100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: 20 reasons NOT to attack Iran | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
The above is clearly imperialism if thats what you want to call it. However covert operations is the proper term used today. Any which way, its international gangsterism, if one does not understand that, then perhaps another subject is better suited for dialogue, as this one seems well above comprhension to many. Especially the masses hooked on reality tv. It's just the hyperbole, I tend to use more neutral language-a product of my history and political studies. The US is not a 'real' imperial power and it bears little resemblance to any historical empire. I'm sure a superficial corellation could be made, but in essence, it would be hyperbole. The US has a seat on the Security Council and various international commitments are a part of the responsibility of that position-I'm sure you're aware of this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No country spreads hate more consistently than Iran.
Perhaps.... But, not one country has spreads WAR as much as good ol USA huh? 1947-49 - U.S. helps command extreme-right Greece party in Civil War. Death toll: about 70,000 contributed by US-backed forces 1948-54 - CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion in Philippines. Death toll: about 11,000 1950 - Independence movement crushed in Ponce, Puerto Rico Death toll: conservative historians estimated about 8,000 peasants 1950-53 - Korean War Death toll: about 1,776,000 1952 - CIA overthrows Democracy in Iran, installs Shah Death toll: about 20,000 1954 - CIA directs invasion of Guatemala after new Democracy there nationalized U.S.-occupied lands Death toll: about 140,000 missing and dead 1958 - In Lebanon, marine occupation against rebels Death toll: about 2,000 1960-75+ - Vietnam War including Cambodia and Laos Death toll: about 4,502,000 including civilians and resulting famines (conservative estimates) 1961 - Cuba's Bay of Pigs Invasion fails Death toll: about 4,000 1963 - In Iraq, CIA organizes coup against President and agrees to back formerly exiled Saddam Death toll: about 7,000 including civilians 1964 - In Panama, troops kill protesters against US-owned canal Death toll: about 1,000 1965 - CIA assists Indonesian coup Death toll: about 900,000 1966 - Troops and bombers threaten pro-communist parties in Dominican Republic Death toll: about 3,000 1966-96 - Green berets in Guatemala against rebels, US backs pro-American forces in country until 1996 Death toll: about 200,000 1970 - Directs marine invasion of Oman Death toll: about 2,000 1973 - CIA directs coup to oust elected Marxist president in Chile Death toll: 30,000... 3,000 later disappeared under US-installed dictator 1976-92 - CIA assists South-African rebels in Angola Death toll: median estimate at 550,000 1981-90 - CIA directs Contra invasions in Nicaragua Death toll: median estimate at 30,000 1982-84 - Marines expel Lebanese rebels, aided by Israel Death toll: 40,000 1987-88 - US intervenes for Iraq against Iran Death toll: about 150,000 during time-frame, 100,000 during Desert Storm, 350,000 from resulting famine 1989 - US invades to oust CIA-installed Panamanian government gone rouge Death toll: 2,000 1992-94 - US-led occupation of Somalia during civil war Death toll: 50,000 in combat, 300,000 by starvation 2001+ - US Occupies Afghanistan Death toll: 120,000 including civilians and combatants and resulting Opium Wars 2003+ - Iraqi War Death toll: 665,000 also by starvation, displacement TOTAL: 10,431,000 
[/ quo te] the above is foreign affairs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
im sure your post has a point, although obviousely pointless, im sure you will expound. More then foreign affairs, I understand power and its effect. Those dates listed above is foreign affairs, gangsterism is foreign affairs. They are foreign, and affairs of self interests backed by military. Quite simple if one would remove the blinders.
