in Japan any form of standing up to bullies - that was overkill. I understand the need to retaliate, but dropping two atom bombs?
USA had been bombing Japanese cities for months before the use of nuclear weapons, killing hundreds of thousands, in the night of march 9-10, 1945 in Tokyo alone over 100 000. Japan had been strangled from resources, there was serious shortages in food etc and much of Japan was starving.

I had to check some of the numbers, but more people died in the Battle of Okinawa than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki together. More civilians died in Okinawa than in Hiroshima (and this all can hardly be faulted at the americans, since for example Japan went as far as arming teenage school girls with hand grenades and using them as a last resort defense as suicide bombers againts the americans) 3-4 times as much US soldiers died in Okinawa in less than 3 months than in almost 4 years in Iraq. How much more people would have died had USA tried to invade the four main islands of Japan?

Even after all this, Japan wasnt ready to surrender. Actually, if I remember right, even when Japan had been nuked, there was one more coup attempt by the officers who wanted to continue the war.

Overkills? I dont know. But considering how brutal World War II was, and how far Japan was ready to go, Im not sure I can judge it that simply. Plus Truman never had the hindsight we do. Instead of using nukes, what would you have suggested Truman to do to force Japan to surrender?

I understand this, however what I don't understand is who appointed the US army to be the saviour of all mankind?
No one. But in the case of Osama, the US army isnt trying to be the saviour of all mankind, rather they are defending themselves in a war started by Osama in september 2001.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
Bush has teeth. Ahmadinejad just barks.
Refresh my memory, which countries have been completely wiped from the map by Bush?
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
02-15-2007, 06:34 PM
I will say something here, what sit at out pcs posting away about this and that and how to prevent it all. We forget the Master is the one who has the last word. And what his will is, we shall accpet it. Regardless!

But it's nice to debate and discuss things.

As you were soldiers....
Reply

islamirama
02-15-2007, 06:49 PM
US is replacing all anti-west leaders with puppets that kiss the feet of the west. As Bush said, he is in a crusade to change the middle east. He also mentions in the video of "national interest" for going there. And it won't stop there, syria is next on the table and so is pakistan. These are all initial stages of WWIII
Reply

MTAFFI
02-15-2007, 07:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by islamirama
US is replacing all anti-west leaders with puppets that kiss the feet of the west. As Bush said, he is in a crusade to change the middle east. He also mentions in the video of "national interest" for going there. And it won't stop there, syria is next on the table and so is pakistan. These are all initial stages of WWIII

oh here we go, now it is a "crusade"
Reply

Muezzin
02-15-2007, 07:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Suomipoika
Refresh my memory, which countries have been completely wiped from the map by Bush?
He could if he wanted to. He has the capability to do so. I'm not saying he would, I'm just saying that's what I meant when I said Bush has teeth.

And I see your sarcasm and raise you one reversal: refresh my memory, which countries have been completely wiped from the map by Ahmadinejad? He's all talk. That's what I meant when I said he just barks.

format_quote Originally Posted by MTAFFI
oh here we go, now it is a "crusade"
That's not fair. The member you're quoting is using Bush's own words.
Reply

Keltoi
02-15-2007, 07:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
He could if he wanted to. He has the capability to do so. I'm not saying he would, I'm just saying that's what I meant when I said Bush has teeth.

And I see your sarcasm and raise you one reversal: refresh my memory, which countries have been completely wiped from the map by Ahmadinejad? He's all talk. That's what I meant when I said he just barks.


That's not fair. The member you're quoting is using Bush's own words.
Which of course we all know wasn't in the context of the "crusades" that started in 1098....
Reply

Muezzin
02-15-2007, 07:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Which of course we all know wasn't in the context of the "crusades" that started in 1098....
And you're assuming Islamirama meant the word in that context based upon what exactly in his post? He doesn't mention anything about killing Muslims, just puppet governments which are pro-West. If you're going to cite his countries, then there's plenty of Muslim countries apart from Iran, Syria and Pakistan that he could have used in order to make clear that he meant the word 'crusade' in the context of the historical crusades.

Suffice to say, I think that's going off on a tangent in the first place and not really discussing the subject this thread concerns.
Reply

Suomipoika
02-15-2007, 07:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
He could if he wanted to. He has the capability to do so. I'm not saying he would, I'm just saying that's what I meant when I said Bush has teeth.

And I'll raise your sarcasm one reversal: refresh my memory, which countries have been completely wiped from the map by Ahmadinejad? He's all talk. That's what I meant when I said he just barks.
Ahadinejad doesnt have the power to wipe Israel from the map. Whether he would really do it, I dont know.

But if someone says he is going to kill people, and tries to get a gun, is it really that smart to let him get the gun?
Reply

Muezzin
02-15-2007, 07:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Suomipoika
Ahadinejad doesnt have the power to wipe Israel from the map. Whether he would really do it, I dont know.

But if someone says he is going to kill people, and tries to get a gun, is it really that smart to let him get the gun?
Of course not, but I'm one of those peaceniks who thinks we shouldn't have guns or nukes in the first place.

The fact that in my posts above I basically equated both Bush and Ahmadinejad with dogs should tell you where I stand on this whole issue.
Reply

islamirama
02-15-2007, 07:49 PM
Doesn't this forum hav an edit button for the threads?

khair, check this out....

We gona attack iran and here's the plan!

http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.ph...EF94BF1CE35058
Reply

Suomipoika
02-15-2007, 07:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
Of course not, but I'm one of those peaceniks who thinks we shouldn't have guns or nukes in the first place.

The fact that in my posts above I basically equated both Bush and Ahmadinejad with dogs should tell you where I stand on this whole issue.
I guess I misunderstood you a bit, I thought you were supporting the right of Iran to have nuclear weapons, since that is what against I had been arguing when I said what you quoted in the first place.
Reply

islamirama
02-15-2007, 07:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MTAFFI
oh here we go, now it is a "crusade"
Don't you watch tv, those were his exact words! something like we're going to "crusade" into iraq or middle east was it...
Reply

Cognescenti
02-15-2007, 08:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Which of course we all know wasn't in the context of the "crusades" that started in 1098....
That is exactly right. Speakers of American English (and, I suspect English English :smile: ) will immediatly recognize that the word "crusade" has a much more general meaning in present usage. It means any type of effort or mission based on a strongly held opinion by the "crusader". For eg., it is often used in phrases such as "anti-smoking crusader" or a "crusader for women's rights".

Given the historical illiteracy of most Americans I suspect many don't even know the original meaning of the word. In contrast, it seems too many in the ME are waiting for the return of Saladdin and see everything through a 12th century prism.

The Islamic press is often guilty of inflaming opinion based on sloppy translations or failure to provide proper context. Another exampl were the Pope's comments which were taken entirely out of context and, indeed were critical of intolerance fromthe Christian camp in the past.
Reply

MTAFFI
02-15-2007, 08:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by islamirama
Don't you watch tv, those were his exact words! something like we're going to "crusade" into iraq or middle east was it...
tell me how do you interpret the use of the word crusade in this speech?
Reply

islamirama
02-15-2007, 08:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MTAFFI
tell me how do you interpret the use of the word crusade in this speech?
US Crusades; An Inspirational Mission ?
Statement Of Faith From President George W. Bush
From George W. Bush when asked about his religious faith:
http://www.findthepower.com/PageOne/...aithGWBush.htm

"Actually, the seeds of my decision had been planted the year before, by the Reverend Billy Graham . He visited my family for a summer weekend in Maine. I saw him preach at the small summer church, St. Ann's by the Sea. We all had lunch on the patio overlooking the ocean. One evening my dad asked Billy to answer questions from a big group of family gathered for the weekend. He sat by the fire and talked. And what he said sparked a change in my heart. I don't remember the exact words. It was more the power of his example. The Lord was so clearly reflected in his gentle and loving demeanor. The next day we walked and talked at Walker's Point, and I knew I was in the presence of a great man. He was like a magnet; I felt drawn to seek something different. He didn't lecture or admonish; he shared warmth and concern. Billy Graham didn't make you feel guilty; he made you feel loved.

