You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Iran and American Interference
- Thread starter SouthAmerica
- Start date
SA, you are a tad bit naive bud.
The US could enfore its will on just about anyone in the world right now. The only reason we don't is that our populace in general has become way too pussified. The folks in the ME are not exactly worried about being PC and don't have a strong liberal base to hold them back, hence the media perception that they are winning.
I'd be willing to bet that enough of the liberals in the US would switch their position to the war and the methods used to fight it if the retards in the ME decide to act out like little children again and cause damage in the US.
As soon as the majority of the US population wakes up and realizes that this is a war of idealogies between two civilizations and that those idealogies are incompatible the gloves will come off. When that happens there will no more Mr. nice guy US. Will that ever happne, it really depends on how the Mullahs decide to play. Will they step in line with Western civilizations values, will they learn to let their people decide what set of values to live under, will they strive for peace and understanding between the two civilizations, or will they remain on the same track and insist upon destroying the infidels adn the great satan. The ball is in their court.
The US could enfore its will on just about anyone in the world right now. The only reason we don't is that our populace in general has become way too pussified. The folks in the ME are not exactly worried about being PC and don't have a strong liberal base to hold them back, hence the media perception that they are winning.
I'd be willing to bet that enough of the liberals in the US would switch their position to the war and the methods used to fight it if the retards in the ME decide to act out like little children again and cause damage in the US.
As soon as the majority of the US population wakes up and realizes that this is a war of idealogies between two civilizations and that those idealogies are incompatible the gloves will come off. When that happens there will no more Mr. nice guy US. Will that ever happne, it really depends on how the Mullahs decide to play. Will they step in line with Western civilizations values, will they learn to let their people decide what set of values to live under, will they strive for peace and understanding between the two civilizations, or will they remain on the same track and insist upon destroying the infidels adn the great satan. The ball is in their court.
Quote from EC1:
Mutual destruction CLEARLY does not apply to people that are willing to be suicide bombers.
And the biggest threat of Iran is not launching a rocket from Tehran, but a "dissapearance" of a nuclear bomb, which somehow turns up in Israel 6 months later.
Or the US. This escapes most people of SAs thinking. The live and let live concept only works when both parties adhere to it.
SA calls our destruction of Iraqs army a half day war. And uses that as support for and argument that we are weak.
The funny thing is that military was one of the largest and most respected in the world.
Then he goes off and confuse our unwillingness to kills lots of civilians in pursuit of terrorist or military targets as weakness.
If so it is a weakness born of immense strength power and morals.
One minute these third worlders are viewing our restraint as a weakness and the next minute they blame us for the deaths of civilians in Iraq.
This just one of the many levels of the dangerous dupllicity the worlds leftists regularly spew.
Make up your minds. Be consistent, have some integrity in your argumentation.
Our we too strong or too weak. Are we bullies or fairies.
The hypocrisy and jealousy is astuouding.
The funny thing is that military was one of the largest and most respected in the world.
Then he goes off and confuse our unwillingness to kills lots of civilians in pursuit of terrorist or military targets as weakness.
If so it is a weakness born of immense strength power and morals.
One minute these third worlders are viewing our restraint as a weakness and the next minute they blame us for the deaths of civilians in Iraq.
This just one of the many levels of the dangerous dupllicity the worlds leftists regularly spew.
Make up your minds. Be consistent, have some integrity in your argumentation.
Our we too strong or too weak. Are we bullies or fairies.
The hypocrisy and jealousy is astuouding.
Iran cannot have nukes........PERIOD!
I have a feeling that all this nuclear drama put up by Iran is an attempt to gain concessions in some other area of politcs or economics. Guess nuclear blackmail is already on its tracks, what will happen if Iran is allowed the nukes, their blackmail will become more frequent and evil in nature. No Nukes for Iran Please.
I have a feeling that all this nuclear drama put up by Iran is an attempt to gain concessions in some other area of politcs or economics. Guess nuclear blackmail is already on its tracks, what will happen if Iran is allowed the nukes, their blackmail will become more frequent and evil in nature. No Nukes for Iran Please.