Whatever, Dude. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above is clearly imperialism if thats what you want to call it. However covert operations is the proper term used today. Any which way, its international gangsterism, if one does not understand that, then perhaps another subject is better suited for dialogue, as this one seems well above comprhension to many. Especially the masses hooked on reality tv. It's just the hyperbole, I tend to use more neutral language-a product of my history and political studies. The US is not a 'real' imperial power and it bears little resemblance to any historical empire. I'm sure a superficial corellation could be made, but in essence, it would be hyperbole. The US has a seat on the Security Council and various international commitments are a part of the responsibility of that position-I'm sure you're aware of this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above is clearly imperialism if thats what you want to call it. However covert operations is the proper term used today. Any which way, its international gangsterism, if one does not understand that, then perhaps another subject is better suited for dialogue, as this one seems well above comprhension to many. Especially the masses hooked on reality tv. It's just the hyperbole, I tend to use more neutral language-a product of my history and political studies. The US is not a 'real' imperial power and it bears little resemblance to any historical empire. I'm sure a superficial corellation could be made, but in essence, it would be hyperbole. The US has a seat on the Security Council and various international commitments are a part of the responsibility of that position-I'm sure you're aware of this. We agree then, what's your problem? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
im sure your post has a point, although obviousely pointless, im sure you will expound. More then foreign affairs, I understand power and its effect. Those dates listed above is foreign affairs, gangsterism is foreign affairs. They are foreign, and affairs of self interests backed by military. Quite simple if one would remove the blinders.
Whatever, Dude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Ras427
on
Tue 08/28/12 09:13 PM
|
|
An example of our committment to the world as an empire, as you said, like no other in the past. First, we launch a media blitz to our own population. Five years of constant media bombardment on a targeted country. After several years, we expand the media blitz abroad, wher our crime mates will expand the media coverage on said target. After several years of mentaly seasoning the distracted mindless, we then will make several cinematic productions to entertain and further subliminaly convince you the the targeted country is indeed an enemy of your freedom and is a savage waiting to devour your way of life. After the masses are well seasoned, we approach the targeted country and offer them some aide, after our international banking friensds grsnt you a loan with exuberant interests rates, the targeted country will find themselfs in deeper debt. Not a problem, we then ask our banking buddies to offer the country debt reduction, that will ease the presure slightly, but only enough that that targeted country still is in deir straits, so we ask our banking buddies to grant you debt forgiveness, however, there is a price to pay, we now require that you crde partial ownership to several deposits of raw materials, we will refine them the sell them back to said country, a little expensive but hey, we have forgiven your debt. Now that we refine your raw material and sell them back to you, we now require full access to said deposits of gold, diamonds, uranium, ore ,natural gas deposits. When said country refuses, well then your offsetted debt must be paid in full. At this point most impoverished African nations concede and cooperate. If they go to the security councle, so, we are the security councle with veto power. When said targeted country decides not to cooperate, well then our special forces go to work, your electrical grids start causing blackouts, your water starts smelling foul, your streams fish look funny and die. A bomb destroyed a bridge that transport goods, your trains suddenly stop working properly. Then I begin to arm opposition groups with guns and incriminating data about said countries goverment, when civil unrest begins, we will arm and aide your opposition with intelligence, and fund their new noble revolution. After we topple the goverment we then will support the winner and provide the same conditions the former ungratefull goverment refused to abide by. If said goverment beats all my attempts, then we pull out the terrorist card, invade your country and place a goverment more to our line of thinking. That is imperialism, and our form of democracy. All the above are well documented. Yes we are an empire. Get used to it while it lasts. FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Wed 08/29/12 02:55 AM
|
|
20 reasons to not attack Iran.