Over the course of that weekend, Reverend Graham planted a mustard seed in my soul, a seed that grew over the next year. He led me to the path, and I began walking. It was the beginning of a change in my life. I had always been a "religious" person, had regularly attended church, even taught Sunday School and served as an altar boy. But that weekend my faith took on a new meaning. It was the beginning of a new walk where I would commit my heart to Jesus Christ.

I was humbled to learn that God sent His Son to die for a sinner like me. I was comforted to know that through the Son, I could find God's amazing grace, a grace that crosses every border, every barrier and is open to everyone. Through the love of Christ's life, I could understand the life-changing powers of faith.

When I returned to Midland, I began reading the Bible regularly. Don Evans talked me into joining him and another friend, Don Jones, at a men's community Bible study. The group had first assembled the year before, in Spring of 1984, at the beginning of the downturn in the energy industry.

Midland was hurting. A lot of people were looking for comfort and strength and direction. A couple of men started the Bible study as a support group, and it grew. By the time I began attending, in the fall of 1985, almost 120 men would gather. We met in small discussion groups of ten or twelve, then joined the larger group for full meetings. Don Jones picked me up every week for the meetings. I remember looking forward to them.

My interest in reading the Bible grew stronger and stronger, and the words became clearer and more meaningful. We studied Acts, the story of the Apostles building the Christian Church, and next year, the Gospel of Luke. The preparation for each meeting took several hours, reading the Scripture passages and thinking through responses to discussion questions. I took it seriously, with my usual touch of humor....

Laura and I were active members of the First Methodist Church of Midland, and we participated in many family programs, including James Dobson's Focus on the Family series on raising children. As I studied and learned, Scripture took on greater meaning, and gained confidence and understanding in my faith. I read the Bible regularly. Don Evans gave me the "One-year Bible", a Bible divided into 365 daily readings, each one including a section from the New Testament, the Old Testament, Psalms, and Proverbs. I read through that Bible every other year. During the years in between, I pick different chapters to study at different times. I have also learned the power of prayer. I pray for guidance. I do not pray for earthly things, but for heavenly things, for wisdom and patience and understanding. My faith gives me focus and perspective. It teaches humility. But I also recognize that faith can be misinterpreted in the political process. Faith is an important part of my life. I believe it is important to live my faith, not flaunt it. America is a great country because of our religious freedoms. It is important for any leader to respect the faith of others. That point was driven home when Laura and I visited Israel in 1998. We had traveled to Rome to spend Thanksgiving with our daughter, who was attending a school program there, and spent three days in Israel on the way home. It was an incredible experience. I remember waking up at the Jerusalem Hilton and opening the curtains and seeing the Old City before us, the Jerusalem stone glowing gold.

We visited the Western Wall and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. And we went to the Sea of Galilee and stood atop the hill where Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount. It was an overwhelming feeling to stand in the spot where the most famous speech in the history of the world was delivered, the spot where Jesus outlined the character and conduct of a believer and gave his disciples and the world the beatitudes, the golden rule, and the Lord's Prayer.

Our delegation included four Gentile governors-one Methodist, two Catholics, and a Mormon, and several Jewish-American friends. Someone suggested we read Scripture. I chose to read "Amazing Grace," my favorite hymn. Later that night we all gathered at a restaurant in Tel Aviv for dinner before we boarded our middle-of-night flight back to America. We talked about the wonderful experiences and thanked the guides and government officials who had introduced us to their country. And toward the end of the meal, one of our friends rose to share a story, to tell us how he, a Gentile, and his friend, a Jew, had (unbeknownst to the rest of us) walked down to the Sea of Galilee, joined hands underwater, and prayed together, on bended knee. Then out of his mouth came a hymn he had known as a child, a hymn he hadn't thought about in years. He got every word right: "Now is the time approaching, by prophets long foretold, when all shall dwell together, One Shepherd and one fold. Now Jew and Gentile, meeting, from many a distant shore, around an altar kneeling, one common Lord adore. Faith changes lives. I know, because faith has changed mine." I could not be governor if I did not believe in a divine plan that supersedes all human plans. Politics is a fickle business. Polls change. Today's friend is tomorrow's adversary. People lavish praise and attention. Many times it is genuine; sometimes it is not. Yet I build my life on a foundation that will not shift. My faith frees me. Frees me to put the problem of the moment in proper perspective. Frees me to make decisions that others might not like. Frees me to try to do the right thing, even though it may not poll well... The death penalty is a difficult issue for supporters as well as its opponents. I have a reverence for life; my faith teaches that life is a gift from our Creator. In a perfect world, life is given by God and only taken by God. I hope someday our society will respect life, the full spectrum of life, from the unborn to the elderly. I hope someday unborn children will be protected by law and welcomed in life. I support the death penalty because I believe, if administered swiftly and justly, capital punishment is a deterrent against future violence and will save other innocent lives. Some advocates of life will challenge why I oppose abortion yet support the death penalty. To me, it's the difference between innocence and guilt.

Today, two weeks after Jeb's inauguration, in my church in downtown Austin, Pastor Mark Craig, was telling me that my re-election was the first Governor to win back-to-back, four-year terms in the history of the State of Texas. It was a beginning, not an end.... People are starved for faithfulness. He talked of the need for honesty in government. He warned that leaders who cheat on their wives will cheat their country, will cheat their colleagues, will cheat themselves. Pastor Craig said that America is starved for honest leaders. He told the story of Moses, asked by God to lead his people to a land of milk and honey. Moses had a lot of reasons to shirk the task. As the Pastor told it, Moses' basic reaction was, "Sorry, God, I'm busy. I've got a family. I've got sheep to tend. I've got a life. "Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh, and bring the sons of Israel out of Egypt? The people won't believe me, he protested. I'm not a very good speaker. Oh, my Lord, send, I pray, some other person, "Moses pleaded. But God did not, and Moses ultimately did His bidding, leading his people through forty years of wilderness and wandering, relying on God for strength and direction and inspiration. "People are starved for leadership," Pastor Craig said, "starved for leaders who have ethical and moral courage. It is not enough to have an ethical compass to know right from wrong," he argued. "America needs leaders who have the moral courage to do what is right for the right reason. It's not always easy or convenient for leaders to step forward," he acknowledged. "Remember, even Moses had doubts." "He was talking to you," my mother later said. The pastor was, of course, talking to all of us, challenging each one of us to make the most of our lives, to assume the mantle of leadership and responsibility wherever we find it. He was calling on us to use whatever power we have, in business, in politics, in our communities, and in our families, to do good for the right reason. And his sermon spoke directly to my heart and my life....

There was no magic moment of decision. After talking with my family during the Christmas holidays, then hearing this rousing sermon, to make most of every moment, during my inaugural church service, I gradually felt more comfortable with the prospect of a presidential campaign. My family would love me, my faith would sustain me, no matter what. During the more than half century of my life, we have seen an unprecedented decay in our American culture, a decay that has eroded the foundations of our collective values and moral standards of conduct. Our sense of personal responsibility has declined dramatically, just as the role and responsibility of the federal government have increased. The changing culture blurred the sharp contrast between right and wrong and created a new standard of conduct: "If it feels good, do it." and 'If you've got a problem, blame somebody else." "Individuals are not responsible for their actions," the new culture has said. "We are all victims of forces beyond our control." We have gone from a culture of sacrifice and saving to a culture obsessed with grabbing all the gusto. We went from accepting responsibility to assigning blame. As government did more and more, individuals were required to do less and less. The new culture said: if people were poor, the government should feed them. If someone had no house, the government should provide one. If criminals are not responsible for their acts, then the answers are not prisons, but social programs.... "For our culture to change, it must change one heart, one soul, and one conscience at a time. Government can spend money, but it cannot put hope in our hearts or a sense of purpose in our lives." "But government should welcome the active involvement of people who are following a religious imperative to love their neighbors through after-school programs, child care, drug treatment, maternity group homes, and a range of other services. Supporting these men and women – the soldiers in the armies of compassion - is the next bold step of welfare reform, because I know that changing hearts will change our entire society."

