president of iran

[24KT]

i feel the war in iraq was necessary to ensure the US and Israel establish a presence in the region to do a few things-

1) Allows a base of operations for diplomatic, military, political, spying, observational, and other purposes.

2) Allows us to control the puppet regime which will take power next in Iraq.

3) Allows us to manage Iraq's oil output.  They can't do it theirselves, so we'll do it for them and we'll keep all resource allocation secret.  You can trust us not to siphon your resources though- we're the good guys.

4) Allows a war base for the US invasion of Iran which will occur after a very spectacular and very unprovoked event from Iran.  I know, the leader of Iran wants diplomacy.  But we have guns.  And they'll attack before the elections, because they hate our freedoms.  The ripple effect putting repubs into office is just a coincidence.


note- again - this is not an endorsement or a condemnation - this is merely an objective view of the events and circumstances.

240,

Do you believe the war was necessary, or is it that you believe the war met the objectives of PNAC?

[Cavalier22]

Any group that fires missiles indiscriminantly into civilian territory with no purpose other than to kill civilians qualifies as a terrorist group to me.

[240 is Back]

Any group that fires missiles indiscriminantly into civilian territory with no purpose other than to kill civilians qualifies as a terrorist group to me.

Correct.  But why would the US get into a THIRD war, when we're barely maintaining in Afghanistan and arguably losing in Iraq?

I agree it's a terrorist act to shoot rockets into cities. And if ISR wants to use their military to cook Iran, so be it.  But we have no business in there.

[OzmO]

We were all (USA) terrorists once.   

What's an oppressed/out numbered/out gunned group of people to do?

Turn the other cheek?

Sleep on a bed of cluster bombs?

Fuck 'em  I'd do the exact same if i was leboneese.

[OzmO]

Correct.  But why would the US get into a THIRD war, when we're barely maintaining in Afghanistan and arguably losing in Iraq?

I agree it's a terrorist act to shoot rockets into cities. And if ISR wants to use their military to cook Iran, so be it.  But we have no business in there.

Just read Bush's last speech.  We are preparing to make our business.  Guaranteed. 

[Mr. Intenseone]

240 do you believe Israel has a "right" to cook Iran, ...or is it that you believe Israel has a "desire" (albeit understandable or not, justifiable or not). Is it that you support it, ...or that you think it's not your right to interfere with Israeli / Iranian affairs?

Yes, Israel hs the RIGHT to defend itselves aginst TERRORISTS!

[OzmO]

Yes, Israel hs the RIGHT to defend itselves aginst TERRORISTS!

And vice versa.

anyone has the right to defend it's self agaisnt aggression and oppression by what ever means at their disposal.

[bmacsys]

I say they debate.  Hell, if the guy is full of crap, bush can present teh facts. Let the world see he's crazy.  However, if you asked 6 billion people who the bigger tyrant is, a nut from iran who just got into office and wants the bomb, or bush...

well, I think we all know who is gonna get the vote...

If you think Bush is a tyrant come out and say it. No beating around the bush.

[OzmO]

They are not going to debate...  that guy would shread Bush.   Plus it wouldn't serve Bush politically but it would serve the other guy.

[24KT]

Hey 240,
I noticed you didn't answer my question. Maybe you missed it.
That's ok... feel free to send the answers in PM along with any more great videos you find if that'll save some time. 

[240 is Back]

Yes, Israel hs the RIGHT to defend itselves aginst TERRORISTS!

ABSOLUTELY!  And if I was israel, by now I woudl have leveled Leb and i'd be using Beirut as a launching base for all the fire I was about to rain down on Iran.

But I'm not Israel.  We have zero business fighting a 3rd war that doesn't involve us.  I support israel's right to declare war on leb and iran for helping.  But for our boys to die in a field in Iran because of their beef? no way.

[Hedgehog]

ABSOLUTELY!  And if I was israel, by now I woudl have leveled Leb and i'd be using Beirut as a launching base for all the fire I was about to rain down on Iran.

But I'm not Israel.  We have zero business fighting a 3rd war that doesn't involve us.  I support israel's right to declare war on leb and iran for helping.  But for our boys to die in a field in Iran because of their beef? no way.

Let me ask you this: Why exactly do you think Israel has a right to declare war on Lebanon?

YIP
Zack

[240 is Back]

Let me ask you this: Why exactly do you think Israel has a right to declare war on Lebanon?

First, i could care less with either country does.  They've both broken the rules in this conflict. 

Those little babybuster carpet bombs leaving undetonated ballistics in Leb residential areas- wrong.   blowing up every road that matters and setting the country back 20 years - wrong.