20 - Iran has been conquered by Iraq 19 - Iran has become the 51st state of the US 18 - Ahmadinejad said he takes it all back 17 - Stuxnet2 succeeded at blowing up the enrichment cetrifuges 16 - Iranian nuclear scientists retired and vacationing on the Riviera 15 - Hezbollah manufacturing plant blew up 14 - Govt opposition brought back the Shah 13 - Starving Iranians ate the uranium 12 - New green nuclear powered cars 11 - UN Security Council changed its mind 10 - Everybody is too skeered 
9 - The mullahs told us it is against the law 8 - Iran sold their uranium to the Taliban 7 - The Shahab missiles turned out to be made of cardboard 6 - Revolutionary Guard traded all the uranium for Yemeni gay hookers 5 - Iran says their intentions are purely peaceful 4 - Turns out it was all a gigantic nuclear practical joke 3 - N Korea threatening devastating retaliation 2 - Revelation from God 1 - Natanz and other facilities already collapsed smoking holes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 reasons to not attack Iran. 20 - Iran has been conquered by Iraq 19 - Iran has become the 51st state of the US 18 - Ahmadinejad said he takes it all back 17 - Stuxnet2 succeeded at blowing up the enrichment cetrifuges 16 - Iranian nuclear scientists retired and vacationing on the Riviera 15 - Hezbollah manufacturing plant blew up 14 - Govt opposition brought back the Shah 13 - Starving Iranians ate the uranium 12 - New green nuclear powered cars 11 - UN Security Council changed its mind 10 - Everybody is too skeered
9 - The mullahs told us it is against the law 8 - Iran sold their uranium to the Taliban 7 - The Shahab missiles turned out to be made of cardboard 6 - Revolutionary Guard traded all the uranium for Yemeni gay hookers 5 - Russia stole their reactors 4 - Turns out it was all a gigantic nuclear practical joke 3 - N Korea threatening devastating retaliation 2 - Revelation from God 1 - Natanz and other facilities already a collapsed smoking hole No. 6 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An example of our committment to the world as an empire, as you said, like no other in the past. First, we launch a media blitz to our own population. Five years of constant media bombardment on a targeted country. After several years, we expand the media blitz abroad, wher our crime mates will expand the media coverage on said target. After several years of mentaly seasoning the distracted mindless, we then will make several cinematic productions to entertain and further subliminaly convince you the the targeted country is indeed an enemy of your freedom and is a savage waiting to devour your way of life. After the masses are well seasoned, we approach the targeted country and offer them some aide, after our international banking friensds grsnt you a loan with exuberant interests rates, the targeted country will find themselfs in deeper debt. Not a problem, we then ask our banking buddies to offer the country debt reduction, that will ease the presure slightly, but only enough that that targeted country still is in deir straits, so we ask our banking buddies to grant you debt forgiveness, however, there is a price to pay, we now require that you crde partial ownership to several deposits of raw materials, we will refine them the sell them back to said country, a little expensive but hey, we have forgiven your debt. Now that we refine your raw material and sell them back to you, we now require full access to said deposits of gold, diamonds, uranium, ore ,natural gas deposits. When said country refuses, well then your offsetted debt must be paid in full. At this point most impoverished African nations concede and cooperate. If they go to the security councle, so, we are the security councle with veto power. When said targeted country decides not to cooperate, well then our special forces go to work, your electrical grids start causing blackouts, your water starts smelling foul, your streams fish look funny and die. A bomb destroyed a bridge that transport goods, your trains suddenly stop working properly. Then I begin to arm opposition groups with guns and incriminating data about said countries goverment, when civil unrest begins, we will arm and aide your opposition with intelligence, and fund their new noble revolution. After we topple the goverment we then will support the winner and provide the same conditions the former ungratefull goverment refused to abide by. If said goverment beats all my attempts, then we pull out the terrorist card, invade your country and place a goverment more to our line of thinking. That is imperialism, and our form of democracy. All the above are well documented. Yes we are an empire. Get used to it while it lasts. FOREIGN AFFAIRS. No Kidding! What really confuses me is why so much North American Immigration of ME descent? They're building whole Islamic neighborhoods up here... We have a French Language/separation agenda in the works in Canada and where I live... It's been going on for 30 years... They're importing "votes"... Islamic ones! They don't mesh with our population and make unrealistic demands... If war breaks out, they're in our friggin back yards! Now we're gonna lob bombs into their homeland?
I dunno, this taking over the Middle east wasn't very well thought out I don't think. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One reason to strike Iran's nuclear facilities... ... no other choice. Unfortunatly, countries who are armed to the teeth think this way... shame. 90 days... everyday is 1% closer to an attack... God help us! I'll place a bet against the 'apocalypse' happening if you're interested? I don't believe in putting "sportsmans" bets on death and destruction... So no! But it isn't looking very good right now is it? So you don't think this is even possible? Israel attacking? 
God help us! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 - Everybody is too skeered
Where exactly do you live Slowhand? Just curious. Your "armchair" battle tactics are impressive. You wouldn't be completely sheltered from a North American retaliation strike now would you??? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Wed 08/29/12 09:15 AM
|
|
10 - Everybody is too skeered
Where exactly do you live Slowhand? Just curious. Your "armchair" battle tactics are impressive. You wouldn't be completely sheltered from a North American retaliation strike now would you???