During the opening months of my presidential campaign, I have traveled our country and my heart has been warmed. My experiences have reinvigorated my faith in the greatness of Americans. They have reminded me that societies are renewed from the bottom up, not the top down. Everywhere I go, I see people of love and faith, taking time to help a neighbor in need... These people and thousands like them are the heart and soul and greatness of America. And want to do my part.



"I am running for President because I believe America must seize this moment, America must lead. We must give our prosperity a greater purpose, a purpose of peace and freedom and hope. We are a great nation of good and loving people. And together, we have a charge to keep."

  • Before initiating the Gulf War, President Bush and his wife Barbara, fearing that the war would result in deaths of many civilians, including children, invited Billy Graham to the White House to obtain his advice on this matter. Reverend Graham based his spiritual counsel on the church doctrine of the just war. After the pictures of the civilian casualties caused by the Gulf War became known, especially the pictures from the Amiriyah shelter destroyed by the U.S. smart bombs and resulting in death of over four hundred women and children, questions were raised about the morality and wisdom of the Reverend Graham's counsel.
  • Graham has been accused of a lack of tolerance for other religions, as well as anti-Semitism on the basis of covert recordings of conversations with President Richard Nixon.


Joining Hands For The Battle
http://www.findthepower.com/PageOne/...rTheBattle.htm
John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (KJV)


If you are a Protestant or you are a Catholic and you had someone in your home that was of the other faith, would you lay down your life for him or her? If the New Order Religion police came to your door and wanted to take this other person away, would you risk your own life to save theirs? Would you give up your life to preserve this other person's right to worship as a Catholic or as a Protestant?


Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. (NIV)


There may come a time in the near future when we are under even more visible attack by the powers of darkness. There may come a time when we must all stand together or fall separately. Even now, there are issues like abortion, euthanasia, religious training in the school systems, and the appalling decline in morality in our world that should bring us together as brothers and sisters in Christ whether we are Protestant or Catholic. As brothers and sisters in Christ, we must urgently pray for each other to remain strong. As brothers and sisters in Christ we must put our differences aside and be willing to come to the aid of each other now, rather than waiting until the dark forces control the world. It is better for us to aid, support, and pray for each other now so we can try to prevent the open persecution of all of us later on. We must all have the right kind of Christian love that engenders respect and a willingness to defend to the death our right to worship and glorify our Savior.


Luke 6:41"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42 How can you say to your brother, `Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? (NIV)


The time for finding fault and disagreeing just to be disagreeable is over. The time for bigotry is over. Our world and our lives are under attack by the forces of evil and darkness. Disorder and dissension reigns in so many parts of our world that joining hands in respectful Christian love is mandatory if we are to put up any kind of defense against the dark powers and forces of this world. In the spiritual battle and the spiritual war that is now being waged, we must all stand together as Christians. It should make no difference what our personal theological beliefs or belief systems are if we are to survive as a faith.


Matthew 18:19 "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." (NIV)


Our Christian faith is threatened. Our Christian faith, unless we join hands and all kneel at the foot of the Cross in unity of the Christian faith, will evaporate from the earth. From the perspective of most devout Protestants and Catholics, our Christian faith is already in an advanced stage of evaporation. The rapid decline in morality all over the world should serve notice to all of us that the time is growing short for us to join together in an effort to beat back the darkness of sin and immorality.


This essay is not a call to bury our theological differences but is instead a prayerful call to love each other. It is a call to defend the common ground and holy ground of our faith, and to stand together to fight our common foe.


Why Charities & Missioneries?
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030421&s=cottle042103


The Reverend Franklin Graham has long been something of a thrill seeker. In his quarter-century as head of the Christian relief agency Samaritan's Purse, the eldest son of the legendary Billy Graham (and heir to his evangelical empire) has earned international respect for supplying food, water, shelter, and medical care to regions where other angels fear to tread. Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, southern Sudan—the more stricken and war torn the area, the greater the opportunity to help, reasons Graham....


... But the graver danger may be the one Graham's workers pose to U.S. policy in the Middle East—specifically, their potential to convince the Arab world that Operation Iraqi Freedom was, in fact, the opening salvo in a modern crusade against Islam.
Like many faith-based relief agencies, Samaritan's Purse mixes its humanitarian aid with a liberal dose of proselytizing. Unlike the leaders of other organizations, however, Graham has long been an outspoken critic of Islam, the official religion of some 97 percent of Iraqis. And, since the attacks of September 11, Graham's harsh remarks against Islam—including his November 2001 assertion on "NBC Nightly News" that it is "a very evil and wicked religion"—have earned the reverend a reputation as one of this country's leading purveyors of anti-Islamic bigotry. Already, news of Graham's intention to extend his aid ministry into Iraq has set off alarm bells among Muslim groups both at home and abroad. The Council on American-Islamic Relations ( CAIR) has loudly denounced Graham's mission as an attempt to take advantage of a desperate, vulnerable people, with CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper predicting to the Web publication Beliefnet, "If it becomes generally known it's going to be a public relations disaster for the Bush administration." The publisher of the British Muslim magazine Q-News wrote of Graham's plan in The Guardian, "For the few remaining Muslims who doubted the crusading nature of the coalition forces, the final blow came last week."
When confronted with critics' concerns about their mission in Iraq, representatives of Samaritan's Purse seem offended that anyone would question their motives—even as their responses send contradictory and often disquieting messages. Ken Isaacs, the group's international director of projects, told Newhouse News Service in March, "We do not deny the name of Christ. We believe in sharing him in deed and word. We'll be who we are." In a March 26 Beliefnet interview, Graham noted, "We realize we're in an Arab country and we just can't go out and preach." But he added that "I believe as we work, God will always give us opportunities to tell others about his Son. ... We are there to reach out to love them and to save them, and as a Christian I do this in the name of Jesus Christ."


Indeed, the history of Samaritan's Purse suggests that, when it comes to spreading the Good News, Graham and Co. often cannot help themselves. In 2001, for instance, Samaritan's Purse received a USAID grant to help with the reconstruction of El Salvador following a devastating earthquake. The organization soon came under fire, however, when The New York Times reported that agency volunteers were holding half-hour prayer services before each construction seminar. As the group's El Salvador director explained, "We are first a Christian organization and second an aid organization. We can't really separate the two. We really believe Jesus Christ told us to do relief work." Since no government money had been used to fund the actual religious meetings, Samaritan's Purse was ruled not to have technically violated government guidelines; USAID officials, however, directed the group to ensure a clearer separation between its ministry and its relief work in the future. Similarly, Samaritan's Purse sparked controversy in both Great Britain and Canada last December when it was reported that the group was soliciting donations for its "Operation Christmas Child" (which encourages school children to donate gifts to needy children overseas) without making it clear that Christian literature would be included with many of the packages.


Of greatest relevance to the recent debate, however, was Graham's clash with General Norman Schwarzkopf during the first Gulf war. As part of a project termed "Operation Desert Save," Graham arranged for the shipment of tens of thousands of Arabic-language New Testaments to the troops in Saudi Arabia to be passed along to the locals. The project was in direct violation of Saudi law and flew in the face of an understanding between the U.S. and Saudi governments to eschew proselytizing. As Graham later recalled to Newsday , Schwarzkopf had a chaplain from his office phone the reverend to complain about the diplomatic difficulties he was causing. Graham's response: "Sir, I understand that, and I appreciate that, but I'm also under orders, and that's from the King of Kings and Lord of Lords." Schwarzkopf went on to publicly slap Graham and Samaritan's Purse in a section of his 1993 autobiography—a scolding the reverend proudly points to as a symbol of his willingness tofight the good fight, no matter how unpopular.


