kactus Posted March 24, 2009 Report Posted March 24, 2009 Really? What about Hezbollah? With that you're opening a different can of worm and you know where this is heading! Israel is quite capable to defend itself without others shedding crockodile tears. Long range missiles and the unneeded goal to build the strongest military in the region? What is your definition of strongest army in ME? What pray tell would be their goals by spending so much which benefits so few? There's no right or wrong answer. I think considering the geo_politics and the number of countries the US has invaded in the region it makes it ever more justified to spend on defence. Quote
kactus Posted March 24, 2009 Report Posted March 24, 2009 Is it? It is my understanding there are fundimental differences between the two, which, as we saw in Iraq, resulted in rather horrible sectarian violence. Iraq is the creation of british influence and Ottoman empire. Shias and sunnis plus the kurds you're referring to have lived alongside eachother in Iraq for a long time. Maybe not peaceful at times but certainly better since US invasion which led to more chaos and sectarian violence. If Iran gets the atomic bomb, I think several other states will feel it also necessary. What's that word again? It's an if and again you're working on a scenario. Frankly I would rather have the whole region including Israel de-militarised but that just wouldn't work! ....ah...proliferation. Dat's de verd. No body seemed to talk much about the word 'profileration' even when Pakistan became nuclear but now Iran is the hot spot. But wait! I see Pakistan is an ally of US on the so called 'war on terror' and Iran is part of 'axis of evil'. Hypocrisy? Hmmm! Quote
M.Dancer Posted March 24, 2009 Report Posted March 24, 2009 With that you're opening a different can of worm and you know where this is heading! Israel is quite capable to defend itself without others shedding crockodile tears. Hezbollah is a lot more than a thorn in Israels side, it is a thorn in Lebanons side whose pupurse is to be the proxy of Iran and to destabilize Lebanon. What is your definition of strongest army in ME? One that can afford to lose 100,000 men before tea and continue to press on. There's no right or wrong answer. I think considering the geo_politics and the number of countries the US has invaded in the region it makes it ever more justified to spend on defence. Don't be silly. The US has invaded only two countries...the Persians on the otherhand are still the regional champs. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
DogOnPorch Posted March 24, 2009 Report Posted March 24, 2009 (edited) The Iran Iraq War...about 1 million dead...untold numbers wounded and missing. Gassing the Kurds...I guess that's living together...sort of. Pakistan. I recall much worry re: Pakistan and India getting their nuclear weapons...using our CANDU technology at times. Edited March 24, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
jbg Posted March 26, 2009 Report Posted March 26, 2009 Trying to keep these two from going to war...i think 2009 might be a bad year all the way around!http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=8678...ionid=351020104 http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=8566...ionid=351020101 I think Iran needs a bit stronger a showing than another UN resolution or US Presidential commendation, no? They say they love death. Give it to them. In spades. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted March 26, 2009 Report Posted March 26, 2009 Iraq is the creation of british influence and Ottoman empire. Shias and sunnis plus the kurds you're referring to have lived alongside eachother in Iraq for a long time. Maybe not peaceful at times but certainly better since US invasion which led to more chaos and sectarian violence.You mean let the Sunnis brutishly oppress everyone else and all somehow is well? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
M.Dancer Posted March 26, 2009 Report Posted March 26, 2009 Iraq is the creation of british influence and Ottoman empire. Shias and sunnis plus the kurds you're referring to have lived alongside eachother in Iraq for a long time. Maybe not peaceful at times but certainly better since US invasion which led to more chaos and sectarian violence. Are you aware of how many Kurds dies at the request of Saddam of the years? The accepted number during the Anfal campaign is over 182,000. Then there were the etnic cleansings of the 70s and the post Gulf War offensive.... I think you have successully proven you know not what you go on about. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
GostHacked Posted March 26, 2009 Report Posted March 26, 2009 Shi'as with the atomic bomb not being a threat to Sunnis without? Who cares, they are Muslims .. and terrorists.. Shia or Sunni .. nuke them all. Let all the bad muslims and terrorists kill themselves. Why is this a bad thing??? QUOTE (kactus @ Mar 24 2009, 08:40 AM) *That's a very simplistic view. -- Is it? It is my understanding there are fundimental differences between the two, which, as we saw in Iraq, resulted in rather horrible sectarian violence. Alright .. so... I am surprised to see that some recognize the difference between the factions in Islam, but yet use one faction in a way to support their argument in comparison to the so called conflict between Israel and Iran. It does not make sense to me. kactus No body seemed to talk much about the word 'profileration' even when Pakistan became nuclear but now Iran is the hot spot. But wait! I see Pakistan is an ally of US on the so called 'war on terror' and Iran is part of 'axis of evil'. Hypocrisy? Hmmm! Not to mention Kahn, one of Pakistans great nuclear scientists has admitted to much proliferation of his own doing. Pakistan is pretty unstable, probably more so than Iran, and yet they have not thrown nukes at anyone .. yet. So by this I am not worried about Iran at all. Quote
