user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
I think Iran is trying to influrence the elections, if what you say is true.
by USMC on Sat Oct 09, 04 6:38pm
[+]
EXACTLY what I was going to say. Not due to my political beliefs. It's just very obvious.
I'd agree but not in the way that USMC is talking about. I doubt this will play will for Kerry in the US and I think Iran knows that.
He's GOT to have a better strategy than Mister Bush. Under Number 43's watch, Iran's come to the brink of nuclear weapons and North Korea's GOTTEN them.
I believe Kerry is willing to sit at the table of brotherhood and break bread with anyone. However, the same can not be applied to Bush because his arrogance and pride will not afford him the luxury of becoming a great humanitarian and a peacemaker...Hey, I guess there can only be one, Gandhi, MLK Jr. and Jimmy Carter and of course the PRINCE of PEACE himself as it is written (no matter your belief)Jesus...
Iran knows that Kerry is loyal to this nation so they can get him to concede more to them.
Of course if they're given the option between a hardliner who says 'you must disarm' and means it, and a wishywashy bleeding heart who feels france must personally endorse our foriegn policy before we act, they're going to go with option B.
What I'm saying is true. He actually said it. You can check it out at Al-Jazeera. I'm not saying that I get most of my reports from Al-Jazeera but I do think they cover the middle east better than the US does. The source of this report is Hossein Mousavian himself saying it. It actually has quotes from his speech a few days ago. Herzog, if you ask any country that supposedly has WMDs if they're going to go with A, a person who's threatening them to do it or B, someone who wants to do it diplomatically, I think that anyone would go with plan B. World approval before war is needed. The reason the world didn't approve the Iraq war is because it's obvious that Saddam didn't have WMDs. If the US declared war on an actual threat then it would be a different story.
Here is the full report.
(http://www .aljazeera .com/cgi-b in/news_se rvice/midd le_east_full_s tory.asp?se rvice_id=5026)
Remove the spaces.
Actually the rest of the world agreed that saddam probably had wmds. France, germany, russia all stated that their intelligence was in agreement with ours on this. They just didn't want a war because as soon as that happens they lose all their power and the US is unquestionably in charge, that and they lose all their sweet illegal oil deals.
And world consent is not necessary before military action. The world will never agree on anything. Probably the resolution that would come closest to getting unanimous support would be one calling for the death of all americans, with one calling for the death of all jews coming in a close 2nd. If we wait for world consent on iran they'll already have developed nukes, in which case our hands are tied, terrorists will likely get access to these weapons, and iraq and israel are screwed.
Yeah I probably should have beem lilttle more diplomatic there Liberal_Democrat, I had no reason to doubt you, sorry.
by USMC on Sun Oct 10, 04 7:49am
[+]
Here's the thing though, the Iranian hardliners would be better off with Bush in office. The mullahs are very unpopular and about the only thing that still unites the Iranian populace are the threats that come from our "hardliners." Bush's "Axis of Evil" comment set back the moderate movement years because they had to agree with the mullahs and act tough. The mullahs have also shown to be very PR savy in the US. Trust me, they know this will not play well for Kerry in the US. Sounds like sabotage to me.
Herzog, if the US gave weapons inspectors more time and they found WMDs then Europe would be certain that they did have WMDs and would probably help. The other reason majority of the key countries (Russia, France, Germany) other than the UK didn't participate is because they don't want their soldiers to take orders from Americans. They see the US army as un-trained, un-proffesional, and immoral so they don't trust the US. I'd let them come in and command their own army. You may say it won't work because there wouldn't be order but it actually would work, if everyone went by the same plan it actually would work.
Cdubatrc, I don't want to sound like I'm ignoring you so can you please say that over again I didn't get what you were saying.
'Herzog, if the US gave weapons inspectors more time and they found WMDs then Europe would be certain that they did have WMDs and would probably help.'
Is that why in the days leading up to the war france vowed to veto any US resolution that mentioned force as a possible outcome? Doesn't sounds like they were too eager to send troops anywhere. And with their veto on the UNSC they could ensure that the UN never backed the invasion, which would give the rest of europe the excuse they needed not to support it either. You say that europe wanted to send troops, well all their actions and statements to date have contradicted that notion.
And they didn't seem to mind our untrained, unproffessional, and immoral army helping them out with their little crisis in the balkans. A crises which they should have been fully able to handle themselves, but couldn't even manage to get their troops into eastern europe without US transport planes.
All in all I'm not too concerned about europes unwillingness to help us. 1) the fact that france opposed this so stridently is a good indicator that we did the right thing. 2) had we participated under their terms nothing would have been accomplished and more americans would have been killed. 3) even if they'd offered their full unconditional support there is very little they could have done with their underfunded, undermanned, unexperianced militaries.
