Thread: Why i think the USA won't Nuke or invade Iran

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yeah, things will be fine if that is the case. However, we are worried that a fanatical Islamofascist might take his place. It is a very unstable situation.

Ummm, considering the main PPP party (which was late Benezir Bhutto's party) has the majority of seats, I doubt that would happen. Besides, it's not like Musharraf hasn't made questionable decisions leading up to the elections (double negative intended).

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is exactly what we are doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, and our international communications. The hate Bush cult is really hurting our efforts in that area, and it is terrible for the world.

To be honest, it's the Bush/Blair duo that has done a lot of damage to the stability in the Middle East, and it mostly revolves around how they both have dealt with the Israel/Palestine issue (which ultimately, is the source of a lot of anti-Bush/US sentiment). But that's politicians. Where politicians start wars, it is the army that finishes them, and I think this fact is the most important one to highlight. The US Army is simply doing it's job. Any campaign that is done to improve the view of the US must show the Army in a more favourable light, as opposed to all the FUD the terrorists spread.

I don't feel it's entirely accurate to say the "Hate Bush" Club is hurting the progress, because some do have good reasons to dislike him. It's the ones who blame the army as well for a politician's mistakes that are the ones not helping.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

To be honest, it's the Bush/Blair duo that has done a lot of damage to the stability in the Middle East, and it mostly revolves around how they both have dealt with the Israel/Palestine issue (which ultimately, is the source of a lot of anti-Bush/US sentiment). But that's politicians. Where politicians start wars, it is the army that finishes them, and I think this fact is the most important one to highlight. The US Army is simply doing it's job. Any campaign that is done to improve the view of the US must show the Army in a more favourable light, as opposed to all the FUD the terrorists spread.

A lot of that has to do with protecting what was the only democracy in the Middle East. The Cold War had us obsessively protecting democracy, and that drive is still with us. I think protecting Israel is understandable to a major extent, but it definitely has its problems. It is the number one thing we do to piss off terrorists, not that they are legitimate in being pissed off about it. I have a lot of sympathy for the idea of protecting democracy everywhere, but I also think the Arab-Israeli conflict is a complicated and inevitable clusterfuck that we probably should not have gotten involved in. It has been going on since Biblical times, and the Middle East is going to have to be drastically altered for it to ever stop. No peace deal is ever going to work. People are fighting over land because they think God gave it to them. When war goes on for thousands of years based on an idea that is that insane, I just about say live on that land at your own risk.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

I don't feel it's entirely accurate to say the "Hate Bush" Club is hurting the progress, because some do have good reasons to dislike him. It's the ones who blame the army as well for a politician's mistakes that are the ones not helping.

Criticizing Bush is totally fair game and even necessary. When I say "Hate Bush cult", I am talking about the obsessive people who go way overboard with it and relentlessly attack Bush at every turn as if he is the villain in their religion. They hate first and fill in the blanks second. That is very hurtful to the world. It riles up the terrorists a few more notches. Criticizing national leaders even on the most vicious of levels is everybody's right, or at least should be, but it ideally should be done with complete intellectual honesty and a sense of responsibility.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

A lot of that has to do with protecting what was the only democracy in the Middle East. The Cold War had us obsessively protecting democracy, and that drive is still with us. I think protecting Israel is understandable to a major extent, but it definitely has its problems. It is the number one thing we do to piss off terrorists, not that they are legitimate in being pissed off about it. I have a lot of sympathy for the idea of protecting democracy everywhere, but I also think the Arab-Israeli conflict is a complicated and inevitable clusterfuck that we probably should not have gotten involved in. It has been going on since Biblical times, and the Middle East is going to have to be drastically altered for it to ever stop. No peace deal is ever going to work. People are fighting over land because they think God gave it to them. When war goes on for thousands of years based on an idea that is that insane, I just about say live on that land at your own risk.

Very true words, and I agree with you on on that. A lot of things can change with the mentality we take on promoting/protecting certain things, but as long as people hold claim to that land for whatever religious belief, it will only result in further mess.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Criticizing Bush is totally fair game and even necessary. When I say "Hate Bush cult", I am talking about the obsessive people who go way overboard with it and relentlessly attack Bush at every turn as if he is the villain in their religion. They hate first and fill in the blanks second. That is very hurtful to the world. It riles up the terrorists a few more notches. Criticizing national leaders even on the most vicious of levels is everybody's right, or at least should be, but it ideally should be done with complete intellectual honesty and a sense of responsibility.

