PDA

View Full Version : Iran is next: expert


pseudobrit
Mar 25, 2003, 01:11 PM
http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=14842&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs

From AFP: "Once the war with Iraq is over, the United States will likely turn its focus to halting Iran's (uranium) enrichment programme while Iran still seems to be a few years away from achieving a breakout capability," said Gary Samore, director of studies at the US-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).

Anyone notice something about Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan?

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/travel/dg/maps/67/750x750_asia_m.gif

lmalave
Mar 25, 2003, 01:18 PM
Ah, the "pincer" move...

NavyIntel007
Mar 25, 2003, 01:25 PM
Oh God, I sure hope not.

I have Officer Training in January '04.

:eek:

skunk
Mar 25, 2003, 01:45 PM
Charm offensive? Or just plain Offensive? Lots of oil, I guess....

Mr. Anderson
Mar 25, 2003, 01:55 PM
Ah, did anyone notice the size of Iran? And the fact that they've not done anything to incure our wrath, let alone provide cause for invasion.

It won't happen, we do not have the support of the people in the US or the world. Doing anything in Iran would just cause huge amounts of backlash. We're barely able to deal with Sadam without having issues.

Go ahead with your conspiracy theories......

D

abdul
Mar 25, 2003, 01:58 PM
I think this is absurd, if the american public believe that Iran a country which is literally thousands of miles away can launch a nuclear bomb on america, when their furthest missiles dont even reach the other side of Iraq (their neighbour). If america feel really threatened, then maybe they should think abouth protecting their shores cos a nuclear weapon can be detected from space, (cos of the radiation they release). Or is this just imperialistic talk. I swear i think Bush is helping the terrorist recruit more people, and Blair is putting Britains on their map for attack targets! and by the way where were the American people when Britain got attacked for decades by the IRA?......i remember you were giving them money!! We solved the terrorist problem with diplomacy and learnt that fighting an enemy that you can see doesnt work!! come on be honest there not asking for much (even though im not supporting their actions)
-Get American soldiers out of Saudi Arabia
- so a revolution can occur which can lead to a democractic state, like Islam states and the monarchy can be overthrown!
- Creation of palestine....am i the only one that thinks this, there getting butchered there, and they cant even get citizenship in Israel cos they are not Jew (this is the democracy that you support)
- something else.....forgot it but they normally ask in threes

people only result to terrorism cos they think there views are being totally ignored, and they want to get some attention.

skunk
Mar 25, 2003, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by dukestreet
And the fact that they've not done anything to incure our wrath, let alone provide cause for invasion.
It won't happen, we do not have the support of the people in the US or the world. D
Since when did that make any difference? They're EVIL for God's sake! What more do you need to know? :rolleyes:

Mr. Anderson
Mar 25, 2003, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by skunk
Since when did that make any difference? They're EVIL for God's sake! What more do you need to know? :rolleyes:

Ok, just a little lighter here....we do not need this to get out of hand.

The article mentioned someones opinion, and that opinion was prefaced by 'may'. So that leaves a whole bunch of room for what might actually happen.

Sure its a concern, but common sense, in this case, will win over any lingering desire for the US to further engulf the region into an armed conflict.

D

skunk
Mar 25, 2003, 02:09 PM
edited

come on...

pseudobrit
Mar 25, 2003, 02:10 PM
Ah, did anyone notice the size of Iran? And the fact that they've not done anything to incure our wrath, let alone provide cause for invasion.

It won't happen, we do not have the support of the people in the US or the world. Doing anything in Iran would just cause huge amounts of backlash. We're barely able to deal with Sadam without having issues.

Go ahead with your conspiracy theories......


Yeah, what did Iraq do to incur our wrath?

And since when did we have the support of the people in the world to attack Iraq?

And the American people only started supporting this war since it started.

Doing anything in Iraq will cause huge amounts of backlash.

Iran is developing nuclear weapons, has chemical weapons and has been anti-American for decades. Less than that has proven more than enough reason to invade Iraq. Is it so far-fetched that Iran would be next?

skunk
Mar 25, 2003, 02:15 PM
What about North Korea? No queue-jumping, please! Everybody keep in line....

zimv20
Mar 25, 2003, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
[B]
Anyone notice something about Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan?


there's that pesky problem of getting oil (and natural gas?) from the caspian sea out to ships... somewhere.

the bush admin, probably from day 1, had been in talks w/ the taliban about a trans-afghanistan pipeline to either india or the indian ocean. enron was part of this (of course).

i believe a deal for such a pipeline was struck just last week.

it's interesting, looking at the map. a pipeline through iran would obliviate the need for it to go through pakistan.

vniow
Mar 25, 2003, 04:04 PM
There was a thread on this awhile back.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20126

mymemory
Mar 25, 2003, 05:00 PM
Now all I need is a good ammount of uranium so the US will come down here and kill chavez.

Comunism is not an issue any more, masacre: neither, terrorism: neither, oil: it coul be but not really, bactereological weapons: neither. Uranium is the excuse, maybe Brasil will end up as a target after Iran.

macfan
Mar 25, 2003, 05:10 PM
Iran's government, as a terrorist-sponsoring government, needs to be replaced, but it can be done without an invasion.

mymerory,
If Chavez is so bad, why don't you folks take care of him yourself before he becomes much worse.

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 25, 2003, 05:28 PM
All you people who think its just fine to have every tom ,dick ,& harry government armed with nukes are crazy. We need to have nuclear weapons on the decline not be helping the Iraq's,Irans and any other finatic who wants one, CHIRAC are you listening?CHIRAC are you there?This Same Frenchmen seems eager to give nuc power plants to anyone who will give him money. And what can be made from these nuc power plants? thats right the bomb! CHIRAC STOP YOUR NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION!

pseudobrit
Mar 25, 2003, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
All you people who think its just fine to have every tom ,dick ,& harry government armed with nukes are crazy. We need to have nuclear weapons on the decline not be helping the Iraq's,Irans and any other finatic who wants one, CHIRAC are you listening?CHIRAC are you there?This Same Frenchmen seems eager to give nuc power plants to anyone who will give him money. And what can be made from these nuc power plants? thats right the bomb! CHIRAC STOP YOUR NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION!