kactus Posted March 26, 2009 Report Posted March 26, 2009 (edited) You mean let the Sunnis brutishly oppress everyone else and all somehow is well? Not sunnis alone. Under Saddam's rule he gave order to sunni devotees to prosecute non sunni factions such as kurds and shi'as. The point is that if not less there's more or less same amount of chaos and disorder now in Iraq than before the invasion. Edited March 26, 2009 by kactus Quote
kactus Posted March 26, 2009 Report Posted March 26, 2009 Are you aware of how many Kurds dies at the request of Saddam of the years? You mean with the chemical weapons given to Saddam by west and Russia?? Here's an interesting article on this: Bitter memories Some people saw all their families killed "Halabja is a black mark on the reputation of the international community, " said the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) Prime Minister Barham Saleh, addressing a gathering in Halabja. "Had it not been for Iran and the voices of Danielle Mitterrand, Anne Clwyd, Andrei Sakharov [Russian Nobel prize winner] and Senator Pell, the perpetrators of the crime would not have been exposed to the world," he said. The attack on Halabja took place during the Iran-Iraq war when Iraq enjoyed the support of the west against Iran. Full article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1877161.stm I think you have successully proven you know not what you go on about. Atleast I am not selective in my views and mix and choose words to suit my agenda!!! Quote
kactus Posted March 26, 2009 Report Posted March 26, 2009 Alright .. so...I am surprised to see that some recognize the difference between the factions in Islam, but yet use one faction in a way to support their argument in comparison to the so called conflict between Israel and Iran. It does not make sense to me. It's the oldest trick in the book. Creating divisions amongst various factions will allow the west to have a better control over Iraq. The same old 'divide and conquer' tactics. Not to mention Kahn, one of Pakistans great nuclear scientists has admitted to much proliferation of his own doing. Pakistan is pretty unstable, probably more so than Iran, and yet they have not thrown nukes at anyone .. yet. So by this I am not worried about Iran at all. Exactly! The irony is with the current situation in Pakistan is worse than ever with the amount of intelligence shared between pakistani forces and the taliban. But hey they are our so called "allies on war on terror". Quote
DogOnPorch Posted March 26, 2009 Report Posted March 26, 2009 It hasn't happened yet...therefore it will never happen. Who cares, they are Muslims .. and terrorists.. Shia or Sunni .. nuke them all. Let all the bad muslims and terrorists kill themselves. Why is this a bad thing?? What's the game? When someone says something stupid...take a drink? A bit early... Alright .. so...I am surprised to see that some recognize the difference between the factions in Islam, but yet use one faction in a way to support their argument in comparison to the so called conflict between Israel and Iran. It does not make sense to me. Booga, booga. Be surprised... Not to mention Kahn(sic), one of Pakistans great nuclear scientists has admitted to much proliferation of his own doing. Pakistan is pretty unstable, probably more so than Iran, and yet they have not thrown nukes at anyone .. yet. So by this I am not worried about Iran at all. You're missing a Khan. Both were trained in the West under the 'Atoms For Peace' program which back in the heady days post WW2 was supposed to elevate various 3rd World holes into repectable modern nuclear powered nations. Boy were we stupid... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munir_Ahmad_Khan Nobody figured they'd ever be a threat back then...not to mention Iran and Pakistan were friendly nations. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
GostHacked Posted March 26, 2009 Report Posted March 26, 2009 What's the game? When someone says something stupid...take a drink? A bit early... I am still hungover from the Bush years. You're missing a Khan. Well that proves my point even more now does it not? Nobody figured they'd ever be a threat back then...not to mention Iran and Pakistan were friendly nations. Not enough foresight ... like the lack of it in regards to Iraq. Also a lack of intelligence ... I mean good intelligence. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted March 26, 2009 Report Posted March 26, 2009 Well that proves my point even more now does it not? Proves you're not up on the subject. Not enough foresight ... like the lack of it in regards to Iraq. Also a lack of intelligence ... I mean good intelligence. The missing intelligence is what Saddam did with his chemical weapons program. Buried in the desert or sitting in Syria? You mean with the chemical weapons given to Saddam by west and Russia?? 1. Saddam was quite capable of producing Mustard and Phosgene without "us". Simple chemistry...WW1 technology. 2. Nobody in the West gave Saddam chemical weapons. No boxes marked VX Nerve Agent...Sarin...etc. 3. Certain companies in the West and Asia...not whole nations...traded chemical weapons precursors with Iraq as they were allowed to under a program to boost agriculture. Insecticide and nerve gas share numerous qualities. 4. The Soviet Union did provide Saddam with the ability to deliver his chemical weapons to a target. SCUDs, et al. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
