Stratovarius Community

Joint US-Israeli military exercises begin
news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070611/wl_afp/mideastisraelus_070610224110

Military Plan Against Iran Is Ready
jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181228588702&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

Sen. Lieberman suggests strikes over Iran
washingtontimes.com/national/20070610-115444-9596r.htm

Iran Threatens Missile Blitz If Attacked
haaretz.com/hasen/spages/869644.html

Thats why it is so important to enjoy life these days. Live each day as if it were your last. Nobody knows what a day brings forth.
Its still a wonderful&hopeful world, but also, imperfect because humans are flawed, imperfect beings. Humans make mistakes. But love, happiness&hope are not mistakes. Share them with all you can. While you can.

The link to the second article doesn't seem to work, I'll try it again later.

Lieberman does seem to be losing it - an attack on Iran is currently the worst thing that America could do for itself and the region. Even the most optimistic military planners would not want it to happen (I can't see the second article as I've said, but I've yet to see a realistically workable plan for such an undertaking given America's commitments elsewhere).

Public support in the US for any actions would hit rock bottom, and international support would be non-existant; even America's closest ally, Britian, would not want any part of it. While a majority of the British public still do think that staying in Iraq is necessary, the vast majority would not want anything to happen in Iran. I don't have any links to polls or anything, but that is the general sentiment of the British public.

In America, it would be pure political suicide for the Republican party.

Iran promising to attack other gulf states is their usual hot air - they have nothing to gain from such actions except alienating Arab states, something they cannot afford now.

This should stir the cauldron a bit. If the Taliban&Iran are buddies/allies, this suspicion(if proven) could be used as justifiable cause to attack Iran.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190994

Deja vu?

browneyedgirl wrote:This should stir the cauldron a bit. If the Taliban&Iran are buddies/allies, this suspicion(if proven) could be used as justifiable cause to attack Iran.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190994

Deja vu?

My proposed solution is two Tomahawk cruise missiles into any Iranian air force base, or alternatively, two destroyed Iranian oil platform in the Persian Gulf, for every IED that explodes and kills US troops in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

For any AK-47's/74's, RPG-7's, SA-7's, or RPM LMG's that are found in the possession of insurgents, $25 million in Iranian assets frozen by the World Bank per major weapons cache found- in essence, the check to Russia or China bounces before they have the chance to cash it.

Another alternative would be ground and naval blockades to prevent, or at least dramatically reduce, gasoline imports. I could write a book on what could/should be done, but war with Iran is inevitable. It will happen.

Revolutionary Guards operatives caught inside of Iraqi territory should be considered as spies/saboteurs, and summarily shot, if out of military uniform, and with no military insignia.

I think that would put the brakes on Iran's interference, and not to mention chasing out all of Iran's international cheerleaders off the 50 yard line.

This just in... (Also reported by jpost.com)

UN envoy warns Mideast faces possibility of 'full-scale war'
haaretz.com/hasen/spages/870109.html

browneyedgirl wrote:This should stir the cauldron a bit. If the Taliban&Iran are buddies/allies, this suspicion(if proven) could be used as justifiable cause to attack Iran.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190994

Deja vu?

Strange. I seem to remember back when the Taleban ran Afghanistan, tensions between them and Iran were exceedingly high, with cross-border skirmishes a near daily occurrance. They are not buddies or allies, in much the same way that Osama Bin Laden despised Saddam Hussein.

Just because they're a common enemy, doesn't mean they will work together.

My proposed solution is two Tomahawk cruise missiles into any Iranian air force base, or alternatively, two destroyed Iranian oil platform in the Persian Gulf, for every IED that explodes and kills US troops in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

Of course, because every single IED in Iraq is put there by Iranian-backed forces, right?

I've pretty much lost hope. Why don't we just start taking turns on guessing on the date the shit will hit the fan.

I'm saying the 11th of October, 2007.

My proposed solution is two Tomahawk cruise missiles into any Iranian air force base, or alternatively, two destroyed Iranian oil platform in the Persian Gulf, for every IED that explodes and kills US troops in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

NeonVomit wrote:Of course, because every single IED in Iraq is put there by Iranian-backed forces, right?

Proposals of these types certainly are not without precedent; when Khrushchev was setting up his ICBM shop in Cuba (90 miles off the coast of the US),President Kennedy responded by saying that a Soviet missile attack on any country in the entire Western hemisphere would be considered as an attack against the United States, and as such, would warrant an appropriate response. Moreover, the U.S. Navy, under direct orders from the White House, placed a blockade around Cuba, and I don't recall the Red Navy attempting to challenge it.

miditek wrote:

My proposed solution is two Tomahawk cruise missiles into any Iranian air force base, or alternatively, two destroyed Iranian oil platform in the Persian Gulf, for every IED that explodes and kills US troops in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

NeonVomit wrote:Of course, because every single IED in Iraq is put there by Iranian-backed forces, right?

