Iran - Bush - Your Views

[Suomipoika]

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.

 

[snakelegs]

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.

 

[north_malaysian]

i'd like to see a nuclear-free world.
.

[BANANA]WE WANT A NUKE-FREE WORLD!!![/BANANA]

 

[aamirsaab]

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.

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.

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?

 

[Muezzin]

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.

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.

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

Armageddon

 

[MTAFFI]

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?

I agree, but realistically saddam should have been removed long ago.

So does that mean he should just be allowed to continue his reign?

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?

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.

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

 

[aamirsaab]

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?

 

[Keltoi]

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.

 

[MTAFFI]

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.

:
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.

:
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.

:
* 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

:
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

:
This is where some people go wrong: In war, there are those who lose, and those who lose even more.

I have to agree

:
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

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

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.

Russia is guilty of that too and UK!

 

[Woodrow]

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.

 

[Suomipoika]

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.

Bush has teeth. Ahmadinejad just barks.

Refresh my memory, which countries have been completely wiped from the map by Bush?

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

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....

 

[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

 

[MTAFFI]

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"

 

[Muezzin]

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.

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

That's not fair. The member you're quoting is using Bush's own words.

 

[Keltoi]

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....

 

[Muezzin]

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.

 

[Suomipoika]

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?