.
Burtakus: The US could enforce its will on just about anyone in the world right now. The only reason we don't is that our populace in general has become way too pussified.
*******
February 13, 2006
SouthAmerica: Other than - on the countries armed with nukes including North Korea, Pakistan and so onâ¦
********
EC1: Mutual destruction CLEARLY does not apply to people that are willing to be suicide bombers.
********
SouthAmerica: suicide bombers are weapons of last resort â usually used against much powerful people.
********
jem: SA calls our destruction of Iraqs army a half day war. And uses that as support for and argument that we are weak.
*******
SouthAmerica: The US had a state of the art army with the latest toys.
Sddam Hussein had an army that was a state of the art in the 1950âs.
When the US invaded Iraq the second time around â Saddam had a left over of his army that could not beat even the countries around Iraq â never mind a country such as the US.
Since the US lost the Vietnam War â the US started picking a fight only with little countries to be able to project an image of power. But in Iraq the US canât handle even a few thousand insurgents armed with weapons vintage WW II.
*******
jem: One minute these third worlders are viewing our restraint as a weakness and the next minute they blame us for the deaths of civilians in Iraq.
********
SouthAmerica: The US did not use restrain in Vietnam regarding the death of civilians â the US killed over one million of them.
Do you think that if the US starts slaughtering thousands of civilians in Iraq that would project an image of US power in Iraq?
That strategy backfired in Vietnam and would backfire in Iraq as well.
*******
jem: Make up your minds.
******
Southamerica: I made my mind up a long time ago and it is reflected on my published articles.
If the US were as powerful as you guys are implying â in your delusional state of mind â then the US would have done to North Korea what they did to Saddam Hussein. The US would have given a deadline to North Korea and would have invaded that country to disarm and âLIBERATEâ the North Korean people.
The difference is that after using the UN people to go on a wild goose chase inside Iraq about WMD â during that time I am sure the US was gathering information inside Iraq â and the US knew in advance how weak the Iraqi army was and the very weak state of their entire system â The US beat a country that was on its knees and close to an economic collapse.
If beating the Iraq army inflates you ego â then go ahead an attack Haiti next â I guess the US army could show how powerful they are against them. The Haitians probably would fight the US with machetes and a little voodoo.
Even though the Soviet Union has collapsed since the early 1990âs and Russia today is a much smaller country â I am not sure how the US army would perform on a head on confrontation with this much weaker Russian army.
If the US had a war against Russia, or China (which also has a small army when compared the US army) â and were able to beat one of these countries â then the US would have proved that their army can fight a real enemy - in terms of strenght.
But as long the US is picking on little countries such as Panama, Grenada, Haiti, Somalia, Serbia, Iraq, and Afghanistan (a country that had been completely destroyed by many years of Russian occupation and a civil war) â That does not show to me that the US is powerful â that shows to me that the US can beat little guys. It is like a 25-year old built like a football player were proud because he could beat silly a 5 year old child â Big deal!!!!!
That same 25-year old football player could earn some respect by beating up someone of his own size and strength. As long he is beating 5-year old kids he is just a bully and nothing else.
The reality is the US today can't enforce its will even on starving North Korea and In the last 3 years every time the US issued a threat to North Korea regarding their nuclear weapons â The Koreans responded by saying â GET LOST.
The only thing the US government could do is claim that â the North Koreans did not really mean that â and it was just a miss-translation.
The North Koreans went back and said â that was not a miss-translation â we really mean â GET LOST.
All I can say is that you guys are delusional about your expectation regarding the US military power. The reality around the world is a lot different than you guys perceptions. The world is too big for any one country to police it - and for that matter the US can't police even a little piece of our world such as the Middle East.
.
Burtakus: The US could enforce its will on just about anyone in the world right now. The only reason we don't is that our populace in general has become way too pussified.