Yeah, I see what you mean. Meaningless hate that is channelled in whatever direction does not help with whatever context it is applied on. In this case, it effectively hampers progress by the US Army in order to promote it's campaign in Iraq and the worldwide community.

Anyway, funny how we've come full circle with the topic. In the end, whilst we don't quite see eye-to-eye on certain issues and perspectives, overall, there's still the same consensus between us about what has to be done from now on. And as a result, I have enjoyed this debate quite a lot.

Originally posted by Universal Mind If they want us to leave, why do they not do what would get us to leave? Why do they instead do exactly what gets us to stay? I have asked that question about a hundred times now. Do you have an answer?

Ok you put alot to answer so ill answer this most important question. They are doing what is needed to get you to leave. Ie as the body count goes up the public and government are losing the will to keep up the occupation. If they weren't fighting you guys would probably stay longer but instead they fight and your country contiplates pulling out. Likely your next president will be a democrat and we all knwo they will pull out of iraq and then you will see the insurgent strategy to get rid of the occupation has worked.

There is no more public will to fight this war aswell as in the government.

Origonally posted by Universal Mind

A lot of that has to do with protecting what was the only democracy in the Middle East. The Cold War had us obsessively protecting democracy, and that drive is still with us. I think protecting Israel is understandable to a major extent, but it definitely has its problems. It is the number one thing we do to piss off terrorists, not that they are legitimate in being pissed off about it. I have a lot of sympathy for the idea of protecting democracy everywhere, but I also think the Arab-Israeli conflict is a complicated and inevitable clusterfuck that we probably should not have gotten involved in. It has been going on since Biblical times, and the Middle East is going to have to be drastically altered for it to ever stop. No peace deal is ever going to work. People are fighting over land because they think God gave it to them. When war goes on for thousands of years based on an idea that is that insane, I just about say live on that land at your own risk.

Israel is an illegitmate country and should have never been created in the first place. did you know that israels jewish population only dates back to the ailyah of 1882 and even then most of them have only bee there in the last 50 years from immigration. Barely a generation after the ailyah of 1882 in the late 1940's the European Ashakanzie immigrants demand a country in Palestine. THe UN bends to their will ignoring the fact that there was something like 700 000 arabs on the land they wanted to make into Israel. Instead they ignored the arab will and made a country for these land owners.

The whole conflict could have bene avoided if they put the will of the
700,000 arabs living on the land instead of listening to the european landowners wanting a country on ARAB LAND!

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Anyway, funny how we've come full circle with the topic. In the end, whilst we don't quite see eye-to-eye on certain issues and perspectives, overall, there's still the same consensus between us about what has to be done from now on. And as a result, I have enjoyed this debate quite a lot.

Yeah, it looks like we agree on more than we first realized. Good debate. It's good to once in a while be able to do this with somebody who does not fly off the handle, which is what most people on both sides of the issues seem to do. Not once did you compare me to Nazis.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Ok you put alot to answer so ill answer this most important question. They are doing what is needed to get you to leave. Ie as the body count goes up the public and government are losing the will to keep up the occupation. If they weren't fighting you guys would probably stay longer but instead they fight and your country contiplates pulling out. Likely your next president will be a democrat and we all knwo they will pull out of iraq and then you will see the insurgent strategy to get rid of the occupation has worked.

There is no more public will to fight this war aswell as in the government.

So you think the insurgents are what are getting closer to being ready to leave? I totally disagree. I think we would have left a long time ago if it had not been for the insurgency. I think the insurgents are completely aware of that. Also, we are not going to leave until the right time comes. We are going to stay until we think the new government is ready to stand on its own. You can bank on that. Even Obama and Clinton would not get us out of there until they think the right time has come. They do not want to be responsible for the world's biggest clusterfuck starting as soon as they get into office. It would be political suicide. Notice Hillary's language when she talks about the situation. She says she will start bringing troops home when she is in office. I don't think Obama ever names a time he is going to bring the troops home. They are slippery politicians. Don't assume that they are going to get into office and end the war that day. It is not going to happen.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Israel is an illegitmate country and should have never been created in the first place. did you know that israels jewish population only dates back to the ailyah of 1882 and even then most of them have only bee there in the last 50 years from immigration. Barely a generation after the ailyah of 1882 in the late 1940's the European Ashakanzie immigrants demand a country in Palestine. THe UN bends to their will ignoring the fact that there was something like 700 000 arabs on the land they wanted to make into Israel. Instead they ignored the arab will and made a country for these land owners.