Those pricks shooting rockets into residential areas and using fmailies as shields - very wrong.

But it is none of the US' business.  If ISR wants to start a war with syria, Leb, iran, switzerland, antarctica, I could care less.  The US already has two wars we can't handle.  Starting a third would be foolish.

So yeah, I don't have an opinion in that conflict, other than i won't shed tears for either side when they lose.

[headhuntersix]

It looks like current US war plans call for a two day air war that will decapitate Iran's C&C. Then destroy most of their Airforce or Air defense at the very least followed by direct airstrikes on the nuclear facilities. Israel is supposed to be looking to do the same. No ground troops.

[240 is Back]

It looks like current US war plans call for a two day air war that will decapitate Iran's C&C. Then destroy most of their Airforce or Air defense at the very least followed by direct airstrikes on the nuclear facilities. Israel is supposed to be looking to do the same. No ground troops.

yeah, but we thought ground casualties would be minimal in Iraq and we were wrong.  we never thought we'd still be losing men regularly in Afghan, 4.5 year later.  Technology has really leveled the playing field.  We might have all the smart weapons in teh world, but the ability of the enemy to use the media has restricted the use of those weapons.

One pic of a cute little girl with her arms blown off will outrage 1 billion people into doing some crazy shit.  So even thuogh we might have the technology to blow them to dust, the second we get rough, we lose the PR war.

[Hedgehog]

First, i could care less with either country does.  They've both broken the rules in this conflict. 

Hizbollah, not Lebanon is sending missiles into Israel. What rules have Lebanon broken?

So yeah, I don't have an opinion in that conflict, other than i won't shed tears for either side when they lose.

  I support israel's right to declare war on leb and iran for helping. 

Which is it, do you have an opinion or not?

YIP
Zack

[Nordic Superman]

Hizbollah, not Lebanon is sending missiles into Israel. What rules have Lebanon broken?

Let's generate a custom scenario:

A political party forms in a western country. This is a armed force, hating it's neighbours. This politcal party kills civillians of the bordering countries, and doesn't recognise the bordering countries rights to exist. They murder and kidnap civilians of other countries. They brainwash children etc etc.

All the time the elected goverment (of the western country we use in these scenario) allows this to happen.

Now... the goverment isn't at all responsible?

[Hedgehog]

Let's generate a custom scenario:

A political party forms in a western country. This is a armed force, hating it's neighbours. This politcal party kills civillians of the bordering countries, and doesn't recognise the bordering countries rights to exist. They murder and kidnap civilians of other countries. They brainwash children etc etc.

All the time the elected goverment (of the western country we use in these scenario) allows this to happen.

Now... the goverment isn't at all responsible?

Great scenario, and I think it serves a very valid point.

Lets say this would be Ireland, and that IRA is the "political party", aka terrorist organisation, going into Northern Ireland and the UK for terrorist acts.

1. I certainly think Ireland has a responsibility in cooperating with UK.

2. UK can't start fire into Ireland regardless. They would have to try diplomacy first.

3. If that doesn't work, wet jobs would be a last resort, but never outright war actions into Irish territory.


Honestly, good idea with the scenario bro. Helps put things in perspective.

YIP
Zack

[Nordic Superman]

IRA was formed to gain independence from England.

The threat of the IRA really is overly publicised, mainly because it happens in Britain.

IRA terrorists are very different to muslims in the fact that they aren't necessarily religious, and if they are, they are Christian.

Muslims are willing to commit suicide to hurt their enemies. Plus the targets of IRA terrorist were not people.

Comparing the IRA to muslims is like comparing something poles apart. The only similarity is that they are both terrorists.

[Hedgehog]

IRA was formed to gain independence from England.

The threat of the IRA really is overly publicised, mainly because it happens in Britain.

IRA terrorists are very different to muslims in the fact that they aren't necessarily religious, and if they are, they are Christian.

Muslims are willing to commit suicide to hurt their enemies. Plus the targets of IRA terrorist were not people.

Comparing the IRA to muslims is like comparing something poles apart. The only similarity is that they are both terrorists.

My point was that there are really no excuses for Israel to start an open military operation into another country.

BTW, the Northern Ireland conflict is heavily rooted in the Catholic-Protestant conflict, with IRA being catholics. So religion is a big part of that conflict, but that's not the issue.

The issue, as you brought up,

Now... the goverment isn't at all responsible?

I say yes. They are responsible. No country should be a haven for terrorists.