*******
February 13, 2006
SouthAmerica: Other than - on the countries armed with nukes including North Korea, Pakistan and so onâ¦
********
EC1: Mutual destruction CLEARLY does not apply to people that are willing to be suicide bombers.
********
SouthAmerica: suicide bombers are weapons of last resort â usually used against much powerful people.
********
jem: SA calls our destruction of Iraqs army a half day war. And uses that as support for and argument that we are weak.
*******
SouthAmerica: The US had a state of the art army with the latest toys.
Sddam Hussein had an army that was a state of the art in the 1950âs.
When the US invaded Iraq the second time around â Saddam had a left over of his army that could not beat even the countries around Iraq â never mind a country such as the US.
Since the US lost the Vietnam War â the US started picking a fight only with little countries to be able to project an image of power. But in Iraq the US canât handle even a few thousand insurgents armed with weapons vintage WW II.
*******
jem: One minute these third worlders are viewing our restraint as a weakness and the next minute they blame us for the deaths of civilians in Iraq.
********
SouthAmerica: The US did not use restrain in Vietnam regarding the death of civilians â the US killed over one million of them.
Do you think that if the US starts slaughtering thousands of civilians in Iraq that would project an image of US power in Iraq?
That strategy backfired in Vietnam and would backfire in Iraq as well.
*******
jem: Make up your minds.
******
Southamerica: I made my mind up a long time ago and it is reflected on my published articles.
If the US were as powerful as you guys are implying â in your delusional state of mind â then the US would have done to North Korea what they did to Saddam Hussein. The US would have given a deadline to North Korea and would have invaded that country to disarm and âLIBERATEâ the North Korean people.
The difference is that after using the UN people to go on a wild goose chase inside Iraq about WMD â during that time I am sure the US was gathering information inside Iraq â and the US knew in advance how weak the Iraqi army was and the very weak state of their entire system â The US beat a country that was on its knees and close to an economic collapse.
If beating the Iraq army inflates you ego â then go ahead an attack Haiti next â I guess the US army could show how powerful they are against them. The Haitians probably would fight the US with machetes and a little voodoo.
Even though the Soviet Union has collapsed since the early 1990âs and Russia today is a much smaller country â I am not sure how the US army would perform on a head on confrontation with this much weaker Russian army.
If the US had a war against Russia, or China (which also has a small army when compared the US army) â and were able to beat one of these countries â then the US would have proved that their army can fight a real enemy - in terms of strenght.
But as long the US is picking on little countries such as Panama, Grenada, Haiti, Somalia, Serbia, Iraq, and Afghanistan (a country that had been completely destroyed by many years of Russian occupation and a civil war) â That does not show to me that the US is powerful â that shows to me that the US can beat little guys. It is like a 25-year old built like a football player were proud because he could beat silly a 5 year old child â Big deal!!!!!
That same 25-year old football player could earn some respect by beating up someone of his own size and strength. As long he is beating 5-year old kids he is just a bully and nothing else.
The reality is the US today can't enforce its will even on starving North Korea and In the last 3 years every time the US issued a threat to North Korea regarding their nuclear weapons â The Koreans responded by saying â GET LOST.
The only thing the US government could do is claim that â the North Koreans did not really mean that â and it was just a miss-translation.
The North Koreans went back and said â that was not a miss-translation â we really mean â GET LOST.
All I can say is that you guys are delusional about your expectation regarding the US military power. The reality around the world is a lot different than you guys perceptions. The world is too big for any one country to police it - and for that matter the US can't police even a little piece of our world such as the Middle East.
.
"I am not sure how the US army would perform on a head on confrontation with this much weaker Russian army"
Atleast Iraq stood up for few weeks, I doubt Russian army will be able to do the same now, they are in shambles. If counting on Russia inflates your ego then go ahead and live in the illusionary world. There is no sense arguing with you and your dreamworld theories.
Atleast Iraq stood up for few weeks, I doubt Russian army will be able to do the same now, they are in shambles. If counting on Russia inflates your ego then go ahead and live in the illusionary world. There is no sense arguing with you and your dreamworld theories.