Well thank you! I am glad to hear that you like my arguments. 
I live in a free and pluralistic society where people are free to practice whatever religion they choose and where people have freedom of speech. I cherish these freedoms but none more so than freedom of fear of radical Islamic persecution and terrorism. I expect that when someone like Iran threatens my country with annihilation, violates their NPT commitments and accelerates uranium enrichment activities that my country will protect us by intervention in whatever way necessary to protect us. And in the case of Iran it means no nukes for Khamenei and Ahmadinejad and all the rest of the world agrees that this terrorist supporting radical Islamic thugocracy must never get even close to nuclear weapons. This makes the strategy very very simple - easy in fact. Iran has a choice to make - comply with the international consensus and disarm or get disarmed by the international community by force. Now Iran must choose. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
comply with the international consensus and disarm or get disarmed by the international community by force. But But they're not armed
and speak for yourselves, we're not sending one Canadian made slingshot to your cause mate!
Ok well... Since things aren't going Israels way ATM... We should prepare for the worst I supposed... So. "Gen. lazyboy" Have you chosen your flight plan yet? and how will you refuel in midair.... 3 times? I mean, threaten all you want but you know you can't do squat without good ol USA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
comply with the international consensus and disarm or get disarmed by the international community by force. But But they're not armed
Tell that to the victims of the terrorist attacks carried out with Iranian weapons and support.
Of course EVERYONE is most concerned about their nuclear enrichment program in fortified bunkers which has no other purpose than nuclear arms development. For some reason these "peaceful" activities needed to be placed in underground bunkers!
Actually, Canada is right up there with the US and the rest of the civilized world in preventing Iran from nuclear weapons development activities....
From the Council of Foreign Relations Backgrounder on The Lengthening List of Iran Sanctions Authors: Toni Johnson, Deputy Editor, and Greg Bruno July 2012 "International efforts to squeeze Iran economically are solidifying. In July 2010, Canada banned new investment (AP) in Iran's oil and gas industries. European allies have also implemented their own sanctions, and although historically these states have had less of an appetite for punitive measures, recent actions have been tougher. For much of the 1990s, while Washington imposed unilateral sanctions, EU countries maintained a policy of "critical dialogue" with Iran. But as Iran grew increasingly defiant on the nuclear front, European partners turned up the heat (PDF), Katzman of the Congressional Research Service notes. In June 2008, the EU froze the assets of nearly forty individuals and entities doing business with Bank Melli, Iran's largest bank; Western officials have accused Bank Melli of supporting Iran's nuclear and missile programs. Japan and the EU have also placed restrictions on international lending to Iran, which, Katzman writes, "represents a narrowing of past differences between the United States and its allies on this issue." Navigating the Road Ahead Experts are divided on the effectiveness of sanctions as a tool to force rogue states to abandon their weapons programs. In the cases of Libya and Iraq, many analysts note the role economic sanctions had in inhibiting the development of weapons programs (though in the case of Iraq, the full extent of their effectiveness was not known until after the U.S.-led invasion of 2003). Washington hopes that squeezing Iran's economy will pressure the country's leadership to alter course on its nuclear program. U.S. officials in early 2012 said sanctions targeting financial transactions (Reuters) were beginning to have an economic effect. News reports show that the cost of doing business with Iran has become so onerous that many firms are dropping their transactions (Bloomberg) entirely. Iranian officials have continued to dismiss sanctions (FNA) as ineffective, but some have also said lifting them should be a major point of new talks. In April and May 2012, Iran met with the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany (P5+1) to discuss its nuclear program. However, those talks have yielded little movement on either side. Whether these sanctions will deter the nuclear program remains up for debate. "After decades of struggling under punitive financial measures, Iran has persisted with its objectionable policies ranging from terrorism to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," write CFR's Ray Takeyh and Suzanne Maloney of the Brookings Institution. "All this suggests that ideological regimes that put a premium on their political priorities and which are seemingly insensitive to the mounting costs of their belligerence may not be suitable candidates for the type of cost-benefit analysis that sanctions diplomacy invites." The Bipartisan Policy Center recommends a multi-pronged approach, including diplomacy, sanctions, and visible preparation of a "military option of last resort." Still, Takeyh notes in an April 2012 interview that both ending economic sanctions and forestalling a military strike were part of the reason for resuming negotiations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yea ever since our Prime Minister got voted in, He turned us from peacekeeping missions to full on aggressors. You guess it
Prime Ministers wife is Jewish 
Sanctions yes... Military strikes on Iran... Deff NO! Even Canadians aren't that stoopid
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Wed 08/29/12 10:34 AM
|
|
comply with the international consensus and disarm or get disarmed by the international community by force. But But they're not armed
Tell that to the victims of the terrorist attacks carried out with Iranian weapons and support.