France developed their own nuclear weapons programme along with Israel. South Africa ended up in the mix also.

If we wanted to stop nuclear proliferation, we wouldn't be focusing on France, but Pakistan, who are giving North Korea their advanced nuclear technology in exchange for North Korea's advanced missile technology.

But they're our allies...

jelloshotsrule
Mar 25, 2003, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by macfan

If Chavez is so bad, why don't you folks take care of him yourself before he becomes much worse.

wow. how insensitive and simplistic. i'm sure it's just a matter of "take care of him yourself"... and if saddam is so bad why don't the iraqis just take care of him themselves. amazingly ironic... but hey, what do i know

Les Kern
Mar 25, 2003, 06:34 PM
If Bush is following the strategy written by Paul Wolfowitz over 10 years ago (temporarily shelved when Clinton came to office), then Iran and maybe Syria are next. Certainly N. Korea is in there too.
See:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/wwwboard/messages/1051.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1211-05.htm
Success in Iraq will fuel this maniacal push for world order according to Neo-conservative values and the Wolfowitz doctrine, all wrapped up very neatly in a patriotic blanket that the administration will DARE you to uncover. This troubles me deeply, and I truly believe all those bastards should be tossed in prison before they destroy us.
Too heavy? Too pessimistic? Just wait and see if you like. As for me, I am now an activist.

Kid Red
Mar 25, 2003, 06:34 PM
We need to get Syria and the terrorsist hang outs there as well. N Korea, also, not sure about iRan.

Les Kern
Mar 25, 2003, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by Kid Red
We need to get Syria and the terrorsist hang outs there as well. N Korea, also, not sure about iRan.

Duh. Chock full of reasoning. You could be a Bush advisor. Quit with the foriegn policy based on testosterone.
Sorry, I just don't want the US to be the world cop. And exactly when did it become acceptable to attack in the belief we will be attacked? Hell, I guess one day Mexico could send troops into Texas. Let's nuke em, eh?

leprechaunG4
Mar 25, 2003, 06:48 PM
Hey les who's nuking anybody, chill out a bit. This is speculation an opinion with a maybe. Everybody needs to stop flying off the handle because somebody said "maybe we'll do this" Well, maybe the sun won't come up tomorrow, are all of you people going to go out and buy yourselves extra flashlights now?

skunk
Mar 25, 2003, 06:50 PM
Of course this may be a terribly naive observation, but did anyone notice that Iran is a democracy? Or perhaps you think it would be simpler if the US just supplied lists of acceptable election candidates to ALL the other countries in the world, just so we don't make any silly choices (like electing parties or individuals who are not in the pockets of US corporations or in agreement with US "foreign policy").

leprechaunG4
Mar 25, 2003, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by skunk
Of course this may be a terribly naive observation, but did anyone notice that Iran is a democracy? Or perhaps you think it would be simpler if the US just supplied lists of acceptable election candidates to ALL the other countries in the world, just so we don't make any silly choices (like electing parties or individuals who are not in the pockets of US corporations or in agreement with US "foreign policy").
Hey do you realive that since Iran became a democracy communiocation between America and Iran restarted. Switzerland often acts as a mediator now for our communications. We are currently communicating with Iran about a missile that fell on Iranian soil, we are trying too determine where it came from and why. So maybe you should look into current relations before making such comments.

skunk
Mar 25, 2003, 07:01 PM
Yes, I realize that Iran is communicating. And I apologize for getting somewhat provoked and provocative, but it does seem that some people are getting carried away with this idea of Regime Change.

pseudobrit
Mar 25, 2003, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
Hey do you realive that since Iran became a democracy communiocation between America and Iran restarted. Switzerland often acts as a mediator now for our communications. We are currently communicating with Iran about a missile that fell on Iranian soil, we are trying too determine where it came from and why. So maybe you should look into current relations before making such comments.

Iran is "communicating" right back by firing SAMs at our aircraft that violate their airspace (which they are saying has been violated chronically over the past week) and machine gunning our marines on the border.

We are "communicating" by dropping a bomb outside an Iranian hospital 4 miles inside the boder and a Tomahawk into an Iranian oil depot.

That's the current relations.

skunk
Mar 25, 2003, 07:06 PM
Well, there's "communicating", and then there's "COMMUNICATING" :D

pseudobrit
Mar 25, 2003, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by Les Kern
Hell, I guess one day Mexico could send troops into Texas. Let's nuke em, eh?

Holy crap! I forgot all about Mexico! They've invaded sovereign US soil before, what's to stop them from doing it again?! They have a history of aggression against the United States!

And all that pot that comes up from Mexico -- they're obviously poisoning our youth (all those protesting hippies mostly) with WMD -- weed and marijuana derivatives.

Don't forget -- they have oil!!

skunk
Mar 25, 2003, 07:11 PM
I thought you already HAD Mexico...:rolleyes:

leprechaunG4
Mar 25, 2003, 07:33 PM
psuedo - you are the flambait king. I'm just going to have to start ignoring you until you start making posts with common sense and factual evidence.

skunk
Mar 25, 2003, 07:36 PM
The words "lighten" and "up" spring to mind...:)

zimv20
Mar 25, 2003, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
Everybody needs to stop flying off the handle because somebody said "maybe we'll do this"

i think the bush administration (wolfowitz and perle especially) needs to hear that more than anyone here. natch.

pseudobrit
Mar 25, 2003, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
psuedo - you are the flambait king. I'm just going to have to start ignoring you until you start making posts with common sense and factual evidence.

:confused:

I'm sorry if you don't get my facetiousness.

macfan
Mar 25, 2003, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by Les Kern
And exactly when did it become acceptable to attack in the belief we will be attacked?

