Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

   

GT I'm afraid I will have to disagree with you on this one, although I am no fan of nutjob and his opressive regime or nukes but from an Iranian point of view, it would be the best insurance against the US who has already invaded its neighbours on both sides. Iraq on the west and afgan on the estern front and from its little brother closeby, Israel and specially since the US has already done some sabre rattling indicating it wants to. Although ofcourse we know it can't afford another war for the moment but all it needs is another loon like bush to come into office and things can change dramatically.

   

I'll tell you what, if Iran was a stable, democratic, and productive member of the world community, that would by far be the best insurance policy against foreign incursions.

   

Yes thats true, but unfortunately its not. Maybe a Iranian invasion would have been more appropriate than a Iraqi one ? There is more evidence of Iran supporting terrorism than Iraq ever did.

   

Nah. Iran has more oil. The USA wouldn't want it to appear that they went in there, primarily, to pirate crude, would they?

   

I think you have some valid points jeff. The trouble with our leaders is they manage problems in the same way the WHO managed H1N1.

The sky is always falling. The Soviets turned out to be a bunch of scruffy yobs driving low-tech tanks. A single A10 could have decimated a Soviet tank regiment but we were all scared as fuck of the Russian Bear sweeping through Europe.

Then we had the WMD fiasco. I’m sure Saddam had some shit he shouldn’t have and he had plenty of time to get rid of it while the US postured for months before rolling in on a few hundred Abrams supported by the US blitzkrieg. That turned out to be a load of old bollocks too.

We all know Iran is run by a load of theocratic gangsters and I’m sure the idiots who are currently having a good run of oppressing their own people, have a rudimentary bomb ready to go off if Israel or the US attack them.

Personally, I think if the yanks hadn’t gone into Iraq, they would have gone into Iran.
The whole Iraq thing showed them how fucked up and tribal that part of the world really is.

It’s easy for the US to outgun these contrived ‘countries’ that are one off from perpetual civil war, but trying to run them as a ‘country’, using the rule of law and democratic ideals has failed spectacularly.

I’m surprised the Brits followed the yanks in on this. They know better.

Invading countries is so 20th century. The invaders always get kicked out in the end and nothing is achieved.

   

There you go.

   

Thank you for the correction; yes he is a more of a sociopath.
Manyof our Canadian friends on this thread look on him a wise, noble and kindly
leader despiritly looking to to defend his blissfull Islamic Republic from us
from us disengenuious mean nasty Americans racing around with our cameras and
Coke bottles.

They might agree he is a kook, but a non-American would have to say it.

   

Name one.

It's not your cameras and coke bottles people worry about - certainly not the Iraqis. You're just so convinced that America is the shining city on the hill, you can't see the mound of horseshit it's built on.

   

FOX News. They speak the script, he bleats the message.

   

All international politics seem to be based on horseshit. Greed, and arrogance we areound long before we were. Are we the Shinining city on the hill? Depends who you are comparing us to and what is going on.

Compared to Iran Stalin's Russia looks like the City on the Hill let alone any modern European or North American country.

   

A psychopath and a scoipath are the same thing. Geez, you just keep lobbing the sofites and I keep knocking them out of the park.

Not that it'll make any difference. You are just a pawn of the Amercian propaganda machine. Far too brainwashed to accept anything except what you've been told by your masters.

   

Zip,
Do you feel Iran having nuclear weapons would be a good thing?


This isn't a CIA plot just a question.

   

The only way amandinefuck is a sociopath if the entire nation is. Mental illness is defined by a norm, and I'm sure he's seen as sane in Iran. Even the Iranians who don't want to live under a theocracy probably agree with getting nukes - it's how you get respect in the world and get other countries to leave you alone. Amadinefucks more outrageous statements are just, as Lemmy says, a snake shaking it's rattle, and also meant for internal consumption to make the hardliners happy and keep him in power.

The shining city on the hill wasn't a standard of living argument, but about the delusion Americans have that they are the moral arbiter in the world - their view is the right one. They get to say who's been naughty or nice. I havn't really seen Iran invade or attack anybody. Unlike the US.

   

First you asked me if I thought Ahmadinejad wwas an honorable individual, and then if Iran was a "friend of nations" and now you're asking if I tyhink a nuclear armed Iran is a "good" thing. Where the hell did I say anything like that in any of my posts.

It seems that you are so wrapped up in your good guy/bad guy cowboy movie view of the world--like many Americans--that you're simply incapable of seeing outside it.

I don't really care if Iran has nuclear weapons. If I were Iranian I might think it was a good thing; if I were an Israeli I'd definitely think it was a bad thing. I'm Canadian, and the chances of Iran launching a nuclear strike at Canada--or the US for that matter--in my lifetime are right around zilch.

On a larger geopolitical scale, we'll soon be pining for the days when all we cared about was whether Iran got the bomb. China is challenging the US's global economic pre-eminence, and will soon be a military threat as well. It's only a matter of time before we enter back into the old two-power duality again, like back in the Cold War.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next