WWWTT Posted November 14, 2011 Report Posted November 14, 2011 double standards common in politics, they're evil when a country that we don't like does it but we're heroes/freedom fighters when our side does it... I agree but the point I was making is that everyone in the west thought that the Afgan conflict was over at the end of the 80's.But here we are in 2011,over 20 later and no light at the end of the tunnel. WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
wyly Posted November 14, 2011 Report Posted November 14, 2011 (edited) I agree but the point I was making is that everyone in the west thought that the Afgan conflict was over at the end of the 80's.But here we are in 2011,over 20 later and no light at the end of the tunnel. WWWTT it's the same place but not really the same conflict...the 1st conflict was a civil war in which the soviets intervened...the 2nd conflict featured the rise of the taliban and another civil war which the west has intervened... Edited November 14, 2011 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted November 14, 2011 Report Posted November 14, 2011 Wrong answer buddy! My wife is from Guangxi,autonomous region of China that borders northern Vietnam. True there was a serious clash in this area at that time,thousands of Chinese died.But I believe this was a test of defences on either side and not a serious invasion. And it is not clear who initiated the clash. China also did the same against northern India,but in the end they pulled their troops out. I do not fully understand why they did this either. WWWTT if I recall the incursion into vietnam was retaliation for vietnam invading cambodia a chinese ally, and china withdrew on it's own and was not forced out by vietnam...the india china conflicts have been skirmishes over boundary disputes...no biggie... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
WWWTT Posted November 14, 2011 Report Posted November 14, 2011 if I recall the incursion into vietnam was retaliation for vietnam invading cambodia a chinese ally, and china withdrew on it's own and was not forced out by vietnam... the india china conflicts have been skirmishes over boundary disputes...no biggie... Thanks for the input. My wife is not sure of exact details and can only give me part of the picture. WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
WWWTT Posted November 14, 2011 Report Posted November 14, 2011 it's the same place but not really the same conflict...the 1st conflict was a civil war in which the soviets intervened...the 2nd conflict featured the rise of the taliban and another civil war which the west has intervened... Wasn't Libya a civil way? WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
Guest Derek L Posted November 14, 2011 Report Posted November 14, 2011 Well...That's what tends to happen when people leverage the arguments for their own agenda. Sometimes they say that Iran's leader has said he wants "wants Israel wiped off the map" (which isn't true) and sometimes they say whatever we shouldn't believe anything Iranians say. Pick and choose so to speak. Coming back to this topic I was one of those people who didn't believe the involvement of Mossad in the explosion. However, given the nature of the government and sensitivity around this they may not want to leak what has actually happened or the potential involvement of Mossad. I can agree with that, that sure, the timing is suspect, but on the flip side, with an impending attack, the tempo of regular day-to-day operations will increase, which can lead to accidents………Ultimately we’ll likely never know, but I would still argue, that If it were an attack, Iran would retaliate and other than for internal propaganda purposes, can’t see why they would deny an actual attack…. Quote
olp1fan Posted November 14, 2011 Report Posted November 14, 2011 but I would still argue, that If it were an attack, Iran would retaliate and other than for internal propaganda purposes, can’t see why they would deny an actual attack…. Iran does NOT want a war.. they threaten and use harsh words as a tactic to deter an attack why would Iran want a war right now when they don't even have a nuke yet? they are still arming themselves hence why they have to save face and say it was an accident they cant afford for the situation to snowball into them reacting militarily Quote
Guest Derek L Posted November 14, 2011 Report Posted November 14, 2011 Isn't that what the US said when the USSR pulled out of Afganistan in 1988? WWWTT I've no idea... Quote
Guest Derek L Posted November 14, 2011 Report Posted November 14, 2011 Wrong answer buddy! My wife is from Guangxi,autonomous region of China that borders northern Vietnam. True there was a serious clash in this area at that time,thousands of Chinese died.But I believe this was a test of defences on either side and not a serious invasion. And it is not clear who initiated the clash. China also did the same against northern India,but in the end they pulled their troops out. I do not fully understand why they did this either. WWWTT China didn't invade Vietnam? Quote
Argus Posted November 14, 2011 Report Posted November 14, 2011 First of all Lebanon has a fairly large Shia minority which is the root of Irans interests there. There are large Christian populations being ill-treated all over the world. Is Canada making threats to nuke people or sending terrorists there to attack other countries? I don't buy that just because there are Lebanese Shia the Iranians have any legitimate national interests there. Hezbollah is the main party that represents lebanese Shia in the lebanese government Terrorists. They also have entangling alliances with other countries involved such as Syria.Who are little better than terrorists. Irans reasons for supporting various proxies and and allies is really no different from ours. I don't see it. We have interests with trade. They don't. We have concerns over human rights. Iran doesn't believe in human rights. Iran supports elements in Syria and Lebanon for the same reason the US supports Israel. I dislike your equating the support for a free, democratic country with the support for terrorists and rogue regimes. I don't consider their support to have any legitimate basis. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
WWWTT Posted November 14, 2011 Report Posted November 14, 2011 China didn't invade Vietnam? I do not fully understand the nature of this particular conflict. I know you can rule out invasion for the expansion of Chinese interest. Ironicly there is currently another dispute arrising between China and Vietnam. And get this,the US is supporting Vietnam now! WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
