The US and Britain are not bat-****ing looney, no matter how much you might dislike the President he is not the supreme ruler of our country.

The US doesn't need the police. The US takes things into it's own hands. The 'police', like it was said before, are 'a bunch of panzies'.

Although I most certainly agree with your last statement (surely, if we see their intentions are peaceful, we might help them?) the part about the oil, I would not be so sure. I too disregarded it for quite some time because of all the different times being declared. But I see more and more groups settling on a time between last summer and this summer being the 'peak'. It's deeply unsettling to me, but I like camping so whatever. But again, they need not be this desperate, but I feel that they should certainly be able to research nuclear power as long as their nuclear program is open to inspection, simply because of their history.

We need to stop burning oil and letting the CO2 into the atmosphere whether we run out or not.

Theres another problem though. Though not really proven, I've been reading a lot about how many extra plants all this extra Co2 has allowed to grow.

If we suddenly (or even slowly) stop producing CO2, there is going to be an excess of oxygen, and a greenhouse defecit.

=

iceage.

But that is just a possibility. I don't think there is a good answer and we can all expect DOOM!

Why do I sense a movie being quoted here?...

Yes it even explains how squirrls (no e) ended up on islands.

STFU

I dont like the idea of one all powerful christian country policing the globe. It stinks.

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

Jeez man cool it

Just wanted to post and say it's good to see you're still alive and well, Fardreamer.

Thanks Roach! Alive and well, so far.

how ironic, that fardreamer will die from nuclear winter, just after posting in the Iran thread >.>

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

That's what's at issue here though. They haven't been very forthright to the inspectors thus far. In fact, the UN had placed a seal of some sort on one of their facilities to keep them from producing weapons grade plutonium while various inspections were going on, but Iran just recently removed the seal and began refining again.

We helped supply Israel in the first place, you can't deny that, and just wiki oeration ajax: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax



Also, with afgan, we put them there. That's what I was talking about.

[QUOTE=Lord Kuat]We helped supply Israel in the first place, you can't deny that, and just wiki oeration ajax: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax

Also, with afgan, we put them there. That's what I was talking about.[/QUOTE]
Oh yes, let's use Wiki as a credible source and not my history books that go into detail that the Anglo-Oil Co. ordeal leading to a bitter England throwing around phrases like "Commies" to scare to U.S. into staging a coup...

What do you mean, we put them there? The Taliban? No, the Taliban rose to power because the U.S. left instead of aiding Afghanistan recover. The U.S. was involved through the Mujahideen, not the Taliban. And yeah, we did help supply Israel. Just like we've helped supply countless other nations (which I'd like to point out includes Egypt, you know, that country that was on the other side of those Israeli conflicts?), just like other nations supply countless other nations. What's your point?

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi] Until it's proven he lied to the American people, I won't accept something some EU wannabe know-it-all says. [/QUOTE]

...

1. I'm not a wannabe know-it-all, I'm just a guy with an opinion. Just like anyone else here. Did I claim to 'know it all'?

2. Yes, I'm from the EU. Does my nationality (or anyone else's for that matter) have anything to do with whom you believe and whom you don't? Does it have anything to do at all, with what we're talking about?

3. Why the hostility? What did I ever do to you? I may have unorthodox opinions on certain matters, but I have always treated everyone on these boards with respect. You're making a personal attack on me. Why? Annoyed that a foreigner is saying something about your president, perhaps?

I'm sure you wouldn't want to come off as arrogant, or even a touch chauvinist.
So, your apologies please.

As for a reaction on everything else you said:

The main 'evidence' they used to claim the legitimacy of the attack, was a graduation paper that had been written by a student somewhere in the first half of the 90's. It is absolutely unthinkable that this material was in fact provided by the CIA as serious intelligence.

I hate politics. Politicans shound shut up and be nice and learn some science for the greater glory of united humanity's continuing survival! I'm sure we will all stop squabbling when we all realize that we must band together to defeat the greater enemy... aliens from outer space!

RE: Ajax

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&hl=en&vid=ISBN1560257164&id=IDgSCfo_UWQC&pg=PA376&lpg=PA376&dq=operation+Ajax+book&prev=http://books.google.com/books%3Fq%3Doperation%2BAjax%2Bbook&sig=LmyPfPBT4uLq_X3CqSJnQcnbUys

There are a few other books as well, but line 9 should be another good citation. No, Ajax was executed by the Americans.

My point was against this:



My point is that our actions in the Middle East caused these problems, not lack of actions.