Proposals of these types certainly are not without precedent; when Khrushchev was setting up his ICBM shop in Cuba (90 miles off the coast of the US),President Kennedy responded by saying that a Soviet missile attack on any country in the entire Western hemisphere would be considered as an attack against the United States, and as such, would warrant an appropriate response. Moreover, the U.S. Navy, under direct orders from the White House, placed a blockade around Cuba, and I don't recall the Red Navy attempting to challenge it.

That is irrelevant. I fail to see how an IED attack by Sunni extremists for example would warrant an attack on Iran (an overwhelmingly Shia country). Sweeping generalisations were one of the things that caused this whole mess, and certainly will not help clear it up.

NeonVomit wrote:

miditek wrote:

My proposed solution is two Tomahawk cruise missiles into any Iranian air force base, or alternatively, two destroyed Iranian oil platform in the Persian Gulf, for every IED that explodes and kills US troops in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

NeonVomit wrote:Of course, because every single IED in Iraq is put there by Iranian-backed forces, right?

Proposals of these types certainly are not without precedent; when Khrushchev was setting up his ICBM shop in Cuba (90 miles off the coast of the US),President Kennedy responded by saying that a Soviet missile attack on any country in the entire Western hemisphere would be considered as an attack against the United States, and as such, would warrant an appropriate response. Moreover, the U.S. Navy, under direct orders from the White House, placed a blockade around Cuba, and I don't recall the Red Navy attempting to challenge it.

That is irrelevant. I fail to see how an IED attack by Sunni extremists for example would warrant an attack on Iran (an overwhelmingly Shia country). Sweeping generalisations were one of the things that caused this whole mess, and certainly will not help clear it up.

Irrelevant, in your opinion. The Shiites are clearly causing plenty of problems in Iraq, and their strings are being pulled by Tehran, who in turn, is a puppet of Moscow. I still remain amazed that Sadr has not been executed, and Sadr City utterly destroyed by B-52 strikes- wiped from the face of the earth, in fact. The only reason why he is still alive is due to queasiness from the administration to avoid collateral damages, as chicken shit Shiite gunmen hide amongst the civilians. Yeah, they're really brave- they know that they would be destroyed if caught out in the open.

How long can an insurgency last without logistical support and being resupplied? Sunnis are now beginning to join the army, as well as the police, and they are tired of being victimized by the Shiite death squads. So you believe that the insurgency is strictly a Sunni effort only?

Do you think that the ordnance experts in the US army don't have the training and technical expertise to identify where the newer armor-piercing IED's are coming from? Having been in the military, you should be well aware the even an insurgency must be resupplied- perhaps you'll recall the devastation of NVA supply convoys going down the Ho Chi Minh trail (via Laos and Cambodia) at the hands of the crews in AC-130 Spectre gunships. Were those merely phantom supply convoys, or did the VC simply resort to throwing rocks and sticks at US forces in South Vietnam?

So if you fail to see why Iran's interference would not warrant an attack on Iran itself, that's your opinion, and it's your own view. However, I do believe that the Pentagon's opinion is a bit different here, and Iran is going to keep pushing until we push back, and I can assure you, it's not going to be a pretty sight.

I know, you're probably going to say that we can't hit Iran since the insurgency has 150,000 of our troops pinned down and unable to move, which we both know is a crock. You always seem to speak of thugs in the most glowing of terms.

We could, in fact, wake up on any given morning in the very near future and discover that WWIII has already begun.

off-topic a bit, but remember the movie, "The Day After"? It was about WWIII which started over a seemingly trivial argue between Russia, USA&Europe.
I know, it was just a movie, but in these times we should take these matters seriously.
Hopefully all these disagreements can be resolved in a peaceful manner.

a) Iran repeatedly threatens to destroy Israel- the only true democracy in the Middle East, and a US ally

b) Iran is a known sponsor and supplier of terror groups, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda

c) Iran continues to defy UN Security Council demands (sound familar, a la Saddam?) to stop its WMD programs

d) Iran continues to supply, arm, and train insurgents that have killed Iraqi civilians as well as Allied soldiers

e) Iran is a dictatorial theocracy ruled by the mullahs that stay in power by violent suppression of the opposition

f) Iran publicly hanged a 16 year old girl who's only crime was being raped- one of many stories.

g) Ask any young Iranian where he or she would prefer to attend university- Tehran or Yale?