The reason France vowed to VETO it is because George W. Bush rushed to war. If they were one hundered percent sure that Saddam had WMDs and the US wanted to declare war then, then maybe they wouldn't send troops but I'm very sure they wouldn't rush to VETO.
I'm not saying that they're right about US troops not trained but that's what they think. I won't comment on the Balkans thing since it's really based on opinion.
In order to understand what I'm saying you have to know a little about Iranian internal politics. Its now been an entire generation since the takeover. A large portion of the population is young, I think almost 50% are under 25, and unemployment is rampant. Many of the youth are also tired of the strict regulations of the moral police that hassle couples for things like holding hands and talking in public. Overall, support for the mullahs who run the country have been falling for years now. They are now at the point where they have started cracking down on moderate politicians and newspapers, generally a sign of a government in its last breath. Most people don't trust the government at all and assume it tells lies.
Remember, during the runup to the Afghan war there were PRO US rallies in Tehran. However, one thing still unites the Iranian people with their rulers are external threats and attempts to meddle in their affairs. After Bush's "Axis of Evil" statement, the moderates were forced to play tough or be branded as American puppets, taking all the momentum out of what was at that point a growing surge of discontent with the mullahs. So you see it helps the mullahs hold on to power whenever they can point to an external power, whether the US or Israel, that seems to be threatening them. Bush has given the mullahs a rallying cry that undermines the moderate movement. So it is their best interests to keep Bush in power rather than have to deal with a Kerry foreign policy that will make fewer of the type of mistakes that the mullahs need. So, yes I do believe the mullahs knew that saying they are supporting Kerry, would hurt Kerry and thus help Bush. Imagine if bin Laden came out and said he supported Bush in the election. Most people would see that as his attempt to influence the election, but not in Bush's favor. So, they are trying to influence the election, just not the way USMC was saying.
'The reason France vowed to VETO it is because George W. Bush rushed to war. If they were one hundered percent sure that Saddam had WMDs and the US wanted to declare war then, then maybe they wouldn't send troops but I'm very sure they wouldn't rush to VETO.'
So if we'd done everything europe wanted of us the best we could hope for is that they wouldn't veto our actions in the UN. Thanks alot.
If France or Germany had thought Saddam was a threat to their national security then they probably would go into war. But neither France or Germany have a strong connection to the US or middle east so they aren't on Al-Qaedas hit list. That's the way they see it.
So france and germany didn't see that doing anything about saddam was in their best interest. And we're supposed to get their permission before WE do something about saddam because . . ?
Kosovo wasn't in our best interest, but we still helped out. You see this is what allies do for each other. Not attempt to screw them over at every turn.
"So france and germany didn't see that doing anything about saddam was in their best interest. And we're supposed to get their permission before WE do something about saddam because . . ?"
The US doesn't ask for support from Europe because they are allies. The US asks support because they are important countries according to the UN. If you had convinced them in the UN that Saddam had WMDs then they would support the war. Maybe not militarily but they'd chip in with some money at least or humanitarian support for Iraqs citizens.
"Kosovo wasn't in our best interest, but we still helped out. You see this is what allies do for each other. Not attempt to screw them over at every turn."
I'll be very blunt with you. Every war happens because of interest. The Kosovo war didn't give the US that much but the US will still have a military position there for some time.
'The US doesn't ask for support from Europe because they are allies. The US asks support because they are important countries according to the UN. If you had convinced them in the UN that Saddam had WMDs then they would support the war. Maybe not militarily but they'd chip in with some money at least or humanitarian support for Iraqs citizens.'
So the absolute best we could hope for by jumping through hoops for france for months, possibly years, is that they'd tentatively consider maybe, possibly giving us some money after all the fightings done? Sorry, still not worth it. Any money gained in that deal would be lost in fighting against a now more entrenched and prepared enemy, with greater possible american casualties.
And we don't really need a base in the balkans, it'd only be good for further invasions of the balkans, which would in no way benefit us. Especially with all the bases we have in germany.
I'm just saying that if you want to start a war you should at least have the support of word by key countries. The US doesn't need a coalition to make a war justified. What makes wars justified is that you complete the mission and the mission of the Iraq war was to find WMDs. If the US had military support from France or Germany and had not found WMDs then the war still wouldn't be justified. The way I should've started this conversation off is by saying that no war is justified unless you have a good reason to declare war. Now let me ask you a question. Was the war justified? Were the objectives in the beginning of the campaign met?
|
|