In fact, Graham, like many evangelical leaders, regards criticism of his proselytizing and aggressive sectarianism as a badge of honor. His 2002 book, The Name, boasts of the various storms provoked by his insistence on invoking Jesus' name at politically sensitive times, such as during President Bush's 2001 inaugural or the prayer service following the 1999 Columbine massacre; there, Graham informed the crowd that only those willing to "ask God for his forgiveness and to receive his son, Jesus Christ, by faith into our hearts and into our lives" were eligible for eternity in heaven.


In many cases, the good that Samaritan's Purse achieves is arguably worth the risk of alienating some people's religious sensibilities. (The organization has, after all, been ranked the most efficient religious charity for three years running by Smart Money magazine.) But Graham's long-standing, increasingly vehement antipathy toward Islam suggests he is far too loose a cannon to unleash in an environment as politically volatile as postwar Iraq. While Graham's smear of Islam as "evil" and "wicked" prompted the fiercest firestorm, it was neither his first nor final remark along these lines. In the fall of 2000, for instance, Graham told a Kentucky journalist that "the Arabs will not be happy until every Jew is dead." More recently, in The Name, Graham writes extensively about the inherently violent nature of Islam, calls Christianity and Islam "as different as lightness and darkness," and asserts that the two religions are locked in an eternal struggle that will only end with the triumphant return of Christ. On his book tour last August, Graham warned Fox News that Islam poses "a greater threat than anyone's willing to speak." And, this February, he told the Sunday Times of London, "I don't wish evil on any Muslim, but their God is not my God. The true God is the God of the Bible, not the Koran." Even other faith-based organizations and aid groups have expressed concerns that the presence of Graham and his group in postwar Iraq could ultimately make life harder for everyone from nonsectarian aid workers to the country's Christian minority to other evangelicals. As Donna Derr, an official with the Protestant and Eastern Orthodox aid group Church World Service, told Beliefnet in March, "I would hate to see the tenuous balance that has been created [between the Christian and Muslim communities] made unbalanced by the entry into Iraq by people who may have less sensitivity." Last September, for instance, Reverend Jerry Falwell's characterization of Mohammad as "a terrorist" touched off a riot in Solapur, India, that left eight people dead and 90 injured. Who knows what might have happened if his missionaries had been on the ground at the time.


Despite all this, the Bush administration appears unwilling to ask Graham to tread lightly—or not at all—in Iraq. In part, this may be the result of domestic political concerns: Karl Rove would likely rather risk an international holy war than a drop in Bush's support among Christian conservatives. But Graham's personal ties to Republican leaders surely impact the situation as well. The Bush and Graham clans are longtime friends, and George W. loves to tell the story of how Billy Graham helped lead him to Jesus. Franklin, too, is fast carving out his own spot among the party players. He delivered the benediction at the Republican National Conventions in both 1996 and 2000, as well as the invocation at George W.'s inauguration. Later in 2001, Graham was one of a dozen religious leaders invited to the Pentagon by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to discuss the moral implications of the war on terrorism. Graham has also become fast friends with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has traveled to Sudan with Samaritan's Purse a number of times to deliver medical care. So it seems unlikely that Senate Republicans will be leading the charge to have Bush rein Graham in anytime soon.


With the war's end, rebuilding America's image in the Arab world may well prove even more complicated than rebuilding Iraq. The last thing a postwar Middle East needs is an uncontrollable Reverend Graham dashing around trying to save the heathen hordes. Indeed, at this point, Graham's ugly disquisitions on the nature of Islam have made him so radioactive that, even if he doesn't utter one word about Jesus while in Iraq, his mere presence in the region could be considered a provocation. None of which is to suggest that Graham is operating with anything but the best of intentions. But, like the road to hell, the road to holy war is paved with good intentions.
Reply

Eric H
02-15-2007, 08:47 PM
Greetings and peace be with you all,

If America sincerely wants Iran to scrap its nuclear programme then the solution is really obvious and simple.

America should first disarm all its own weapons as an example to the world.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric
Reply

wilberhum
02-15-2007, 08:48 PM
Did anyone read all that? :uuh:
Reply

Keltoi
02-15-2007, 08:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Did anyone read all that? :uuh:
The first part was dedicated to George Bush's faith, which I assume was meant to convince us of his Christian ideals....call the press!

The second part was dedicated to Reverend Graham's attempt to bring the message of Christ to the Middle East by shipping Bibles to the region. I suppose it was meant to convince us that there is mass Christian conspiracy, with George Bush at the head, which will take over the Middle East in an attempt to convert everyone to Christianity....at least that is what I got out of a rather bloviating essay.
Reply

MTAFFI
02-15-2007, 08:55 PM
^^^
islamirama,

I am not really sure what you are getting at or why you posted this, I must admit I read no more than the first section, I saw nothing wrong with it, please do tell
Reply

wilberhum
02-15-2007, 09:09 PM
Keitol,
Thank you. I didn't think it was worth the read or contained any new information. :rant: :rant:
Reply

Cognescenti
02-15-2007, 09:59 PM
Islamirama;

Remind us which office of government Billy Graham holds at this time?

We are accustomed to being told that Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld and assorted neocon demons instructed Bush on what to do. Now, you tell us Billy Graham is really the man behind the power?

You don't even have the first scintilla of a clue what you are talking about.

The US has designs on Pakistan? :uuh: :giggling:


Friend;

If you ever find yourself in a meeting with a big group of people and the guy up front offers free Kool-aid....do not drink it!
Reply

north_malaysian
02-16-2007, 02:19 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace be with you all,

If America sincerely wants Iran to scrap its nuclear programme then the solution is really obvious and simple.

America should first disarm all its own weapons as an example to the world.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric
Yupp....
Reply

islamirama
02-16-2007, 02:24 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by islamirama

We gona attack iran and here's the plan!

http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.ph...EF94BF1CE35058
long post was just a throw off, check the vido :shade:
Reply

Keltoi
02-16-2007, 02:46 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace be with you all,

If America sincerely wants Iran to scrap its nuclear programme then the solution is really obvious and simple.

America should first disarm all its own weapons as an example to the world.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric
That sounds great in theory...but of course we all know that the minute the U.S. ended its nuclear program, China, Russia, North Korea, etc, etc, would be scrambling to create the best nuclear stockpile to take the position of world super power.
Reply

aamirsaab
02-16-2007, 01:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Suomipoika
So what are you actually saying? We should be worried because USA defends itself? And because USA defends itself, we should ignore their complaints about Iranian nuclear program?
North Korea has a nuclear program, but I don't see any invasion by the US. If you recall, oil was given.

What are you actually saying? It would have been better if USA had done nothing in cases like when Kuwait was invaded by Iraq, or when Kosovo muslims were slaughtered by Serbs?
Negotiations first. If these fail, then draw your blade/gun.

Better for USA to do nothing to stop bullies if they actually benefit from it one way or another? What does it matter if sometimes they benefit from doing good things?
War is not a good thing though.


Overkills? I dont know. But considering how brutal World War II was, and how far Japan was ready to go, Im not sure I can judge it that simply. Plus Truman never had the hindsight we do. Instead of using nukes, what would you have suggested Truman to do to force Japan to surrender?
Negotiate. Or, seeing as military action seems the most used, at least airstrike a military base, not civilians.


No one. But in the case of Osama, the US army isnt trying to be the saviour of all mankind, rather they are defending themselves in a war started by Osama in september 2001.
This is debatable as it depends on which side of the fence you are on, but I acknowledge your point.

format_quote Originally Posted by Eric
H Greetings and peace be with you all,

If America sincerely wants Iran to scrap its nuclear programme then the solution is really obvious and simple.

America should first disarm all its own weapons as an example to the world.
Bingo - this is what I was trying to get at.