Wake up and smell the towers burning. We were attacked before that and did nothing.

skunk
Mar 25, 2003, 09:15 PM
Please refer to your atlas.

zimv20
Mar 25, 2003, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Wake up and smell the towers burning. We were attacked before that and did nothing.

half the CIA disputes the claims of any link between iraq and al qaeda. it's possible the US is engaged against the "wrong" enemy.

and i forget who we're at war with now, is it eurasia or eastasia?

macfan
Mar 25, 2003, 09:30 PM
The reference was to the failure to act with decisiveness following the attacks on American soil in Kenya and Tanzania. (Which embassies technically are).

If half the CIA thinks one thing, and half thinks another, what does that tell you?

zimv20
Mar 25, 2003, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by macfan
The reference was to the failure to act with decisiveness following the attacks on American soil in Kenya and Tanzania. (Which embassies technically are).

you're right in that there was no significant _military_ action (other than the lame lobbing of a few missiles), but from what i understand there was a lot of activity in terms of policing, intelligence, account freezing, et. al.

what fascinates me a great deal is how nothing came of the Hart-Rudman report. one story of many here (http://www.cjr.org/year/01/6/evans.asp)

how different would things be now, i wonder, if the report had gotten the attention it deserved?

zimv20
Mar 25, 2003, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by macfan

If half the CIA thinks one thing, and half thinks another, what does that tell you?

it tells me that half are trying to do their jobs and half are bowing to political pressure.

LA Times story about political pressure on CIA (http://www.latimes.com/la-na-cia11oct11,0,2360915.story)

macfan
Mar 25, 2003, 09:52 PM
The best evidence I've seen linking Iraq to terror attacks on the US involves the first WTC bombing. There is also pretty good evidence that Iraq has been training Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. In any event, this war is not just about preventing terrorism. It's also about enforcing a cease-fire and, as a side effect, liberating a people.

zimv20
Mar 25, 2003, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by macfan
The best evidence I've seen linking Iraq to terror attacks on the US involves the first WTC bombing. There is also pretty good evidence that Iraq has been training Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.

the media does throw around a lot of circumstantial evidence, yes, and i get the impression that a lot of people are talking themselves (or letting themselves being talked) into supporting the war.

i seem to be in the minority that i care about world opinion. and the world is looking for direct evidence of iraqi involvement in 9/11. it just doesn't seem to be there.

i know a DA who more or less cheats to get people behind bars. she rationalizes it, saying even if they're not guilty of the crime they're being tried for, they're guilty of something. that attitude disgusts me, i can't tell you how much, and i believe it goes against everything this country is supposed to stand for.

i think the parallel i'm drawing is clear. i'm all for military action when it's justified (one measure of that is world support, like recent actions in afghanistan). but i've got a verrrryyyy bad feeling about this current engagement.

macfan
Mar 25, 2003, 10:08 PM
I think the war is supportable without any ties to terrorism. The cease-fire violations and the brutality of the Saddam "government" is sufficient.

zimv20
Mar 25, 2003, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by macfan
I think the war is supportable without any ties to terrorism. The cease-fire violations and the brutality of the Saddam "government" is sufficient.

the world disagrees with you, eritrea notwithstanding.

jelloshotsrule
Mar 25, 2003, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
and if saddam is so bad why don't the iraqis just take care of him themselves. amazingly ironic... but hey, what do i know

i'll ask again macfan.... if saddam's so bad... why don't you take this same attitude about him?

Les Kern
Mar 25, 2003, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
Hey les who's nuking anybody, chill out a bit. This is speculation an opinion with a maybe. Everybody needs to stop flying off the handle because somebody said "maybe we'll do this" Well, maybe the sun won't come up tomorrow, are all of you people going to go out and buy yourselves extra flashlights now?

Agreed, and sorry. I'm just so damned mad right now I find myself jumping out of my skin when I see posts that allude to feelings and not facts or a hint critical analysis. And I really see that as being the problem with a lot of Americans. Sound bites are easy, and opinion is formed by media and politically manufactured memes.
But back on topic, I truly think Bush and his buddies are indeed thinking that after a "successful" Iraq campaign, that they'll flex their muscles elswhere. And I honestly think we are entering a very dark period in our history.

Les Kern
Mar 25, 2003, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
i'll ask again macfan.... if saddam's so bad... why don't you take this same attitude about him?

But that's not the point. What's really bothering me is the fact we are going (or MAY go) after every despot for reasons that arn't exactly clear.. or the facts given are suspect at best, all gummed together with an assualt from the politicians and assisted by the media. It's not our place, and it's not our history to do so. Saddam is just one of a dozen VERY evil people, and may not even be the worst of the lot.
Watch "Bowling for Columbine" to see our sorry legacy involving other countries. The Wolfowitz Doctrine is just the next step, and it's a damned sad one.

Les Kern
Mar 25, 2003, 10:41 PM
I think the war is supportable without any ties to terrorism. The cease-fire violations and the brutality of the Saddam "government" is sufficient.

The cease-fire violations are a direct result of us attacking them, and the brutality of the Saddam govt. is just one example of a dozen other despots... and maybe even us if you look into it with a critical eye (Kissinger, North, Allende, CIA promises to Noriega, etc.). There is NO reason for us to be dying over there. Period.

Rower_CPU
Mar 25, 2003, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
and i forget who we're at war with now, is it eurasia or eastasia?