But, and here's where I strongly object to the actions of Israel, all nations are supreme in theirselves. You cannot intervene into another country. It's against international law.

A covert wet operation would be a different matter IMO.

Diplomacy is always best, and getting Lebanon to cooperate with Israel to disarm the Hizbollah would be the best solution, but if military action has to be taken, covert wet jobs are the only possible option.



YIP
Zack

[Nordic Superman]

But, do you think diplomatic actions would result in Lebanon disharming Hezzofags?

I say no, history says no, and common sense says NO.

[24KT]

Let's generate a custom scenario:

A political party forms in a western country. This is a armed force, hating it's neighbours. This politcal party kills civillians of the bordering countries, and doesn't recognise the bordering countries rights to exist. They murder and kidnap civilians of other countries. They brainwash children etc etc.

All the time the elected goverment (of the western country we use in these scenario) allows this to happen.

Now... the goverment isn't at all responsible?

Your custom scenario is slightly skewed by innacuracy.

A political party forms in a western country. This is an armed force hating the neighbours who have occupied their lands for 20 yrs. They operate only within their borders and their focus is on providing humanitarian aid and social services to the citizens of their country, ...driving out foreign occupants on their land, and protecting their border from encroachment by their neighbours. They kidnap 2 soldiers who have crossed the border and entered into their land, and attempt to engage in a prisoner exchange with their neighbours, exchanging those soldiers for government officials and fellow countrymen held in the jails of their neighbour. Their neighbour responds by bombing the country's international airport, and creating a devastating oil spill. The armed political party responds by launching rockets in their neighbours yard. The neighbour drops cluster bombs into civilian neighbourhoods. The political party responds by launching more rockets into their neighbours yard. After the fighting ends, the political party rushes in, registers all civilians who have been hurt, and within 48hrs, provides them with the equivalent of 2.5 yrs pay, and vows to rebuild their homes. I think that's a more accurate analogy.

The Lebanese government can no more rid themselves of Hezbollah than the USA can rid itself of the Republicans.

update:

The Lebanese government can no more rid themselves of Hezbollah than the USA can rid itself of the Republicans, or the Democrats, or the millions of American NRA members who likewise refuse to disarm and give up the weapons they feel they need to protect themselves.

Hope That Clarifies 

[24KT]

But, do you think diplomatic actions would result in Lebanon disharming Hezzofags?

I say no, history says no, and common sense says NO.

The only way Hez is going to disarm, is if Lebanon no longer faces a threat from Israel, ...or unless they come out on the losing end of a bloody civil war. Considering their renewed & infact increased popularity, ...especially after the 33 day war, that scenario is hardly likely. 

[Hedgehog]

But, do you think diplomatic actions would result in Lebanon disharming Hezzofags?

I say no, history says no, and common sense says NO.

If diplomatic actions include economic sanctions, or threat thereof, yes.

EU and USA threat of sanctions of Lebanon could start it off.

Regardless, Israel needs to be buddies with Lebanon. A raid into Lebanon is like pissing in the pants - it gets warm instantly, but in the long run it gets cold as hell.



To be honest though, the chances of diplomacy working..

I still believe that is the way you have to start off though. It's what civilized countries do. If those options are ruled out, fewer can bitch when you bring in wet jobs.

YIP
Zack

YIP
Zack

[Nordic Superman]

Your custom scenario is slightly skewed by innacuracy.

A political party forms in a western country. This is an armed force hating the neighbours who have occupied their lands for 20 yrs. They operate only within their borders and their focus is on providing humanitarian aid and social services to the citizens of their country, ...driving out foreign occupants on their land, and protecting their border from encroachment by their neighbours. They kidnap 2 soldiers who have crossed the border and entered into their land, and attempt to engage in a prisoner exchange with their neighbours, exchanging those soldiers for government officials and fellow countrymen held in the jails of their neighbour. Their neighbour responds by bombing the country's international airport, and creating a devastating oil spill. The armed political party responds by launching rockets in their neighbours yard. The neighbour drops cluster bombs into civilian neighbourhoods. The political party responds by launching more rockets into their neighbours yard. After the fighting ends, the political party rushes in, registers all civilians who have been hurt, and within 48hrs, provides them with the equivalent of 2.5 yrs pay, and vows to rebuild their homes. I think that's a more accurate analogy.

The Lebanese government can no more rid themselves of Hezbollah than the USA can rid itself of the Republicans. 

Jag you're pro Hezzofaggos?

So you're a supporter of terrorism?

You're such a cliche student style liberal apeasing apologist it makes me fucking SICK.