kactus Posted March 26, 2009 Report Posted March 26, 2009 2. Nobody in the West gave Saddam chemical weapons. Errm! Not according to the article from BBC posted earlier and many other sources. 3. Certain companies in the West and Asia...not whole nations...traded chemical weapons precursors with Iraq as they were allowed to under a program to boost agriculture. Insecticide and nerve gas share numerous qualities. This is contradictory tp what you stated earlier. 4. The Soviet Union did provide Saddam with the ability to deliver his chemical weapons to a target. SCUDs, et al. Plus the western companies. I never disputed that! The whole point was that under Saddam's rule he did utilise those chemicals against the kurds and iranians in Hallabja, for which the west tried to turn a blind eye for a while. Quote
M.Dancer Posted March 26, 2009 Report Posted March 26, 2009 You mean with the chemical weapons given to Saddam by west and Russia?? I am amazed there are still toasters out there telling people this. To wit: Not one chemical weapon in Iraq was sold by the west. Not one. And further more, 99% of the kurds killed were killed in the old fashioned way. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted March 26, 2009 Report Posted March 26, 2009 This is contradictory tp what you stated earlier. Tips to avoid looking foolish 1) Read first 2) Try to comprehend 3) post Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted March 26, 2009 Report Posted March 26, 2009 Maybe he thinks SCUDs are chemical weapons? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
DogOnPorch Posted March 26, 2009 Report Posted March 26, 2009 Maybe he thinks SCUDs are chemical weapons? I thought it was a type of household cleaner. Try NEW SCUD!! Ethnically cleanses while it disinfects. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
M.Dancer Posted March 26, 2009 Report Posted March 26, 2009 The whole point was that under Saddam's rule he did utilise those chemicals against the kurds and iranians in Hallabja, for which the west tried to turn a blind eye for a while. So if I understand you correctly, being gassed by Saddam was preferably than having the US oust Saddam? Maybe not peaceful at times but certainly better since US invasion which led to more chaos and sectarian violence. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
kactus Posted March 26, 2009 Report Posted March 26, 2009 I am amazed there are still toasters out there telling people this. Why does any conversagtion with you gets so personal? Can you not handle a civilised conversation? Here's what YOU have said on this: Not to belabour the point, but 95% of Saddams weapons came from the USSR bewtee 1973 to 79.During the Iran Iraq war 20% came from france and the remainder from the Soviets (68.5%) and from China... And please don't tell me they were for agricultural purpose. To wit: Not one chemical weapon in Iraq was sold by the west. Not one. And further more, 99% of the kurds killed were killed in the old fashioned way. Hmmm, the old fashion way is gassing the kurds with chemicals interesting! Quote
M.Dancer Posted March 26, 2009 Report Posted March 26, 2009 Why does any conversagtion with you gets so personal? Can you not handle a civilised conversation?Here's what YOU have said on this: And please don't tell me they were for agricultural purpose. Hmmm, the old fashion way is gassing the kurds with chemicals interesting! You are confused. The majority of Saddams CONVENTIONAL weapons came from the USSR, so no you are inadvertantly not in error...tanks aren't for farming. Surely you don't think Saddam gassed almost 200,000 kurds? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
kactus Posted March 26, 2009 Report Posted March 26, 2009 So if I understand you correctly, being gassed by Saddam was preferably than having the US oust Saddam? An old friend becomes a new enemy. This has been the US policy in the ME. Iraq (Saddam) back in the eighties was a proxy ally of the US, which is why US didn't object and turned a blind eye to his crime using the chemicals against kurds and iranians during the eight year Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988). Afterall the Ayatollahs were the bad guys and Saddam was an ally so much for a hind sight from the US that an ally will turn against him. After the invasion of Kuwait and soaring oil prices Saddam became a liability for US and reached his expiry date. The trouble is with 6 years now after the invasion and removal of Saddam in Iraq not much has changed and secterian violence is ever so strong. Quote
M.Dancer Posted March 26, 2009 Report Posted March 26, 2009 It's hard to have a reasonable convesation with someone when they can't tell the difference between conventional and chemical weapons. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted March 26, 2009 Report Posted March 26, 2009 After the invasion of Kuwait and soaring oil prices Saddam became a liability for US and reached his expiry date. The trouble is with 6 years now after the invasion and removal of Saddam in Iraq not much has changed and secterian violence is ever so strong. You want a chance to alter that? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.