Eastasia...it's always been Eastasia.

jelloshotsrule
Mar 25, 2003, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by Les Kern
But that's not the point. What's really bothering me is the fact we are going (or MAY go) after every despot for reasons that arn't exactly clear.. or the facts given are suspect at best, all gummed together with an assualt from the politicians and assisted by the media. It's not our place, and it's not our history to do so. Saddam is just one of a dozen VERY evil people, and may not even be the worst of the lot.
Watch "Bowling for Columbine" to see our sorry legacy involving other countries. The Wolfowitz Doctrine is just the next step, and it's a damned sad one.

i don't think you're familiar with my take on things... or else i'm confused.

my response was in response to macfan's response to mymemory's mentioning of chavez (in venezuela). back on the first page... basically, he said that if chavez is so bad, the people of venezuela should just "take care of him yourself".... and seeing as how saddam is also "so bad"... i wonder why the same attitude is not taken towards saddam....

i mean, i don't think it's the same. but the attitude could certainly be the same towards both.


so anywys, i agree with you les, and i've seen bowling for columbine. great movie.... so either i am confused as to our disagreement, or you were mistaking my response for something else.... or i'm drunk... la la la

macfan
Mar 25, 2003, 11:59 PM
Les,
The cease-fire violations are a direct result of us attacking them,

That's simply ridiculous. We only took action as they violated the cease-fire agreement.

zimv20,
Since when did world public opinion make a difference in whether something was right or wrong?

jelloshotsrule,
Why are you quoting yourself and then asking me why I don't agree with you? Have you ever heard of sarcasm?

zimv20
Mar 26, 2003, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by macfan

zimv20,
Since when did world public opinion make a difference in whether something was right or wrong?


heh heh, that's something i might have posted.

let me suggest that, at times, there may be a correlation between world opinion and moral high ground. i find it interesting that so many, internationally, supported actions against bin laden / al qaeda but not nearly as many against hussein / iraq.

let me further suggest that, in such dangerous times, perhaps it's reasonable to listen to our once and former allies and heed their advice, rather than pissing off the world and, possibly, inviting more attacks.

lmalave
Mar 26, 2003, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by macfan
I think the war is supportable without any ties to terrorism. The cease-fire violations and the brutality of the Saddam "government" is sufficient.

Even if the war against Iraq or Iran or whoever was justifiable on legal merits, does that necessarily make it advisable?

To me this is looking more and more like a war that ends up being empty because it destroys its objectives.

Is our obective to reduce terrorism?
...Inflaming Arab rage only serves to gain more recruits for Al-Qaeda.

Is our objective to combat nuclear proliferation?
...The difference in how we are treating Iraq and Afghanistan vs. North Korea and Pakistan is already causing third world nations like Iran to race to produce nukes.

Is our objective to bring democracy to Iraq?
...How are we doing in Afghanistan? The Taliban may be gone, but Afghanistan just reverted to pre-Taliban warlordism where armed gangs freely rape and pillage.

jelloshotsrule
Mar 26, 2003, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by macfan
jelloshotsrule,
Why are you quoting yourself and then asking me why I don't agree with you? Have you ever heard of sarcasm?

oh phew. you know how hard it is to read on here..... i just wanted to know why you said it

makes sense now though.

macfan
Mar 26, 2003, 12:22 AM
zimv20,

let me suggest that, at times, there may be a correlation between world opinion and moral high ground.

And let me suggest that this is not one of those times.

lmalave
Mar 26, 2003, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by macfan
Wake up and smell the towers burning. We were attacked before that and did nothing.

Uhh...I did wake up one September morning and smell the towers burning. Before the war started 75% of New Yorkers were against a unilateral attack on Iraq, largely because we know that we are still in the crosshairs of any potential terrorist act. But what does Bush care? He'll never get New York state's electoral votes anyway :rolleyes:

I don't think our current policy is doing anything to combat terrorism. Why were we attacked? Why are we hated? I think the argument that Al-Quaeda's main motivation is that they "hate our freedom" and "want to destroy our way of life" doesn't tell the full story. Of course Al-Quaeda hates or way of life - they want to impose strict sharia law in their own countries, after all. But there are other countries that have similar political systems and societies to us, and they weren't targeted.

And I also don't buy the argument that it's all about jealousy. Japan's a rich country too, but why isn't Japan as widely hated? (China and Korea still hate Japan, but that's for stuff they did decades ago, and the rest of the world is pretty much OK with Japan).

Large parts of the world (Middle East, Latin America) hate us because as far as they're concerned we have historically intervened on behalf of dictators and against the will of the people for our own economic gain. A dictator is easier to control than a democratic population. Here's how it worked in Latin America: put a dictator in power on the condition that American companies can come in and exploit the natural resources (e.g. mining copper), and of course the dictator gets a cut. So the dictator and the American companies get enormously wealthy, and as usual the people get screwed.

Now, I agree that a lot of this is past history and that ideally current actions should be judged on their on merits. However, we must understand how our actions are perceived by the world, so that we can judge the long-term repercussions of our actions. And unfortunately, I fear that overall this current war will have negative long-term repercussions for our country.

zimv20
Mar 26, 2003, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by lmalave
Why were we attacked? Why are we hated?

from what i can tell, bin laden wants US troops out of saudi arabia and wants the US to stop supporting israel so much and help w/ the formation of a Palestinian state.

from what i can tell, the bush administration isn't doing those things. ergo, more terrorist attacks against US interests are promised by bin laden.

lmalave
Mar 26, 2003, 01:08 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
from what i can tell, bin laden wants US troops out of saudi arabia and wants the US to stop supporting israel so much and help w/ the formation of a Palestinian state.

from what i can tell, the bush administration isn't doing those things. ergo, more terrorist attacks against US interests are promised by bin laden.

I agree with you, and I also think that if we hadn't had those policies, we wouldn've never been attacked in the first place. Bin Laden (not to mention most of the Arab public) want us to stop meddling with their lands and acting like a colonial power, pure and simple.

I really don't buy that this conflict was inevitable because of a "clash of civilizations" (Islam vs. modern Western culture). Those conflicts would be occurring within the Middle East, and not spilling out into worldwide conflagration. And by the way we're just helping to radicalize the region by our actions. I think Islamic Fundamentalism would be a much smaller proportion of the Muslim population if it the U.S. wasn't acting as a lightning rod for it.

kettle
Mar 26, 2003, 01:09 AM
I think Iran will be next because Iran also wants to stop trading oil using U.S. dollar and start using the EURO, just like Iraq, Russia, Germany and France. Imagine what that would do to the USA and then imagine what it would do for a United States of Europe. The EU would have new legs and a strong currency, USA would no longer be biggest and best.