Based on what I know, that was majorly screwed up. I agree with you on that. So what do we do all this time later? Do we kick people out next week on the basis of their religion? How prejudiced would that be? That would be like kicking most Americans out of their houses now because the Indians got screwed over so bad in the 1800's and earlier. We are not teams. We are individuals. I don't believe in giving groups preferential treatment because of what their forefathers experienced. It makes no sense. The only thing that makes sense in Israel is a democracy of some type, the only category of government that is legitimate, and letting Jews and Muslims live there equally. I have no sympathy for any other proposal. If they want to change the name of the place to something more religiously neutral, I am all for it.

Orginially posted by Universal MindSo you think the insurgents are what are getting closer to being ready to leave? I totally disagree. I think we would have left a long time ago if it had not been for the insurgency. I think the insurgents are completely aware of that. Also, we are not going to leave until the right time comes. We are going to stay until we think the new government is ready to stand on its own. You can bank on that. Even Obama and Clinton would not get us out of there until they think the right time has come. They do not want to be responsible for the world's biggest clusterfuck starting as soon as they get into office. It would be political suicide. Notice Hillary's language when she talks about the situation. She says she will start bringing troops home when she is in office. I don't think Obama ever names a time he is going to bring the troops home. They are slippery politicians. Don't assume that they are going to get into office and end the war that day. It is not going to happen.

Nah, I disagree. Hilory says she will start pulling out the soldiers within what 60 days and Obama says within 16 months. I'm pretty sure it will lead to a lessend occupation if not a total withdrawl and either way the insurgents stand to benefit. The british have already begun withdrawing soldiers to. See Casulaties and wounds add up to public disfavour with the war which ends up with a change in policy like we are seing now. Check and mate

Originally posted by Universal Mind Based on what I know, that was majorly screwed up. I agree with you on that. So what do we do all this time later? Do we kick people out next week on the basis of their religion? How prejudiced would that be? That would be like kicking most Americans out of their houses now because the Indians got screwed over so bad in the 1800's and earlier. We are not teams. We are individuals. I don't believe in giving groups preferential treatment because of what their forefathers experienced. It makes no sense. The only thing that makes sense in Israel is a democracy of some type, the only category of government that is legitimate, and letting Jews and Muslims live there equally. I have no sympathy for any other proposal. If they want to change the name of the place to something more religiously neutral, I am all for it.

The creation of Israel was the biggest mistake of the UN and it was one of the first things the UN did to when it was created from the vestiges of the League Of Nations. To boot it was one of the most undemocratice and imperalistic things on behalf of the UN and UK mainly who came up with the parition plan. It was such a huge injustice and the West wonders why Hamas and Hezbollah want to settle the score with the colonial scum that is Israel.

Anyway i would rather see Israel set up as a bi-national for Palestinians and Israelies and the law of return which grants any jew anywhere the right to come live in israel and have citizenship revoiked. I know it won't happen but i dont care. IN the next 30-50 years Israel will cease to be a jewish state just by the virtue of demographic change and high amounts of emmigration. Then the zionist dream will be over and justice will be served and the Palestinians will have their land back. All it is, is a waitiing game now...tick tock tick tock.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Less than legitimate reasons? Invoking the stated consequence of noncompliance with a ceasefire is legitimate. Taking down an enemy terrorist government with a history of WMD terrorism is legitimate. Acting on WMD intelligence (regerding a terrorist government) from five other governments, people in the U.N., and your own CIA, Senate (Democrats included), and previous presidential administration (Clinton and Gore) is legitimate. Setting up shop to kill or capture tens of thousands of nutty terrorists is legitimate. Liberating a country from a horribly oppressive, international terrorist, genocidal dictatorship is legitimate. Most of the innocents do not have their houses broken into. If it happens, it is a mistake. We took down a terrible government and put up a far better one. The terrorists we are fighting there come from all over the Middle East, and they are opposing democracy. It is the only plausible explanation. They know that all they would have to get us to leave is stop fighting us. But they are not doing that. Are they? I would love for you to explain that.

Ya i agree the Sadam Regime was horribly opresive and racist. On a side note i find it facinating the Sunni-Shia conflict. It reminds me so much of the Tutsi-Hutu conflict of Rwanda.

think about it for a sec and tell me what you think. When the Belgians i think it was in Rwanda leave they leave the Minority Tutsies with favours and more power over the Majority Hutu group. Eventually the majority Hutus anger boils over and...Genocide over that little vestige of coloniasm. I beleive it is very much the same thing with Iraq. The minority Sunnies were left in control(by the brits?) over the majority Shia's. Anyone else agree with me?

Anyway back tot he point. Iraq wasn't crawling with "terrorists" before the invasion and you got the Ummah war machine into high gear.