That sounds great in theory...but of course we all know that the minute the U.S. ended its nuclear program, China, Russia, North Korea, etc, etc, would be scrambling to create the best nuclear stockpile to take the position of world super power.
Good point, but do remember that the US will eventually lose it's super power status (it happens to all super powers), so it is really only a matter of time.
Reply

Keltoi
02-16-2007, 03:18 PM
All superpowers eventually decline, but that is a different issue than the U.S. ending its nuclear program and the rest of the world doing the same. That will never happen. I'm afraid the only thing that will convince the world to end all nuclear weapons technology would be a world conflict with the use of nuclear weapons. The question would be if there would be anyone alive to learn the lesson after that.
Reply

Cognescenti
02-16-2007, 03:46 PM
The US has thousands of nukes in it's stockpile...they have used exactly two in anger since 1945. Pretty good restraint if you ask me. :smile:

It is unarguable that nuclear weapons prevented a direct military confrontation between the US and the USSR in Europe for 40 years.

Eliminating nuclear weapons is a dream. It is completely impossible. The incentive to cheat would be frightening...and the distrust would soar that one's potential opponenet would cheat. Note that in talks between the US and USSR, they didn't even waste their time trying to count the number of potential weapons...they only counted the delivery vehicles..because that is the only part that is verifiable.

Even if nukes were eliminated..the world would still be a dangerous place..ask the people of Rwanda what can be accomplished with a machete or a club.

It is well that Eric H should pray for world peace because that is about the only thing that could possibly work...aside from a really nasty interplanetary or interstellar war with the fighting somewhere else.

In the meantime..the US will not be giving up her defences any time soon. Someone is going to have to come over here and take them. Good luck.
Reply

Suomipoika
02-16-2007, 09:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
North Korea has a nuclear program, but I don't see any invasion by the US. If you recall, oil was given.
I already said about this earlier, EU has been trying to make a deal to prevent Iranian nuclear program. So if it fails, because there is peaceful deal with North Korea, it means there cant be use of military force to stop people who want to wipe out countries from maps. The negotiation part with Iran has been going on for years now.

But that doesnt really explain my question, what is there to be worried about when USA defends itself? And why when its defending itself, their complaints about Iranian nuclear program should be ignored?

Negotiations first. If these fail, then draw your blade/gun.
In most of the cases, especially in the more recent ones, thats exactly what the US has done. Also, while civilians are being massacred, how long do you think we should give time for negotiations? Day? Week? Month?

War is not a good thing though.
Of course it isnt. But again, that doesnt answer the question, is it better for USA to do nothing to prevent genocide in former Yugoslavia or defend countries like Kuwait if they might profit from it?

Negotiate. Or, seeing as military action seems the most used, at least airstrike a military base, not civilians.
All the while the war goes on around Pacific, I think by the time Japan was nuked, it still controlled most of its conquests in China, Korea and Vietnam, infact Burma/Myanmar wasnt liberated before the summer of 45, just few months before the Japanese surrender. Civilian population keeps starving and getting caught between the fighting all around the pacific. Would you have halted the allied advance against the Japanese for the duration of these negotiations? Which would have meant continued Japanese occupation policies, and commitment of more war crimes.

Also striking against military targets would have meant the use of inaccurate heavy bombers, and Japan didnt exactly build its military targets kilometers away from their cities, give proper wind conditions, and another 100 000 civilians die in burning paper houses the Japanese were fond of.

Im going to make a claim that your solution would have actually meant more dead people and no quarantee of Japanese surrender.
Reply

aamirsaab
02-16-2007, 10:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Suomipoika
I
But that doesnt really explain my question, what is there to be worried about when USA defends itself? And why when its defending itself, their complaints about Iranian nuclear program should be ignored?
Defending yourself doesn't mean you invade your enemie's land.



...Also, while civilians are being massacred, how long do you think we should give time for negotiations? Day? Week? Month?
It depends on the quality of negotiations; weak negotiations will result in more deaths, whereas stronger, more effective negotiations won't.


Of course it isnt. But again, that doesnt answer the question, is it better for USA to do nothing to prevent genocide in former Yugoslavia or defend countries like Kuwait if they might profit from it?
If the US' military action is to gaurd civilians, then I have no problem.


....Would you have halted the allied advance against the Japanese for the duration of these negotiations? Which would have meant continued Japanese occupation policies, and commitment of more war crimes.
I would have stopped invading Japan, but I would have bolstered the defences surrounding the US.

Also striking against military targets would have meant the use of inaccurate heavy bombers, and Japan didnt exactly build its military targets kilometers away from their cities, give proper wind conditions, and another 100 000 civilians die in burning paper houses the Japanese were fond of.
Ok, fair enough.

Im going to make a claim that your solution would have actually meant more dead people and no quarantee of Japanese surrender.
No, my claim would have meant less deaths, provided the level of negotiations was high enough.

If you master the art of negotiation, you'll never have to go to war.
Reply

wilberhum
02-16-2007, 10:41 PM
If you master the art of negotiation, you'll never have to go to war.
Hitler would have loved your concept. The fact that we are not communicating in German shows you are wrong.
Reply

Cognescenti
02-16-2007, 10:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
It depends on the quality of negotiations; weak negotiations will result in more deaths, whereas stronger, more effective negotiations won't.
Do tell us what "stronger negotiations" means if it doesn't mean the threat of economic sanction or the use of military force?

format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
I would have stopped invading Japan, but I would have bolstered the defences surrounding the US..
Great plan. And the 10's of thousands of Allied POW's in Japanese hands and the untold millions of Chinese and Koreans and etc., etc suffering under Japanese control
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
02-17-2007, 12:11 AM
Every country has a right to defend themselves from foreign invaders! - Iran shall have nukes!!
Reply

Keltoi
02-17-2007, 12:24 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
Every country has a right to defend themselves from foreign invaders! - Iran shall have nukes!!
That might make sense if the Iranian leader wasn't calling for the destruction of Israel. Doesn't sound like an interest in "self-defense" to me.
Reply

Eric H
02-17-2007, 12:45 AM
Greetings and peace be with you all,

I keep reading all these posts, but how much do we think about God in all these conflicts. What nationality is God, because the same God created Americans, Iraqi, and Afghans?

It really makes no sense at all that God should create each and everyone of us for the purpose of fighting each other.

If we place a death threat on a nation’s citizens by invading that country, how can we be sure we are only killing the people that God wants us to kill?

Were does God come into all this conflict,

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric
Reply

wilberhum
02-17-2007, 12:48 AM
Were does God come into all this conflict,
No where, but people always think god is on there side.
Reply

Suomipoika
02-17-2007, 02:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Defending yourself doesn't mean you invade your enemie's land.
Im having very hard time imagining how the USA should then prevent further attacks against them if they cant go after the people behind the attacks? Are you actually expecting that after 9/11 Americans just should have improved their homeland security and wait for another round?

It depends on the quality of negotiations; weak negotiations will result in more deaths, whereas stronger, more effective negotiations won't.
How do you actually measure effective negotiations? I ask because you seem to think that you can solve everything by simply talking with Hitlers.

I would have stopped invading Japan, but I would have bolstered the defences surrounding the US.

No, my claim would have meant less deaths, provided the level of negotiations was high enough.

If you master the art of negotiation, you'll never have to go to war.
Well, you would have already kept bombing Japan, starving them, allow Japanese troops to continue their actorities, Chinese would have kept fighting the Japanese, aswell as other allies.

Meanwhile the Japanese kept on conducting their Kamikaze attacks against your forces. If you withdraw from around Japan, even more resources would flow to Japan and they were already using everything they had to produce more weapons. And if the pressure against home islands would have lessened, I doubt they would have just sat by when their Chinese 'colonies' were under attack.