Maybe there is still time to stop Europe. Maybe not.

I also think that a United Europe would be the start of the biggest civil war known to man.

pseudobrit
Mar 26, 2003, 01:10 AM
The Arab world hates the West because of what the West has done to them and their religion over the centuries. From the crusades to British and French imperialism and colonialism to the establishment of Palestine to the installation of dictators and interference with governments, the West has brought nothing but grief to the Arab world.

Why would they begin to trust us now, especially while we begin invading and occupying their neighbors?

We don't understand, we continue to upset them, and we get attacked. Then instead of trying to figure out why and make amends, we get angry and attack the area, making the situation worse and proving the cynical extremsits' fears drawing more moderates into the realm of extremism.

lmalave
Mar 26, 2003, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by kettle
I think Iran will be next because Iran also wants to stop trading oil using U.S. dollar and start using the EURO, just like Iraq, Russia, Germany and France. Imagine what that would do to the USA and then imagine what it would do for a United States of Europe. The EU would have new legs and a strong currency, USA would no longer be biggest and best.

Maybe there is still time to stop Europe. Maybe not.

I also think that a United Europe would be the start of the biggest civil war known to man.

The size of Iran's economy is quite small compared to the larger European countries, so I don't see how Iran would be that big a consideration in US$ vs. Euro.

Why do you think there would be civil war in a united Europe?

zimv20
Mar 26, 2003, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by lmalave

I really don't buy that this conflict was inevitable because of a "clash of civilizations" (Islam vs. modern Western culture).

i think it is a clash of civilizations, but of a different kind.

i look at the great war (WWI) as a c.o.c., when existing power structures, families such as the hapsburgs, were losing out to the power structure of the country.

now, i see the power structure of the individual country losing out to a super-structure of countries (plural), such as the UN and the EU.

it's pretty clear to me that the bush camp (wolfowitz, rove, perle, cheney, rumsfeld, bush) all hate the UN (and the EU?) and want to preserve the idea of the US as the sole superpower. but the tide's not going that way, imho, and we're in for another world war.

all the terrorism/oil/occupation/despot/tyranny stuff is just noise. this won't be over until either the UN and EU are destroyed, or the US is.

lmalave
Mar 26, 2003, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
The Arab world hates the West because of what the West has done to them and their religion over the centuries. From the crusades to British and French imperialism and colonialism to the establishment of Palestine to the installation of dictators and interference with governments, the West has brought nothing but grief to the Arab world.

Why would they begin to trust us now, especially while we begin invading and occupying their neighbors?

We don't understand, we continue to upset them, and we get attacked. Then instead of trying to figure out why and make amends, we get angry and attack the area, making the situation worse and proving the cynical extremsits' fears drawing more moderates into the realm of extremism.

Add to that the fact that to most of the world (even our supposed allies) we currently look like a rampaging bull frothing at the mouth. So now they not only hate us but also fear us. But hey, wasn't that the motto of the Roman Empire "Let them hate us, as long as they fear us."

zimv20
Mar 26, 2003, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit

We don't understand, we continue to upset them, and we get attacked. Then instead of trying to figure out why and make amends, we get angry and attack the area, making the situation worse and proving the cynical extremsits' fears drawing more moderates into the realm of extremism.

i agree w/ this 100%. our arrogance will be our undoing.

lmalave
Mar 26, 2003, 01:26 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
i think it is a clash of civilizations, but of a different kind.

i look at the great war (WWI) as a c.o.c., when existing power structures, families such as the hapsburgs, were losing out to the power structure of the country.

now, i see the power structure of the individual country losing out to a super-structure of countries (plural), such as the UN and the EU.

it's pretty clear to me that the bush camp (wolfowitz, rove, perle, cheney, rumsfeld, bush) all hate the UN (and the EU?) and want to preserve the idea of the US as the sole superpower. but the tide's not going that way, imho, and we're in for another world war.

all the terrorism/oil/occupation/despot/tyranny stuff is just noise. this won't be over until either the UN and EU are destroyed, or the US is.

Whoa, there! Pretty strong stuff. I don't actually think that we are headed to world war. But I do agree that it is the U.S. that is going to end up isolated. As dominant as the U.S. is economically and militarily, there's no way one nation can stand against the rest of the world. There's a whole world out there, and the reality is that Europe, Asia, etc. can do without us if need be.

conceptdev
Mar 26, 2003, 01:27 AM
I think Iran will be next because Iran also wants to stop trading oil using U.S. dollar and start using the EURO, just like Iraq, Russia, Germany and France. Imagine what that would do to the USA and then imagine what it would do for a United States of Europe. The EU would have new legs and a strong currency, USA would no longer be biggest and best.

Maybe there is still time to stop Europe. Maybe not.

The EU does not want a ridiculously strong currency, thats horrendous for exports for and European companies in general a dramatic rise would kill growth within the Euro Zone. The offset from reduced oil prices would nowhere nearly compensate for the diminished growth. Europe wants a very strong Dollar.

A weak Dollar could actually save the US economy. Here is a scenario where. it would be a Godsend for their flagging economy right now:

FDI would go through the roof because of attractive pricing, making up for the dearth of capital in the markets these days. Export growth would increase. The stabilization to the US' balance of payments would also reinforce investor confidence. After those positive effects are felt and recovery commences the Dollars position would readjust to parity and the economy would be stabilized at a decent growth rate.

And WTF is the civil war talk about?

pseudobrit
Mar 26, 2003, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by lmalave
Add to that the fact that to most of the world (even our supposed allies) we currently look like a rampaging bull frothing at the mouth. So now they not only hate us but also fear us. But hey, wasn't that the motto of the Roman Empire "Let them hate us, as long as they fear us."

Speak softly and carry a big stick has become "Carry a big stick and wave it around while screaming like a maniac and spitting!" TR would even be sick. Wilson would've had about three dozen strokes.