The intell however was not enough for an invasion you guys beleived they had WMD's and they didn't.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Nah, I disagree. Hilory says she will start pulling out the soldiers within what 60 days and Obama says within 16 months. I'm pretty sure it will lead to a lessend occupation if not a total withdrawl and either way the insurgents stand to benefit. The british have already begun withdrawing soldiers to. See Casulaties and wounds add up to public disfavour with the war which ends up with a change in policy like we are seing now. Check and mate

If there had not been an insurgency, we would not have needed an occupation there for the past five years. We have about 150,000 troops there now because of the insurgency and have had them there for the past five years. So now that two politicians are talking about withdrawing some troops if they get elected, you say that the insurgency is effective in getting us to leave Iraq even though our troops have been there all this time because of the insurgency? That makes no sense. It is like saying that because somebody running for fire chief says he plans to start removing firemen from a wildfire that has gone down, the fire was effective at keeping firemen away from the area. There's your checkmate.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

The creation of Israel was the biggest mistake of the UN and it was one of the first things the UN did to when it was created from the vestiges of the League Of Nations. To boot it was one of the most undemocratice and imperalistic things on behalf of the UN and UK mainly who came up with the parition plan. It was such a huge injustice and the West wonders why Hamas and Hezbollah want to settle the score with the colonial scum that is Israel.

Not everybody in Israel is "colonial scum". This is 2008. Your prejudice is blinding you.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Anyway i would rather see Israel set up as a bi-national for Palestinians and Israelies and the law of return which grants any jew anywhere the right to come live in israel and have citizenship revoiked. I know it won't happen but i dont care. IN the next 30-50 years Israel will cease to be a jewish state just by the virtue of demographic change and high amounts of emmigration. Then the zionist dream will be over and justice will be served and the Palestinians will have their land back. All it is, is a waitiing game now...tick tock tick tock.

Are you by any chance a member of Hamas? How do you feel about a democracy where they are all equal?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yeah, it looks like we agree on more than we first realized. Good debate. It's good to once in a while be able to do this with somebody who does not fly off the handle, which is what most people on both sides of the issues seem to do. Not once did you compare me to Nazis.

Heheh, your welcome. I try to keep level-headed with debates, as flying off the handle does not help further any discussion.

I wonder what else might come next... *clicks onwards to find a new debate*

Originally Posted by UniversalMind If there had not been an insurgency, we would not have needed an occupation there for the past five years. We have about 150,000 troops there now because of the insurgency and have had them there for the past five years. So now that two politicians are talking about withdrawing some troops if they get elected, you say that the insurgency is effective in getting us to leave Iraq even though our troops have been there all this time because of the insurgency? That makes no sense. It is like saying that because somebody running for fire chief says he plans to start removing firemen from a wildfire that has gone down, the fire was effective at keeping firemen away from the area. There's your checkmate.

Nah the insurgency is getting you guys to leave, its working. Wait till the next president. The way i see it the insurgency picked up where the
Iraqi Army left off after it was defeated and later disbanded.

Originally Posted by Univeral Mind Not everybody in Israel is "colonial scum". This is 2008. Your prejudice is blinding you.

They call the creation of Israel Al Nakbah (The disaster) and i stand by what i said and i providded u with loads of evidence for why. I can back up what i beleive with sound logic, thats not irrationality or prejudice.

Are you by any chance a member of Hamas? How do you feel about a democracy where they are all equal?

I guess democracy where they're all "equal" is ok.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Nah the insurgency is getting you guys to leave, its working. Wait till the next president. The way i see it the insurgency picked up where the
Iraqi Army left off after it was defeated and later disbanded.

Why would we have 150,000 troops there now if there were not an insurgency? 150,000! The insurgency has gone down, and that is why some politicians are talking about beginning a withdrawal. They are not talking about it because the insurgency has increased. They are saying it because the insurgency has decreased.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

They call the creation of Israel Al Nakbah (The disaster) and i stand by what i said and i providded u with loads of evidence for why. I can back up what i beleive with sound logic, thats not irrationality or prejudice.

This is 2008. It is not exactly the day after the creation of Israel. What you are talking about happened in the first half of the last century. Your "colonial scum" label is very generalized and hateful against ALL Israelis. Most of the people in Israel now were born there. Most of them are the descendants of people who were born there. Are modern Americans "colonial scum" because of what the terrible pioneers did to the Indians?

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

I guess democracy where they're all "equal" is ok.

Good! Then why were you talking about revoking citizenship? Muslims and Jews need to share the land and act civilized. I do not support anybody on either side who does not favor that.