Of course EVERYONE is most concerned about their nuclear enrichment program in fortified bunkers which has no other purpose than nuclear arms development. For some reason these "peaceful" activities needed to be placed in underground bunkers!
Actually, Canada is right up there with the US and the rest of the civilized world in preventing Iran from nuclear weapons development activities....
From the Council of Foreign Relations Backgrounder on The Lengthening List of Iran Sanctions Authors: Toni Johnson, Deputy Editor, and Greg Bruno July 2012 "International efforts to squeeze Iran economically are solidifying. In July 2010, Canada banned new investment (AP) in Iran's oil and gas industries. European allies have also implemented their own sanctions, and although historically these states have had less of an appetite for punitive measures, recent actions have been tougher. For much of the 1990s, while Washington imposed unilateral sanctions, EU countries maintained a policy of "critical dialogue" with Iran. But as Iran grew increasingly defiant on the nuclear front, European partners turned up the heat (PDF), Katzman of the Congressional Research Service notes. In June 2008, the EU froze the assets of nearly forty individuals and entities doing business with Bank Melli, Iran's largest bank; Western officials have accused Bank Melli of supporting Iran's nuclear and missile programs. Japan and the EU have also placed restrictions on international lending to Iran, which, Katzman writes, "represents a narrowing of past differences between the United States and its allies on this issue." Navigating the Road Ahead Experts are divided on the effectiveness of sanctions as a tool to force rogue states to abandon their weapons programs. In the cases of Libya and Iraq, many analysts note the role economic sanctions had in inhibiting the development of weapons programs (though in the case of Iraq, the full extent of their effectiveness was not known until after the U.S.-led invasion of 2003). Washington hopes that squeezing Iran's economy will pressure the country's leadership to alter course on its nuclear program. U.S. officials in early 2012 said sanctions targeting financial transactions (Reuters) were beginning to have an economic effect. News reports show that the cost of doing business with Iran has become so onerous that many firms are dropping their transactions (Bloomberg) entirely. Iranian officials have continued to dismiss sanctions (FNA) as ineffective, but some have also said lifting them should be a major point of new talks. In April and May 2012, Iran met with the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany (P5+1) to discuss its nuclear program. However, those talks have yielded little movement on either side. Whether these sanctions will deter the nuclear program remains up for debate. "After decades of struggling under punitive financial measures, Iran has persisted with its objectionable policies ranging from terrorism to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," write CFR's Ray Takeyh and Suzanne Maloney of the Brookings Institution. "All this suggests that ideological regimes that put a premium on their political priorities and which are seemingly insensitive to the mounting costs of their belligerence may not be suitable candidates for the type of cost-benefit analysis that sanctions diplomacy invites." The Bipartisan Policy Center recommends a multi-pronged approach, including diplomacy, sanctions, and visible preparation of a "military option of last resort." Still, Takeyh notes in an April 2012 interview that both ending economic sanctions and forestalling a military strike were part of the reason for resuming negotiations. Yea ever since our Prime Minister got voted in, He turned us from peacekeeping missions to full on aggressors. You guess it Prime Ministers wife is Jewish
Sanctions yes... Military strikes on Iran... Deff NO! Even Canadians aren't that stoopid
Nice. All Iran has to do of course is honor its NPT commitments and end enrichment activities - crisis averted. Iran says their only interest is in peaceful activities. Why don't they prove it?
|
|
|
|
|