Les Kern
Mar 26, 2003, 08:10 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by macfan
That's simply ridiculous. We only took action as they violated the cease-fire agreement.
No it's not ridiculous. My point is that it wouldn't exist without us going to war, so it couldn't be a REASON for going to war. Nicht War? It's like saying "They're going to execute a tank driver. Let's go to war!" That's all I meant by that in response to the initial post.

Les Kern
Mar 26, 2003, 08:22 AM
Man o MAN!
I just re-read page three here, and must say there are truly some enlightened folks here. I'm not sure where to even start. I had my epiphany a few years ago when I decided to actually look into the ramifications of a ultra-conservative and fundamentalist controlled US. It looked pretty bleak then. Now it looks like armagheddon is coming. Are we past the point of no return? Possibly. The world is spinning out of control and I'm afraid there aren't enough people with brains to stop it.

kettle
Mar 26, 2003, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by lmalave
The size of Iran's economy is quite small compared to the larger European countries, so I don't see how Iran would be that big a consideration in US$ vs. Euro.

Why do you think there would be civil war in a united Europe?

It's hard enough holding the United Kingdom together. Terrorism wasn't invented for 9/11. USA is only 500 years old or so and you're all pretty much newbies in the same pot culturally. No cheap shots about having to speak English even when Independence was won, a few votes the other way and you'd all have been speaking German, by choice.

The Question is not the size of Iraq/Iran economy but how bothered the USA would be if the world started trading oil with a different currency. The strength of the Euro is about convincing other European countries to treat the Euro seriously.

The biggest hurdle is getting people to adopt the Euro, like in 1991 when **** happened big time when the UK tried to complie with the European exchange rate mechanism. The UK is more like the US than the EU.

Check out the spec for population and GDP for the proposed USU.

Personally, I'll do everything I can to stop Europe infesting my wonderful England, N.Ireland, Scotland and Wales. I'd even fight for Cornwall if that was the last piece of Non EU left for me. BTW Southern ireland has already been bought by the EU, they already get much more out of the EU than they put in tax wise. Divide and conquer.:(

pseudobrit
Mar 26, 2003, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by kettle
Personally, I'll do everything I can to stop Europe infesting my wonderful England, N.Ireland, Scotland and Wales. I'd even fight for Cornwall if that was the last piece of Non EU left for me. BTW Southern ireland has already been bought by the EU, they already get much more out of the EU than they put in tax wise. Divide and conquer.:(

Ah... "Southern Ireland?" You mean the Republic? As for "Northern Ireland," those six rightfully belong to the rest of the isle... ;)

The Republic was one of the founding 10 adopters of the euro.

I think you're barking up the right tree though with the currency thing. Iraq backs its oil in euros since 2000. Iran is switching over slowly. If OPEC were to dump the dollar all at once, we'd see a run on the dollar and massive inflation.

I think the currency problem is at least partly why the UK has sided with the US on Iraq; the UK has no desire to see the euro getting stronger.

leprechaunG4
Mar 26, 2003, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
from what i can tell, bin laden wants US troops out of saudi arabia and wants the US to stop supporting israel so much and help w/ the formation of a Palestinian state.

from what i can tell, the bush administration isn't doing those things. ergo, more terrorist attacks against US interests are promised by bin laden.
So let me get you straight here. You are saying we should do whatever the terrorists want? Nice theory. If America siply bends to the will of any terrorist then that will send the message such vile actions get a positive response. I'm sorry but that's just about the dumbest theory I've ever heard.

zimv20
Mar 26, 2003, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
So let me get you straight here. You are saying we should do whatever the terrorists want? Nice theory. If America siply bends to the will of any terrorist then that will send the message such vile actions get a positive response. I'm sorry but that's just about the dumbest theory I've ever heard.

hm, i don't recall suggesting anything, only that what's wanted and what's being done are different.

but now let me ask you this: how long would a foreign army have to be in your country until you wanted them to leave?

it's been a while since there was a foreign army in the US. betcha we'd be pissed if one was here.

the closest i can come to approximating the feeling is when i was growing up and taught to HATE the soviets. (are you old enough to) remember that? my god how i wanted their missiles to be suddenly inactive so we could nuke them off the face of the planet. of course, i was 12 at the time and didn't understand that would be, after all, a bad thing.

but that HATE was directed at people halfway around the world i'd never met. how would i feel if i had to see them every day, walking around like they owned the place? how would i feel if their mere existence offended my ingrained religion?

try those feelings on for size, my friend, put yourself in others' shoes, and ask yourself why all the provocation is necessary. look at 9/11 to see how pissed people can get. i mean, that's PISSED.

zimv20
Mar 26, 2003, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
You are saying we should do whatever the terrorists want?

no, but are we doing anything to understand the root causes? that would be the neighborly thing to do. figure out why they're so pissed, ask ourselves how we can be better global neighbors, and consult our conscience.

the US has about 4.6% of the world population but we use, what did i see?, something like 40% of the natural resources.

is this fair? my conscience says no.

do i need to connect the dots from over-consumption to occupying foreign lands to terrorism?

pseudobrit
Mar 26, 2003, 01:02 PM
To ignore the root causes of terror and dissent is to ignore history -- it will doom you to repitition.

To attempt to squash the root causes of terror and dissent means certain, eventual doom. No empire has ever done so successfully. That is the path we head down today.

macfan
Mar 26, 2003, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by Les Kern
[QUOTE]Originally posted by macfan
That's simply ridiculous. We only took action as they violated the cease-fire agreement.
No it's not ridiculous. My point is that it wouldn't exist without us going to war, so it couldn't be a REASON for going to war. Nicht War? It's like saying "They're going to execute a tank driver. Let's go to war!" That's all I meant by that in response to the initial post.