Yeah, and Russia was just trying to supply Cuba with nuclear arms during the missle crisis. Supplying is very important. In other words, we played an important hand in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and possibly without our support who knows what the outcome would have been.

The Taliban was one of the oppositon groups that we had supported as well. What weapons do you think they used to secure control?

Dj Yoshi is actually an overall mean guy....

I dunno if "mean" is what I'd call him. Let's just say that he probably wasn't hugged enough as a child.

[QUOTE=Lord Kuat]RE: Ajax
http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&hl=en&vid=ISBN1560257164&id=IDgSCfo_UWQC&pg=PA376&lpg=PA376&dq=operation+Ajax+book&prev=http://books.google.com/books%3Fq%3Doperation%2BAjax%2Bbook&sig=LmyPfPBT4uLq_X3CqSJnQcnbUys
There are a few other books as well, but line 9 should be another good citation. No, Ajax was executed by the Americans.
My point is that our actions in the Middle East caused these problems, not lack of actions.
Yeah, and Russia was just trying to supply Cuba with nuclear arms. Supplying is very important. In other words, we played an important hand in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and possibly without our support who knows what the outcome would have been.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I'm fully aware that Ajax was a CIA operation, you're completely ignoring that it would not have happened had England not initiated the entire ordeal.
I'm sorry, you still haven't said exactly what actions caused the problems, because I still see a lot more logic in our history of abandoning many people in the Middle East as causing more problems than had we just not done anything at all.
Ok, you responded to my post as I edited, so I'll say it again. Yes, we did play a role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, by supplying BOTH sides. Egypt owns Abrams, Apaches, Blackhawks, Hercs, etc etc.

I don't see why England really matters. We carried out the action, thus it's our blame. In a murder trial you just don't say "he made me do it".

We caused the fall of a democratic government in Iran, ultimately leading to the installation of this very regime. What is wrong with this logic? Installing the Shah forced an initial "brain drain" on Iran, and furthermore our further bumblings that lead to the fall of the Shah and the rise of Khomeni further lead to the creation of the country of Iran as it exists tiday.

And... we supplied both sides? Great, that makes it even worse. We helped fuel, or aid in any way, that conflict? That only helps my point that our actions overall have been, at the very least, counterproductive.

Edit: Also, even with your Afgan argument, we weren't completely active. We helped take out the previous government. That's an action if there ever was one. If we hadn't done that, then what? That's my point, that we wouldn't have had a taliban to deal with.

Let me also say that had we not supplied Israel, France would have. And our supplies didn't make or break Israel, their training did. Also, I apologize, I just realized we began exporting to Egypt after Camp David, so my point there holds no water. But neither does your "Russia just supplying Cuba with nukes." That wasn't Cuba's move, it was Russia's, those weapons would have been under Russian control, we did not tell the Israeli's how to operate, and infact we turned down their plea for help before the 6 day war occured.

[QUOTE=Lord Kuat]I don't see why England really matters. We carried out the action, thus it's our blame. In a murder trial you just don't say "he made me do it".

We caused the fall of a democratic government in Iran, ultimately leading to the installation of this very regime. What is wrong with this logic? Installing the Shah forced an initial "brain drain" on Iran, and furthermore our further bumblings that lead to the fall of the Shah and the rise of Khomeni further lead to the creation of the country of Iran as it exists tiday.

And... we supplied both sides? Great, that makes it even worse. We helped fuel, or aid in any way, that conflict? That only helps my point that our actions overall have been, at the very least, counterproductive.

Edit: Also, even with your Afgan argument, we weren't completely active. We helped take out the previous government. That's an action if there ever was one. If we hadn't done that, then what? That's my point, that we wouldn't have had a taliban to deal with.[/QUOTE]
Oh I see, England sparks conflict for personal gain, but isn't the one pulling the trigger, ergo has no blame... Hitler didn't kill any jews himself.
Our bumblings that lead to the fall of the Shah? You mean like treating his cancer? Our pulling out of the region to allow a revolution to happen, which in turn made Iran easy prey for Iraq? See where I'm getting at? America leaving too early, things become worse.
And, no wouldn't have had a Taliban to deal with, instead Afghanistan would have suffered bitterly under the Soviets for quite some time. And your comment of us not being completely active...but then starting an action if there ever was one. What previous government are you talking about? The Soviets invade Afghanistan after a communist coup topples one of the most stable governments Afghanistan has seen. We (along with China and Pakistan, mind you) train anti-government Mujahideen forces, who slowly grind the Soviet war machine to a halt after 10 bloody years. We leave the area, leaving Afghanistan to the warlords.