Quote from toc:
"I am not sure how the US army would perform on a head on confrontation with this much weaker Russian army"
Atleast Iraq stood up for few weeks, I doubt Russian army will be able to do the same now, they are in shambles. If counting on Russia inflates your ego then go ahead and live in the illusionary world. There is no sense arguing with you and your dreamworld theories.
Russia had 15 years to regroup, I foresee the goverment and the FSB (same thing) starting a new war against the West. After all KGB is KGB.
They are loosing satellite republics who want nothing with them (Georgia, Ukraine) while farsical elections go on in Belarus where a dictatorship is going to prevail. Belarus will change to Russian rouble in 2008 and unite with them shortly after, just in time for Russian elections with Putin being the new president.
Russian opinions of this are clear, they are ready for war. State television beams them pictures of american parents abusing Russian kids, troubles of the US economy and the Imperialistic (what a word) wars on Yugoslavia and Iraq/Iran. While the populace sits in poverty watching the newly rich strut their stuff in Kremlin.
I hope I don't have to quote this message 2 years from now, saying "I predicted it, yay!", whilst being bombarded by Muslim suicide bombers and Russian missiles.
.
Toc: "I am not sure how the US army would perform on a head on confrontation with this much weaker Russian army"
*******
February 13, 2006
SouthAmerica: The Russians are not as weak as you wish them to be.
A confrontation between the Russians and the US - means a nuclear war â and the Russians have thousands of nuclear warheads more than the US on its arsenal.
Maybe the Americans want to exchange fire against the Russians to check out which nuclear warhead is more powerful and makes the biggest Bang and also does more damage to the other country.
I donât know why do you think the US is so superior to the Russians â the Russians are supposed to have around 15,000 nuclear warheads and hydrogen bombs â when the US canât confront even North Korea with an arsenal estimated to be no more than 5 to 10 nuclear warheads â and these North Koreans nuclear warheads probably are a lot smaller than what the Russians have on their arsenal.
Besides the Russians have the capability of firing their nuclear warheads anywhere in the Globe. The Russians might even have nuclear warheads in space ready to be fired into earth.
Remember today the US space program is in shambles and the main event when the US tries to lift off one of its old shuttles â is if the shuttle will explode on its way up or on its way down â and if they manage to lift one of them into space the astronauts have to spend their time in space trying to figure out how to patch up the old thing for them to be able to return to earth.
If the US needs to send someone into space today â they need to ask the Russians for a ride on one of their spaceships.
I hope the US will never make a very stupid mistake of exchanging fire of nuclear warheads with the Russians or the Chinese for that matter.
.
Toc: "I am not sure how the US army would perform on a head on confrontation with this much weaker Russian army"
*******
February 13, 2006
SouthAmerica: The Russians are not as weak as you wish them to be.
A confrontation between the Russians and the US - means a nuclear war â and the Russians have thousands of nuclear warheads more than the US on its arsenal.
Maybe the Americans want to exchange fire against the Russians to check out which nuclear warhead is more powerful and makes the biggest Bang and also does more damage to the other country.
I donât know why do you think the US is so superior to the Russians â the Russians are supposed to have around 15,000 nuclear warheads and hydrogen bombs â when the US canât confront even North Korea with an arsenal estimated to be no more than 5 to 10 nuclear warheads â and these North Koreans nuclear warheads probably are a lot smaller than what the Russians have on their arsenal.
Besides the Russians have the capability of firing their nuclear warheads anywhere in the Globe. The Russians might even have nuclear warheads in space ready to be fired into earth.
Remember today the US space program is in shambles and the main event when the US tries to lift off one of its old shuttles â is if the shuttle will explode on its way up or on its way down â and if they manage to lift one of them into space the astronauts have to spend their time in space trying to figure out how to patch up the old thing for them to be able to return to earth.
If the US needs to send someone into space today â they need to ask the Russians for a ride on one of their spaceships.
I hope the US will never make a very stupid mistake of exchanging fire of nuclear warheads with the Russians or the Chinese for that matter.
.