Les,
What are you thinking? That there wouldn't have been a ceasefire for Saddam to violate if we hadn't made him sign it after we went to war to eject him from Kuwait? I suppose that is true, but the logic is really on the other side of the looking glass, so to speak.

runningman
Mar 26, 2003, 02:46 PM
I have two responses
1) we already are being invaded by Mexico:D

2)An interesting book to understand why everyone in the middle east hates the west so much including England, France and Germany is called oh heck I just did a George Bush and did a brain freeze. It's on my bookshelf look to things to come.

Les Kern
Mar 26, 2003, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by macfan
That there wouldn't have been a ceasefire for Saddam to violate if we hadn't made him sign it after we went to war to eject him from Kuwait?

I had it in my mind it was in reference to waiving the white flag then shooting. Holy COW, makes you realize that one wrong misinterpretaion can send us into, well, war.

Les Kern
Mar 26, 2003, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
The US has about 4.6% of the world population but we use, what did i see?, something like 40% of the natural resources.


So? And what natural resources... 40% of ALL available, possibly available or actually existing in fact and theory? This "factoid" has always bothered me. Though a moderate DEM/anti fundamentalist neo-conservative nut-case to be sure, I read the book "Eat The Rich" by PJ O'Rorke. He had and interesting take on the issue, and, god of gods, actually has facts to back it up. One memorable quote is "Me being rich doesn't make you poor. "
Saudi Arabia and Iraq have billions of barrels of oil and could concievably build a REAL empire, but decided on a different path than us. So be it. This of course does NOT address the fact that, even though run by despots, we treat them like crap.

zimv20
Mar 26, 2003, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by Les Kern
So? And what natural resources... 40% of ALL available, possibly available or actually existing in fact and theory?


40% of what's used.

i guess the numbers aren't as important as the effect (though i do find the numbers illustrative). the effect is that the US has a huge appetite for oil and bases much of its foreign policy on it. that policy includes having influence on the middle east, influence that seems to invoke hatred.

a possible sol'n is to decrease dependence on foreign oil, indeed oil in general, change foreign policy to something a little more altruistic, and see what effect that has on reducing hatred of the US.

i'm up for giving it a try.

leprechaunG4
Mar 27, 2003, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
40% of what's used.

i guess the numbers aren't as important as the effect (though i do find the numbers illustrative). the effect is that the US has a huge appetite for oil and bases much of its foreign policy on it. that policy includes having influence on the middle east, influence that seems to invoke hatred.

a possible sol'n is to decrease dependence on foreign oil, indeed oil in general, change foreign policy to something a little more altruistic, and see what effect that has on reducing hatred of the US.

i'm up for giving it a try.
So what do you drive for a car? If you want to give it a try really bad, go buy a Honda Insight or something.

pseudobrit
Mar 27, 2003, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
So what do you drive for a car? If you want to give it a try really bad, go buy a Honda Insight or something.

I am. TDI running biodiesel when I can. 100% US homegrown soybean oil.

50MPG

Mr. Anderson
Mar 27, 2003, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
I am. TDI running biodiesel when I can. 100% US homegrown soybean oil.

50MPG

What is that? You have pic or a link to it?

And where do you get your US soybean oil?

D

pseudobrit
Mar 27, 2003, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by dukestreet
What is that? You have pic or a link to it?

And where do you get your US soybean oil?

D

VW Golf TDI :)

www.vw.com

www.tdiclub.com

www.biodiesel.org

The oil has to be cracked, like crude. You can do it yourself, but I leave it to the refinery.
Worldenergy is I think the largest supplier of biodiesel in the USA. I get mine when I'm around Pittsburgh; there's a depot there that carries it. :)

zimv20
Mar 27, 2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
So what do you drive for a car? If you want to give it a try really bad, go buy a Honda Insight or something.

i drive a VW w/ a tdi engine. it's a clean burning diesel that gets me 40mpg in the city and up to 60mpg on the highway.

zimv20
Mar 27, 2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
I am. TDI running biodiesel when I can. 100% US homegrown soybean oil.

50MPG

ah, well done, sir. i answered that question 'fore i saw your tdi. how amusing.

Les Kern
Mar 27, 2003, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
i drive a VW w/ a tdi engine. it's a clean burning diesel that gets me 40mpg in the city and up to 60mpg on the highway.

Amazing. We have a few folks right here that are visionaries and concerned about our resourses. Tell me, and I've asked this before, why can't our GOVERNMENT have a similar vision? Why CAN'T we quit the war and pump money into a national strategy to gain COMPLETE independence from oil-producing nations? WHY not?
I commend your actions, and I'm sorry to say I just got a Taurus that gets 23 mpg, and I was too chicken to look at the alternatives. Hat's off to you all, and shame on me.

jelloshotsrule
Mar 27, 2003, 07:26 PM
my bro had a tdi jetta. once i get my own car. i hope to get something electric or go the biofuel route.

zimv20
Mar 27, 2003, 08:00 PM
i'm very excited about diesel technology. both VW and audi are selling 3L cars -- cars that can go 100 km on 3 liters of diesel. that works out to about 79 mpg.

last year, VW showed off a 1L prototype, drove it 100 km through germany, and it still had some fuel left. they calculated it got something like 270 mpg.

amazing stuff.

btw, my 90 hp VW is no slouch. even w/ that mileage i get really nice pickup w/ it (unlike, i hear, the gas/electric prototypes)

Rower_CPU
Mar 27, 2003, 09:30 PM
Funny how things have gone mighty quiet from a certain front now that it's been shown that you guys "walk the talk"...

I commend you on your efforts to improve the environment. My Tacoma does OK, but nowhere near 50MPG. Maybe my next car in 2-3 years...

zimv20
Mar 27, 2003, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU

I commend you on your efforts to improve the environment.

thank you. i'm _trying_ to work my bicycle into my errands more, but it's a problem when i've got so much stuff to cart around (incl. my ibook).

zimv20
Mar 27, 2003, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
TDI running biodiesel when I can. 100% US homegrown soybean oil.


so does the exhaust smell more like donuts or french fries? excuse me -- freedom fries.

pseudobrit
Mar 27, 2003, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
so does the exhaust smell more like donuts or french fries? excuse me -- freedom fries.