Argus Posted November 14, 2011 Report Posted November 14, 2011 Its highly arguable that starting major conflicts in the middle east is conducive to our energy security. The exactly opposite is true in my estimation.g. And how conducive to our energy security do you think it will be if Iran gets nukes, give them to Hezbollah, who set them off in Tel Aviv, and the Israelis, in turn, nuke Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Syria, and everyone else within reach? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 14, 2011 Report Posted November 14, 2011 No but your answer to avoiding damage to our economy appears to be to start potentially large and extremely expensive regional conflict in the middle east, that serious undermine the already weak assed global economic recovery, and then fight it will borrowed money. The solution is way more damaging to our economy than the underlying problem. That's only the case if you believe Iran can be trusted to have nuclear weapons and not use them or allow them to be used against Israel. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 14, 2011 Report Posted November 14, 2011 I was wrong to say they were controlling the oil, however they are still buying it cheaply on their dollar You mean at the world price? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
wyly Posted November 14, 2011 Report Posted November 14, 2011 (edited) China didn't invade Vietnam? here's the quote from blueblood "China did invade countries with theirs and they got tore to ribbons" that's why they stay home."... in korea was china responding to what it viewed as a US/UN interference in a civil war...vietnam altercation china interceded on behalf of an ally...neither war was caused by initial chinese aggression and in neither war was china "tore to ribbons"...china historically has never been an imperialistic power in the way western nations have been, those two conflicts are not the reason "why they stay at home"... Edited November 14, 2011 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Argus Posted November 14, 2011 Report Posted November 14, 2011 Dre, the Canadians who want to go to war with Iran are ideologues Who wants us to go to war with Iran? Are you imagining responses on the thread in the same way you imagined the Tories saying we were going to war with Iran? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 14, 2011 Report Posted November 14, 2011 And that’s reason enough to stop the Iranian blockade Little late once they have nukes. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Guest Derek L Posted November 14, 2011 Report Posted November 14, 2011 I do not fully understand the nature of this particular conflict. I know you can rule out invasion for the expansion of Chinese interest. Ironicly there is currently another dispute arrising between China and Vietnam. And get this,the US is supporting Vietnam now! WWWTT I know, it's been ongoing for a very long time......The Spratly Islands Quote
Argus Posted November 14, 2011 Report Posted November 14, 2011 Tell me this... Pakistan is another extremist backwater and religious basket case. Its probably even less stable than Iran and shares many of the same "features". Do you think the region would be better now if we had encouraged India to start a massive war with an invasion intended to scuttle pakistans nuclear ambitions, and then trillions of dollars trying to help them win? No, but I think we probably would have done well to have encouraged that before Pakistan got the bomb. The more destablized Pakistan becomes the more likely one or more of their nukes will find its way into the hands of terrorists, and from there into Tel Aviv, London or New York. Or all three. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 14, 2011 Report Posted November 14, 2011 LOL, you think a war with Iran = short term fluctuations? you realize to stop Iran you'd have to bomb 32 underground bunkers and labs? its not like when Israel bombed Iraq and Syria's reactors If Iran were attacked...Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt, Lebannon, Turkey, Russia, China (dozens of other countries) would come to its aid if not militarily then with support None of them would come to Iran's aid militarily. And their vocal support would be muted, at best. Iran has no friends. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Guest Derek L Posted November 14, 2011 Report Posted November 14, 2011 here's the quote from blueblood "China did invade countries with theirs and they got tore to ribbons" that's why they stay home."... in korea was china responding to what it viewed as a US/UN interferance in a civil war...vietnam altercation china interceded on behalf of an ally...neither war was caused by initial chinese aggression and in neither war was china "tore to ribbons"...china historically has never been a imperialistic power in the way western nations have been, those two conflicts are not the reason "why they stay at home"... Explain China’s substantial investment towards expanding their expeditionary capabilities and foreign basing rights in the Indian ocean and East Africa. Quote
Argus Posted November 14, 2011 Report Posted November 14, 2011 It’s apples and oranges…….India and Pakistan aren’t in a position to dramatically affect the World’s fuel supply…..I don’t really care what they do. If one of Pakistan's nukes finds its way to Israel you better believe that would affect the world's fuel supply. I remember reading once that Israel' strategy in the event it was nuked was to ensure no Arab country was in position to take advantage of it in its weakness -- by nuking all of them. Think of what six or seven nukes going off in Muslim capitals would do to the price of oil. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 14, 2011 Report Posted November 14, 2011 Iran isn't going to use the nukes, the nukes guarantee them security from being attacked by foreign countries as well as taken more seriously on international levels You're assuming they're sane. I don't regard religious zealots as sane, not in the way the rest of us recognize the term. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 14, 2011 Report Posted November 14, 2011 And that goes back to the crux of my argument…….Why not use said backchannels to encourage Iran to stop the development of nuclear weapons and their continued support of Hezbollah? You don't think everyone has been trying that for years? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Guest Derek L Posted November 14, 2011 Report Posted November 14, 2011 Little late once they have nukes. Not impossible, but would defiantly require US resources and substantially increase the loss of life throughout the Mid-East…..Much better to never allow them to acquire them. Quote
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.