And in the end, there is absolutely no guarantee, no matter how well you master the art of negotiation, that the Japanese would have surrendered.
Reply

Keltoi
02-17-2007, 03:54 AM
The Japanese would never have surrendered unless faced with total destruction. Negotiation with the Japanese would have been considered a sign of weakness, and would only have lead to prolonged confict. The United States wasn't considered a world superpower at the time. The Japanese underestimated the will of the American people, and the war machine that was created as a result of their aggression. As a Japanese general once reportedly said, " I feel as if we have awoken a sleeping giant". Having said that, the result of the war was still unknown. The invasion of Japan would have been devastating to both the Japanese and Americans. The atomic bomb was a mercy in that situation.
Reply

Woodrow
02-17-2007, 04:28 AM
The desperation that the US was facing was beyond belief. At the time of the decision to drop the first Atomic Bomb, the US forces were in Europe and North Africa fighting the Nazis and also spread thin throughout the Pacific for the war with Japan. Germany was in control of all of North Africa from Morocco to Eritrea. Much of Europe had fallen. The only significant country that had not been defeated was the UK and Hitler was determined to totally destroy London.

It was a very grim picture.

Because of the vastness of the Pacific region Japan had occupied many of the Islands and war was seen as an endless battle of Island after Island. There was little chance of any ground occupation of Japan itself. It was expected that the war in the Pacific would continue for 20 or more years.

Truman did not even know about the existance of the Atomic bomb until after Roosevelts death. Only one had ever been built and tested. The results of that test were very inconclusive and not understood. There was a second Bomb that was already built and a third was in production. It was very unstable and only had a usable time frame of a few months after which it would not be capable of detonating. A third bomb of a different design was in the process of being built.

The only path seen to bring the war to a rapid end would be a total surrender of Japan. Truman approved of the use of "Little Boy" Japan was stunned but not defeated. They would not surrender. The war in the Pacific was escalating and Japan seemed to be more determined. Truman requested that construction of the third bomb be sped up. It was completed and used nearly 2 months after Hiroshima and "Fat Man" was dropped on Nagasaki. It was not even certain if the new design would even detonate. It did and it was enough to convince Hirohito that the US could level Japan and he surrendered.

Right or wrong, I can not criticize Truman's decision, based on the world situation then and the very limited knowledge of what Atomic power was.

None of the people born after 1950 seem to be aware as to how close they came to having German as their native language and Sushi being their national food.
Reply

wilberhum
02-17-2007, 05:13 AM
Woodrow,
All good points. Some of the youngins like to judge the entire war based on 10 min of it. It is easy to sit back and make judgements based on 1% of the information and not have to live with the results of your decision.
Reply

Dhulqarnaeen
02-17-2007, 05:59 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
Iran can start to control the world's oil supply. U.S would be at the mercy of Iran with Gasoline and other product prices. U.S would be able to stop Iran from creating nuclear weapons because of the oil threat. - Why shouldn't Iran have nukes, who the hell appointed the U.S to be the world spokesperson? Bullying every country that does not march to their drum beat.

I hope to God Iran sticks to their guns (pun intended) Resist another invasion at all costs. - They fail in Iraq, they fail in Afghanistan, now they attempt Iran. lol - It can't be anymore more ludicrious if it was in the funnies section.

If you want democracy, implement it in the US first. You can't even hold elections without them being rigged, so much for implementing it in foreign countries. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry for all the innocent americans who will be killed if this goes ahead. Think IRA, but only a 100 times worse, because they don't fear dying, so suicide bombers deployed all over the US.

Lets hope they see sense!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9T-XzeFuYk
Let them have nuke, I just have iman in my heart of hadith Rasulullah shalallahu alaihi wasallam that said the war in the end of the world just with horses and swords. :D Wheres the nuke gone? :D So just let them with their nuke problems, we just have to study ISlam more and more. So we can have iman and aqidah like the companions and that the right time to defeat our enemies insha Allah
Reply

Muezzin
02-17-2007, 05:31 PM
This thread is not about Hiroshima.
Reply

Woodrow
02-17-2007, 05:40 PM
Getting back to Iran and Bush.

I have no idea as to why Bush could have any concern about Iran. the only fear I can think of is he may be afraid he is loosing control over Israel and Isrel may try a first strike against Iran..

That would put the US in a very nasty spot world wide.

Ethicaly and for mid-eastern diplomacy it would be best for the US to be neutral about Iran.
Reply

Keltoi
02-17-2007, 06:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Getting back to Iran and Bush.

I have no idea as to why Bush could have any concern about Iran. the only fear I can think of is he may be afraid he is loosing control over Israel and Isrel may try a first strike against Iran..

That would put the US in a very nasty spot world wide.

Ethicaly and for mid-eastern diplomacy it would be best for the US to be neutral about Iran.
It is a little hard to be "neutral" on Iran when they are, by most accounts, actively engaged in a proxy war inside Iraq. I agree that would be best diplomatically for the U.S., but playing neutral is a little hard when everyone knows the U.S. will support Israel in any action they deem necessary.
Reply

Woodrow
02-17-2007, 06:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
It is a little hard to be "neutral" on Iran when they are, by most accounts, actively engaged in a proxy war inside Iraq. I agree that would be best diplomatically for the U.S., but playing neutral is a little hard when everyone knows the U.S. will support Israel in any action they deem necessary.
I think the big fear and what would be a big embarrassment to the White House is if Israel does do something that the US can not justify to our Western Allies as being necessary.

Sentiment for Israel is not as strong among the American people as it was say 5 years ago.
Reply

Keltoi
02-17-2007, 06:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
I think the big fear and what would be a big embarrassment to the White House is if Israel does do something that the US can not justify to our Western Allies as being necessary.

Sentiment for Israel is not as strong among the American people as it was say 5 years ago.
Israel is under direct threat from any Iranian nuclear program. It will hard to convince Israel, or me for that matter, that Israel doesn't have justification for protecting themselves. As I heard an Israeli general say this weekend on the Laura Ingraham radio talk show, one lesson the world should have learned from Hitler is that you take threats seriously, and that you stop them while they are small, not when they are big.
Reply

Woodrow
02-17-2007, 06:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Israel is under direct threat from any Iranian nuclear program. It will hard to convince Israel, or me for that matter, that Israel doesn't have justification for protecting themselves. As I heard an Israeli general say this weekend on the Laura Ingraham radio talk show, one lesson the world should have learned from Hitler is that you take threats seriously, and that you stop them while they are small, not when they are big.
That is very understandable.

Sadly we are rapidly arriving to the point where Iran sees Israel as a threat and Israel sees Iran as a threat.

The situation is not going to end until neither perceives the other as a threat.
Reply

Keltoi
02-17-2007, 06:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
That is very understandable.

Sadly we are rapidly arriving to the point where Iran sees Israel as a threat and Israel sees Iran as a threat.

The situation is not going to end until neither perceives the other as a threat.
How can that be accomplished with the current Iranian president? I don't see how. Unless he suddenly has a change of heart and acknowledges Israel's right to exist.
Reply

Eric H
02-17-2007, 07:06 PM
Greetings and peace be with you Keltoi;
How can that be accomplished with the current Iranian president? I don't see how. Unless he suddenly has a change of heart and acknowledges Israel's right to exist
The Iranian president just uses words, but Israel has proved to be the more aggressive nation in the way it deals with others.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth.

Eric
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
02-17-2007, 07:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
How can that be accomplished with the current Iranian president? I don't see how. Unless he suddenly has a change of heart and acknowledges Israel's right to exist.
Regardless of what you think, Iran won't attack Israel they are not so stupid. If he didn't say such a thing, do you think U.S would not be planning to go in? :rolleyes:
Reply

Keltoi
02-17-2007, 07:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
Regardless of what you think, Iran won't attack Israel they are not so stupid. If he didn't say such a thing, do you think U.S would not be planning to go in? :rolleyes:
The U.S. isn't planning to go in anyway, so that point doesn't matter.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
02-17-2007, 07:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
The U.S. isn't planning to go in anyway, so that point doesn't matter.
LOL - They said the same about IRAQ, you do try my patience matey!!!!!

*breathes in, breathes out...
Reply

Cognescenti
02-17-2007, 08:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
LOL - They said the same about IRAQ, you do try my patience matey!!!!!