It will if the bio-d is made from recycled fryer oil, which is possible and often included in commercial blends.

Nothing feels better than knowing that you're travelling with fuel that's guranteed not to involve foreign oil. :)

jelloshotsrule
Mar 28, 2003, 12:11 AM
i rode with my brother when he test drove the civic hybrid and it really wasn't too bad. he had driven the prius and found it to be very very weak, but the civic was pretty strong considering, and it is available in manual...

by the time i need/get a new car, hopefully things will be much further along

currently i drive a chevy prizm when i'm not at school. relatively decent for a "normal" car... like 32 i guess.

leprechaunG4
Mar 28, 2003, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Funny how things have gone mighty quiet from a certain front now that it's been shown that you guys "walk the talk"...

I commend you on your efforts to improve the environment. My Tacoma does OK, but nowhere near 50MPG. Maybe my next car in 2-3 years...
Don't worry I'm here, just hadn't gotten to this thread yet;) Now see you assume I am against hybrids and fuel efficient cars don't you? Nice stereotype, but nope. I am really looking forward to advances in alternative fuel technology. I have written term papers on alternative fuel vehicles. I am a big supporter. Of course I'm a car nut so there is still a place for my heart for muscle cars, but those will be unusable soon, so now we need to find how to get some good performance out of better technology. The government is pushing for this, if more looked into walkign the walk they would know this. You get income tax reductions if you own a eco car like the hybrid civic or the Honda Insight. Hybrid is the best right now really, electric range and power limits are just killer plus the electricity has to be produced somewhere, so fuel is spent anyways. Hydro is really not practicle enough yet. Compressed air engines are really a failure of an idea as far as I'm concerned, since the air still needs to be compressed so energy is spent there. If you are going to go air powe rit need to be hybrid basically, then might as well get a hybrid electric it's more efficient. Really the king right know is the insight.

Didn't expect that post did you Rower. Oh and if anyone is wondering, no I don't yet have a hybrid, I drive a Dodge Stratus that I've had since I was 16, as a broke ass college student I can't afford to buy a new car right now.

Rower_CPU
Mar 28, 2003, 12:05 PM
leprechaun, I never stereotyped you or said you were against anything. Just that you got your comeuppance when you challenged these guys on whether they practice what they preach.

Pretty simple, so please stop trying to read things into my posts. :)

zimv20
Mar 28, 2003, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
I am really looking forward to advances in alternative fuel technology. [snip] Didn't expect that post did you Rower.

i fainted. j/k :-)

You get income tax reductions if you own a eco car like the hybrid civic or the Honda Insight.


yes, and that is a good thing. however, the break is really pretty small. and there doesn't seem to be one available for advanced diesel technology.

and then there's that thing about the super-giant tax breaks for luxury SUVs, which were actually increased this year. have you seen these? if you've got a small biz, you can basically get a hummer for free.

a few hundred bucks back for buying a hybrid, or a free hummer. that's twisted.

leprechaunG4
Mar 28, 2003, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
i fainted. j/k :-)



yes, and that is a good thing. however, the break is really pretty small. and there doesn't seem to be one available for advanced diesel technology.

and then there's that thing about the super-giant tax breaks for luxury SUVs, which were actually increased this year. have you seen these? if you've got a small biz, you can basically get a hummer for free.

a few hundred bucks back for buying a hybrid, or a free hummer. that's twisted.
Well I don't think ti'd be "free" but you are right about the fact that some people will abuse business right offs on their taxes, which really pisses me off. The tax system would work so much better if people weren't always trying to cheat it:mad: I agree more needs to be done to promote eco cars. I'm upset that there isn't a production domestic yet. I prefer domestics. Maybe a corporate tax cut to the auto manufacturers that have a production eco car.

jelloshotsrule
Mar 28, 2003, 04:46 PM
i think the time is fast approaching that we have to move past giving corporations breaks for producing one or even two good, fuel efficient cars, to the point where it becomes a requirement. with some sort of extra tax/fee if they don't

of course, results of not doing it has to be big enough to make it work, or else the companies will consider how much more they make off selling SUVs and they'll just blow it off.

zimv20
Mar 28, 2003, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
Well I don't think ti'd be "free"


you're right -- but i see under a proposed plan, a $106k hummer would get a break of nearly $89k. wow. and my bad on the tax break for some hybrids -- looks like it's up to $4k. quite a difference, though.


but you are right about the fact that some people will abuse business right offs on their taxes, which really pisses me off.


blame congress. they're not doing anything to close the loophole. i've read accounts of some people who just wanted to buy a small car, but the tax breaks made that decision financially unsound.

Maybe a corporate tax cut to the auto manufacturers that have a production eco car.

i'd support that. and money for R&D.

pseudobrit
Mar 28, 2003, 05:30 PM
Driving in the US is too cheap. As much as I like cheap fuel, cheap taxes and cheap cars, driving in the US is disproportionately (read: unhealthy) cheap. If we had to spend what it really cost to drive a car, more people would be forced to buy frugal automobiles and public transit might gain a decent foothold.

It's wars like this that are indicitive of this problem. Wars, subsidies, tax breaks and corporate welfare cost more than paying $2.50 for gas in the end, but people don't see it that way. The average American pays about $3.00 in taxes for every gallon of $1.40 gas he pumps.

If the taxes were set up here more like they are in Europe (bigger, thirstier, more powerful cars are more expensive), maybe we'd start to see eco-diesels and altfuels come in vogue, and maybe I'd be able to take a train for cheap or a streetcar to get around downtown.

As it stands, if I own a small business, I can totally write off a $50,000 Mercedes SUV but not a $15,000 Honda Civic. In other words, it pays to buy big, wasteful crap, and you're punished for buying frugal cars.

zimv20
Mar 28, 2003, 05:34 PM
amen