Aside from the likelihood that Dubya was gunning for Saddam to begin with, the U.S. can not solve every problem in the world.

My Ajax argument still stands though.

What makes you so sure that France would have? Who knows who would have picked up the slack. Also, my point is that no one should have supplied them. It's like putting an implant in a person. The organ gets rejected, so you put them on immunosuppresants to help the organ chug along. But you know, the irony is that the organ will only last so long, and will eventually have to be excised anyway, and replaced with one that is compatible. Israel is that to me; it isn't compatible in that area, and it was foolish to so stubbornly force it there in the first place. We are taught as kids not to put a square peg in a round hole, but we did it anyway.

We should never have gotten involved with communism in the area, nor the conflict, nor anything else. Tell me, who is for the better. If we had done nothing, real nothing, and not clumsy half actions, wouldn't we be better off?

How this deals with the conflict is that another heavy handed action, just like we carried out numerous times before, will only breed more ill will. These countries just don't pop up and say "We are angry, hear us roar!" There are reasons people do the things they do.

Intellegent solutions are needed is what I am saying, not the jump into war that we seem to be eager to do nowadays. No embargos? No economic leveraging? We just seem to launch straight into armed conflict for a while now. It's fine that we condemned Iran's president for his comments; but the "Axis of Evil"? That's pretty strong right there. I wouldn't be too warm with a country who calls us evil. Not only that, but the UN, apart from being weak, has how many Islamic countries on the security council? Oh, that's right, Zero.

In their shoes, I'd see why I would't be cooperating with the UN or the US. That's why smart dipolmancy is needed to avoid conflict. I sure as hell know that "I CONDEMN YOU!!!!" and "Axis of Evil" are not exactly diplomatic terms. Our side as well as theirs is acting equally irrational. No one likes to lay prostrate to another's will; it's their own soverginty. If they allow other to tell them what to do, what limit is ever set? Don't nationalize your oil? Change your goverment to this type? We would obviously never agree to such things, why should they? Because might makes right? That seems to be the size of it, and that just won't work in the long term.

[QUOTE=Lord Kuat] We are taught as kids not to put a square peg in a round hole, but we did it anyway.
[/QUOTE]

No Israel is a round peg in a square hole. It fits, but it's going to get jiggled around and scratched and eventually violently broken in two pieces and destroyed because it fits, but badly.

I dunno, them under the soviets or them under the Taliban? I'd choose Soviets. I'm talking about actions done, and the action we are going to do with Iran amounts to the same crap. The total "regime change" in Iraq is going nicely as well.

Also, what's your point about Ajax? I'm talking about our actions. England could have raped every Iranian girl for all I care, I'm talking about us.

"Our bumblings" is that Carter pressured the Shah to ease his grip on the people, allowing enough leeway for the revolution to get a foothold.

Edit: I would agree with you on the more stable interactions, and of course your points are well made, and valid, but to some degree. We would be an occupying force, and that isn't a very good situation to be in. An ideal solution keeps infrastructure intact, this "regeime change" buisness just doesn't work. Stirring a popular rebellion is one, or firm negotations with the country. Something that is endogenous and won't be rejected; something that the people of the country come up with, not an outside source. Military action isn't that.

Afgan was a screwup not because we left it but because we destroyed its infrastructure; in Iran we badly helped foul it up and eventually cause it's demise, and Iraq... remains to be seen. My point is that military action is never the best solution, only to be used as a last ditch. We aren't there yet by a mile.

[QUOTE=Lord Kuat]I dunno, them under the soviets or them under the Taliban? I'd choose Soviets. I'm talking about actions done, and the action we are going to do with Iran amounts to the same crap. The total "regime change" in Iraq is going nicely as well.

Also, what's your point about Ajax? I'm talking about our actions. England could have raped every Iranian girl for all I care, I'm talking about us.

"Our bumblings" is that Carter pressured the Shah to ease his grip on the people, allowing enough leeway for the revolution to get a foothold.

Edit: I would agree with you on the more stable interactions, and of course your points are well made, and valid, but to some degree. We would be an occupying force, and that isn't a very good situation to be in. An ideal solution keeps infrastructure intact, this "regeime change" buisness just doesn't work. Stirring a popular rebellion is one, or firm negotations with the country. Something that is endogenous and won't be rejected; military action isn't that.