*breathes in, breathes out...
Wait a minute. That is absurd. When did anyone in a position of authority say before GWII there wasn't going to be an attack on Iraq. What do you think the point of the US and UK seeking UN resolutions were? What do you think the vote in Congress was for? What do you think the public negotiations with Turkey to permit entry of the 4th US Inf Division were?

What exactly are you breathing in and out there? It isn't the smoke of an herbaceous substance from Oaxaca is it?
Reply

Cognescenti
02-17-2007, 08:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace be with you Keltoi;

The Iranian president just uses words, but Israel has proved to be the more aggressive nation in the way it deals with others.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth.

Eric
Eric;

The Iranians don't just "use words". Where do you think Hezbollah gets their rockets?

Have you forgotten the mining of the Persian Gulf? The bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, or the US Embassy?

The Iranians supplied the Bosnian Serbs with weapons and training.

Yes, Israel is vigorous in it's defence. That might have something to do with the fact they are surrounded by 100,000,000 Arabs, many of whom tried to exterminate them in a concerted fashion on at least three occasions and try to do it on an ad hoc basis regularly.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
02-17-2007, 08:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cognescenti
Wait a minute. That is absurd. When did anyone in a position of authority say before GWII there wasn't going to be an attack on Iraq. What do you think the point of the US and UK seeking UN resolutions were? What do you think the vote in Congress was for? What do you think the public negotiations with Turkey to permit entry of the 4th US Inf Division were?

What exactly are you breathing in and out there? It isn't the smoke of an herbaceous substance from Oaxaca is it?
Erm they failed to find any reason to go in, fabricated evidence does not count. So, this to me means they had no right to go in, just as they have no right in Iran, let them dare to go though.....
Reply

Cognescenti
02-17-2007, 08:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
Erm they failed to find any reason to go in, fabricated evidence does not count. So, this to me means they had no right to go in, just as they have no right in Iran, let them dare to go though.....
That is a complete non sequitur.

You said in your previous post that the US pretended it wasn't going to attack Iraq, then it dit. Now you are talking about a "right" to attack.

Trying to carry on a discussion with you is like trying to read documents that have been put through a shredder.
Reply

Goku
02-17-2007, 10:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace be with you Keltoi;

The Iranian president just uses words, but Israel has proved to be the more aggressive nation in the way it deals with others.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth.

Eric
Agreed.

Remember, Iran is not the nation occupying its neighbours, Israel is. Israel has been occupying Palestinian land since 1967. Israel has not even spared the Holy Al Aqsa, they have dug underneath it and are bulldozing around it in what appears to be part of a bigger plan. Israel also drives Palestinians out their homes, bulldozes their homes and refuses to recognise Palestine's right to exist. Israeli "settlers" in Palestinian land are downright rude and harass the Palestinians, even their children.

How can the world expect Hamas to recognise Israel's right to exist when Israel doesnt recognise Palestine's right to exist.

Remove Israeli occupation of the lands it captured in 1967, ackonowledge Palestine's right to exist, leave Al Aqsa alone completely, that means no restrictions on Muslims on their right to visit Al Aqsa whenever they please. (Currently Israel doesnt allow Muslims under 45 to go into Al Aqsa-Israel needs to back off, seriously) Then peace can go further for diplomatic relations with the 1948 Israel and Palestinians can return to their homes, occupation free. I dont know how the West, actually i should just say US since EU doesnt really support Israel, can frown on occupation and facism while supporting Israeli occupation. Israel also built a wall in West bank, deliberately seperating families and stopping Palestinians from going to work and entering East Jerusalem, which will return to Palestinian control Insha'Allah. God knows how bad the situation is for Palestinians. The Iranian president doesnt have plans to attack Israel, but Israel has plans to attack Iran, actions speak louder than words.
Reply

Cognescenti
02-18-2007, 12:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Goku
Agreed.

Remember, Iran is not the nation occupying its neighbours, Israel is. Israel has been occupying Palestinian land since 1967. Israel has not even spared the Holy Al Aqsa, they have dug underneath it and are bulldozing around it in what appears to be part of a bigger plan. Israel also drives Palestinians out their homes, bulldozes their homes and refuses to recognise Palestine's right to exist. Israeli "settlers" in Palestinian land are downright rude and harass the Palestinians, even their children.

How can the world expect Hamas to recognise Israel's right to exist when Israel doesnt recognise Palestine's right to exist.

Remove Israeli occupation of the lands it captured in 1967, ackonowledge Palestine's right to exist, leave Al Aqsa alone completely, that means no restrictions on Muslims on their right to visit Al Aqsa whenever they please. (Currently Israel doesnt allow Muslims under 45 to go into Al Aqsa-Israel needs to back off, seriously) Then peace can go further for diplomatic relations with the 1948 Israel and Palestinians can return to their homes, occupation free. I dont know how the West, actually i should just say US since EU doesnt really support Israel, can frown on occupation and facism while supporting Israeli occupation. Israel also built a wall in West bank, deliberately seperating families and stopping Palestinians from going to work and entering East Jerusalem, which will return to Palestinian control Insha'Allah. God knows how bad the situation is for Palestinians. The Iranian president doesnt have plans to attack Israel, but Israel has plans to attack Iran, actions speak louder than words.
Goku;

You do realize there was something on the Temple Mount before the Dome of the Rock was built, don't you?
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
02-18-2007, 12:42 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cognescenti
That is a complete non sequitur.

You said in your previous post that the US pretended it wasn't going to attack Iraq, then it dit. Now you are talking about a "right" to attack.

Trying to carry on a discussion with you is like trying to read documents that have been put through a shredder.
I'm just making it up as I go along, just like your government....
Reply

Cognescenti
02-18-2007, 12:46 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
I'm just making it up as I go along, just like your government....
OK..that was pretty funny...I'll grant you that. :smile:
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
02-18-2007, 12:50 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cognescenti
OK..that was pretty funny...I'll grant you that. :smile:
Hehe I thought so too! - :D
Reply

Goku
02-18-2007, 06:15 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cognescenti
Goku;

You do realize there was something on the Temple Mount before the Dome of the Rock was built, don't you?
Yes, the Jewish temple. However, the Romans destroyed it in the first century, 5 centuries before the birth of Prophet Muhammad PBUH, and the destruction of the Jewish temple was also prophesied by Jesus PBUH. However that doesnt mean Jews can destroy the holy Al Aqsa Mosque because 2,000 years ago they had a temple situated there.
Reply

Cognescenti
02-18-2007, 03:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Goku
Yes, the Jewish temple. However, the Romans destroyed it in the first century, 5 centuries before the birth of Prophet Muhammad PBUH, and the destruction of the Jewish temple was also prophesied by Jesus PBUH. However that doesnt mean Jews can destroy the holy Al Aqsa Mosque because 2,000 years ago they had a temple situated there.
And there was Christian chapel for some time as well...but that is another story.

I agree they should not destroy the Al Aqsa Mosque..but there are sizable remnants of the walls and other architectural items, some of which are deemed so holy that even observant Jews aren't supposed to go there. You can see what the problem is. If your claim is one of most recent occupancy, then someone else can trump your claim historically. After all, I don't think the Romans asked the Jew's permission.

Israel will never cede sole authority over the historical heart of Jerusalem to practitioners of Islam. Just like you wouldn't want Jews running the Al Aqsa Mosque. You guys are going to have to cool your rhetoric and just get along.

If you want to be angry at someone, then perhaps you could save some for the incompetent Arab armies and leaders who tried 4 times to wipe Israel from the map..and failed very badly.
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-18-2007, 11:55 PM
Israel shouldn't exist, but it is a reality now. It should never have been created. It was a really stupid move and the result MUST have been foreseeable. But now that it exists removing it would just compound problems, not fix anything.