Afgan was a screwup not because we left it but because we destroyed its infrastructure; in Iran we badly helped foul it up and eventually cause it's demise, and Iraq... remains to be seen. My point is that military action is never the best solution, only to be used as a last ditch. We aren't there yet by a mile.[/QUOTE]
A-stan: We didn't destroy their infrastructure, the Russians did in their desperation at the end of that conflict when every man, woman, and child were fair targets for their gun-ships and foot soldiers. Do you not see that the Taliban would not risen to power had the U.S. not abandoned them? Why is that so hard to grasp? And I would certainly like to think that us forming a government during that post-war period would have been far better than anything the Soviets would have done. As I said, the communists toppled the most stable government Afghanistan has ever seen.

My original point about Ajax is that it wasn't solely the U.S.'s fault. That's all I was saying, you ignored everything until recently trying to show me the obvious, that O: Ajax was a CIA operation, an operation fueled by the SIS and Britian's hunger for oil.

So...you're complaining that we encouraged the Shah to loosen his grip? Heaven forbid we try to let the people think for themselves.

And it's about time you made you point about military action being best left a last-ditch option. For awhile there it seemed like you were in the mindset that had the U.S. never entered the Middle East, everything would be honky-dorry, completely ignoring the fact that the U.S. had nothing to do with the Great Game, and was not the one to inject Israel into the region. We don't disagree about that then. The thing is, currently, we're trying to play nice with diplomacy, and they're ignoring us.

more fun for me if Iran becomes a new theatre... not likely though considering how unsuccessful the media war was with Iraq even after a cheap shot like 9/11. Oil is still not an issue though since we get most of our oil from venezuela and not the middle east at this point in time so I think we need to get past that and focus more on the domino theory of the spread of the corrupted hajji rule over the middle east. Spook your whole loose peg analogy was quite crude considering Jews belong their as much as an Muslim does. I'd rethink that statement. By the way what job are you getting in the Marines... and so far your joining because you feel you have to see combat or something. I'm sure your boot camp will set you straight on your views and you'll get the hollywood brainwash out of your system.

I don't know what would have risen to power if the US stayed in. Who says it would have been better? Who knows what would have happened? The only way either of us could know is look at the only country they are doing that in: Iraq. Afganistan is a complete mess now, so I don't consider it (it's going rather badly too, but that place is FUBAR anyway now). No other country have we attempted that in. I'm suprsied that you find it "easy to grasp" that obviously, if the US stayed in, things would be better. I don't agree with that, because again, as history proves, occupying forces never really do any good for its host. Unless you can provide me with an example.



I mean, I can't disagree with that, because it was never my point. If the CIA wouldn't have been involved, who knows what would have happened. Britian got us involved for a reason; if they could have done it alone, they would have. They sought our help for a reason. My point was that the action = harm. Nothing more, nothing less.



Well, look what happened. I guess heaven's forbiddin' it pretty heavily right now.

What happend to Iran as a result of Ajax was an initial Brain Drain. Basically, the Shah moved in and hurt the intellectual community of Iran. Those who could move did. What's left were Shah royalists (minority) and... well, the equivalent of those guys from deliverance in the majority. The middle class was squeezed out. The point though is that we destabilized Iran further by allowing this "freedom" after we screwed up the social structure. Or, if not destabilized, helped it get replaced by this sac of ****. Do you really think anyone was better off for this?

[idiocy]edited out lolerskates[/idiocy]



Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.



Well, there goes your credibility



Oil is buisness. We would like to defend buisness interests. It has to be at least AN issue. I'm not saying THE issue, but it factors in.



They chose to settle in the middle of people who objected to them being there in that fasion. Your definition of "belong" can use some work.

This kind of stuff makes me happy not to be an American. I think if US invades the rest of middle East, it's going to be after Europe. And then maybe a war between Russia (and/or China) and the States. We'll see. World's going to hell anyway.

[QUOTE=Lord Kuat]Fix'd.[/QUOTE]

How mature of you.

God damn #45

That was the idea, I think it got lost somewhere between my fingers and the keys though.



Right now I am slated for Metal Worker, on the LAVs



No, you got it wrong.

[QUOTE=Lord Kuat]I know.

So, ya got a real point?[/QUOTE]


Yeah, that resulting to such immature tactics doesn't do you well. It will also pretty much flush all your credability down the tube.

A metal worker... eh? Well thats cool I don't even know what that is but since it's not combat orientated have fun.

Oh god dammit, I sooo misread what he said.

Yeah, your right, and good lord I like missed half of his paragraph or something when I wrote that and forgot to fix it.

Apologies Snoop.

Welder, more or less. I use hot metal to stick metal to other metal.

Only thing is I will ride in the LAV. I still go to Marine Combat Training regardless of MOS so they have no qualms about sending me into combat.

But then again, I am mainly doing this job to get mad skills for a job later. I have my sights sent on Recon infantry...