So if anybody is to blame, it isn't the Israelis of today. It is those who founded Israel in the past. Wasn't tht the Brittish? Or the Americans? I forget which.
Reply

Panatella
02-22-2007, 01:55 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian
[BANANA]WE WANT A NUKE-FREE WORLD!!![/BANANA]
Agreed. Filled with nice people like north_malaysian.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
02-24-2007, 01:41 PM
Israel denies report it is planning an Iran attack

24 Feb 2007 12:12:58 GMT

Source: Reuters


JERUSALEM, Feb 24 (Reuters) - Israel's deputy defence minister denied on Saturday that Israel was in talks with the United States to use Iraqi airspace as part of possible plans to attack Iranian nuclear sites.

Britain's Daily Telegraph, citing an unnamed senior Israeli defence official, said on Saturday that Israel had sought permission from the U.S. Pentagon to be able to use an "air corridor" in Iraq in the event that the Jewish state decided to launch air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

"We are planning for every eventuality, and sorting out issues such as these (airspace passage) are crucially important," the Daily Telegraph quoted the Israeli official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, as saying.

"If we don't sort these issues out now we could have a situation where American and Israeli war planes start shooting at each other," he added, according to the newspaper's Web site.

Asked if Israel had turned to the U.S. to use Iraqi airspace in any possible attack, Ephraim Sneh told Israel Radio: "No such approach has been made -- that is clear."

"Those who do not want to take political, diplomatic, economic steps against Iran are diverting attention to the mission we are supposedly said to be conducting," Sneh said.

"(They) are anxious to spread the idea that we are planning to attack Iran in order to absolve themselves of the need to do the things that have been requested of them," he added.

Israel and the West accuse Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian atomic power programme, which Tehran denies.

Iran has said it wants to negotiate with the Europeans and even the United States but has refused to halt its nuclear enrichment activities as a pre-condition for talks.

Israel, widely believed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal, sent warplanes to bomb an atomic reactor in Iraq in 1981.

Neither Israel nor the United States has ruled out military force on Iran, although Washington says its priority is to reach a diplomatic solution.

Israeli strategic analysts have said it would go against Israeli military doctrine to seek U.S. permission for any possible strike on Iran given the need for total secrecy.

U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney said on Saturday that the United States and its allies must not allow Iran to become a nuclear power.

The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany will meet in London next week to discuss possible further steps in addition to U.N. sanctions barring the transfer of nuclear technology and know-how that were imposed in December.
Reply

aLiTTLeTiMe
02-24-2007, 01:47 PM
I think israel is lieing
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
02-24-2007, 01:53 PM
They will be putting their hands into the bees hive when they attack. It will be like world war 3 only worse!

It will happen if Allah so wills!

Gur Fateh
Reply

Cognescenti
02-24-2007, 03:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
They will be putting their hands into the bees hive when they attack. It will be like world war 3 only worse!

It will happen if Allah so wills!

Gur Fateh
What is the exclamation point for? You sound like you are looking forward to it. It would indeed be a frightening event. Every country with a US or Israeli embassy or an US or Israeli business would have something to worry about. And there would likely be worldwide economic repercussions. Iran would shortly have no air defence system, no electrical grid, no power plants, no hydroelectric dams, no working oil infrastructure, no navy, no air force. Yeah..it sounds like a blast.

This does bring an interesting theological question. Do you really mean to say that Allah would, in some fashion, command the Israeli PM to order an attack?

After all, he most certainly qualifies as an infidel, no?
Reply

Keltoi
02-24-2007, 04:26 PM
I think some people are vastly overestimating Iran's military capability. You have to remember that when the U.S., U.K., and Australia get together, there isn't much any army can do to win. The technological and training advantages are simply too great. It would probably take a matter of days to completely demolish any serious Iranian military threat. We aren't talking occupation here, with soldiers standing around at checkpoints and driving around neighborhoods. We would be talking conventional vs. conventional. Not good odds for old Iran.

That being said, nobody wants it. The U.S. doesn't want it, Israel doesn't want it, the U.K. doesn't want it. The question is what does Iran want?
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-24-2007, 05:39 PM
It really depends on if any other party intervenes. Imagine if China came onside at the very last moment. That'd be interesting. Perhaps unlikely, but interesting.
Reply

Woodrow
02-24-2007, 05:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
It really depends on if any other party intervenes. Imagine if China came onside at the very last moment. That'd be interesting. Perhaps unlikely, but interesting.
China and Iran are reportedly close to signing a multibillion-dollar agreement to develop the big Yadavaran oilfield in southern Iran. The semiofficial magazine "Caijing" reports that a senior Chinese delegation from the National Development and Reform Commission could arrive in Tehran to finalize the deal as early as March. Word of the move comes amid the intensifying row between Iran and the international community over the aims of Iran's nuclear program. Does it indicate that China will do "business as usual" with Iran despite concern that Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear arms?
Source: http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle...8922bfff5.html
Reply

Cognescenti
02-24-2007, 06:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow

Ugggh. That is not a good sign. Guess what else China has that might be of interst to Iran......Reliable, proven, intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Reply

Woodrow
02-24-2007, 06:10 PM
All through these debates about the Mid east I have been holding the posistion that oil was not a factor for the US. I still believe the US has no need for mid-eastern oil. But the light bulb just lit up. Maybe the US does not need the mid-eastern oil, but China does. I do not think we would see a good oil source for China as being in the best interest of the US.

So oil is a factor, not because we want it, but because we want to block China from getting it.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
02-24-2007, 07:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cognescenti
What is the exclamation point for? You sound like you are looking forward to it. It would indeed be a frightening event. Every country with a US or Israeli embassy or an US or Israeli business would have something to worry about. And there would likely be worldwide economic repercussions. Iran would shortly have no air defence system, no electrical grid, no power plants, no hydroelectric dams, no working oil infrastructure, no navy, no air force. Yeah..it sounds like a blast.

This does bring an interesting theological question. Do you really mean to say that Allah would, in some fashion, command the Israeli PM to order an attack?

After all, he most certainly qualifies as an infidel, no?


No such things as infidel in Sikhism....

As for me ''looking forward to it'' no, not at all. - Last thing on my mind.
Peace is best, but the right to defend is also to be actioned.
:)
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
02-25-2007, 01:21 PM
Iran: No retreat on nuclear plans


Tehran has brushed off the threat of sanctions over its nuclear programme [EPA]

Iran's president has refused to bow to western threats to freeze his country's nuclear activities.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Sunday that Iran has "no reverse gear" on its programme to develop nuclear technology.


The fresh defiance was echoed by an Iranian official who said Tehran was ready for any possible scenario "even for war".

The comments come as officials from the Security Council plus Germany are due to meet in London in the coming days to examine chances of drafting a new resolution on Tehran.


The United States insists it wants a diplomatic solution to the row but has not ruled out military action.

Dick Cheney, the US vice president, said on Saturday Washington and its allies must curb Iran's atomic ambitions.

War scenario

But Ahmadinejad was quoted by Iran's student news agency ISNA as saying: "Iran has obtained the technology to produce nuclear fuel and Iran's move is like a train ... which has no brake and no reverse gear".

"We dismantled the rear gear and brakes of the train and threw them away sometime ago," Ahmadinejad was quoted as telling a gathering of Islamic clerics.

An Iranian deputy foreign minister echoed Ahmadinejad, saying the Islamic Republic, which is accused by the West of trying to build nuclear weapons, was ready for any possible scenario "even for war".

Manouchehr Mohammadi, one of the deputies to the foreign minister, was quoted by ISNA as saying at a conference in the central city of Isfahan:

"We have prepared ourselves for any situation, even for war."


Mohammadi said that if the UN Security Council adopted a second resolution imposing sanctions over Iran's controversial nuclear programme, Tehran would press on with its atomic drive.

"If they issue a second resolution, Iran will not respond and will continue its nuclear activities," he said.

The United States accuses Iran of seeking nuclear weapons. Tehran denies the charges, insisting its atomic programme is peaceful in nature
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-08-2008, 02:41 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-10-2007, 09:35 PM
  3. Replies: 37
    Last Post: 04-08-2007, 02:16 PM
  4. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-27-2006, 04:21 PM
  5. Replies: 55
    Last Post: 03-13-2006, 03:10 AM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!