By the way, has anyone in Europe ever even read Mein Kampf, by chance? Would anyone there like to deny that it was more than a bit, shall we say, ummm, prophetic? Or let me draw a picture here; Ahmandinejad isn't the first megalomaniac butcher that was dismissed by European intellectuals as either "misunderstood" or a "crackpot", or "buffoon."

And at the end of the day, will this be the first regime in the history of the world that has either tormented or attempted to destroy the Jews that will somehow have a miraculously and hitherto unprecedented happy ending?

Can anyone respond intelligently to this post by actually defending Iran's well documented bad behavior without somehow blaming America?

In the eyes of Europe&criticizers the world over, the USA cannot win no matter what they do. The USA is damned if they so&damned if they don't! I mean, when a skirmish occurs somewhere, if USA stays out of it the USA is called pansies or detached, or something, for not helping fight. OTOH, if USA jumps into the fire to even save a country from a dangerous megalomaniac ruler, the USA is seen as aggressive, warmongering bullies!
WTF is going on here!
And when these countries who hate USA have problems&natural disasters, guess who they turn to?
But, usually the USA is there first to help out, even a country which despises USA.
Like miditek correctly stated, nothing the USA(or Israel) does is going to please alot of the world anyway.

And, WTF is that BS about USA being held to a higher standard? Who the HELL gave the world, especially Europe, the right to judge USA?
At least USA never allowed Hitler inside the country "out of the goodness of their heart", and then, had to clean up the mess after Hitler turned on them.

browneyedgirl wrote:In the eyes of Europe & criticizers the world over, the USA cannot win no matter what they do. The USA is damned if they so & damned if they don't!

Precisely, there are a lot of people in every country that are so obsessed with the US that they forget their country's own shortcomings and failings, and basically parrot whatever propaganda that they hear from either their college professors or left-leaning newspapers.

(Edit: One of the biggest lies that many (though not all) college professors will tell you is to question this or question that or to think for yourself, when in reality, many of them want you to do the exact opposite; those instructors want to indoctrinate, not educate, and hope that many of the weak-minded will take them at their word to think just like the professor himself. Why else would someone try to politicize a mathematics course?)

browneyedgirl wrote: I mean, when a skirmish occurs somewhere, if USA stays out of it the USA is called pansies or detached, or something, for not helping fight. OTOH, if USA jumps into the fire to even save a country from a dangerous megalomaniac ruler, the USA is seen as aggressive, warmongering bullies!

Well, let's take a look at Darfur, a typical quote is, "Why isn't the Great Satan Bush doing more to help the poor people in Darfur?" If Bush is Satan, then isn't it a bit ridiculous to expect the Devil to help prevent a genocide?

browneyedgirl wrote:WTF is going on here! And when these countries who hate USA have problems&natural disasters, guess who they turn to? But, usually the USA is there first to help out, even a country which despises USA. Like miditek correctly stated, nothing the USA (or Israel) does is going to please alot of the world anyway.

Yes, when there are really bad problems, such as the Tsunami that hit SE Asia, of course everyone is very nice to Washington then. This usually occurs when people want or need something.

browneyedgirl wrote:And, WTF is that BS about USA being held to a higher standard? Who the HELL gave the world, especially Europe, the right to judge USA? At least USA never allowed Hitler inside the country "out of the goodness of their heart", and then, had to clean up the mess after Hitler turned on them.

Not a higher standard, it's what we Americans call a double-standard. Europe has utterly no moral ground to stand on in its criticism of the US, considering that its wars, pogroms, and holocausts from history make anything that the US has done seem pale by comparison; in short their arguments are weak, and are largely without merit.

@NV claims to be disappointed with Gitmo and other prisons, while not realizing that these are spies/saboteurs/terrorists that were captured on the battlefield, out of uniform, and their plans were to terrorize both civilians in Iraq (and Afghanistan) as well as setup IED's to kill US troops. Gitmo may not be Club Med, that's for sure, but it's a far cry from Auschwitz or the Gulags- both European inventions. The prisoners are being fed kosher (or Halal) food, given Korans, etc., and then they spit and/or throw shit or piss bombs at the guards?

Just try doing that in the county jail here, and the guards would beat you within an inch of your life! Brushy Mountain State Penitentiary (maximum security lockup for the State of Tennessee) is one of the worst hellholes a person could ever have the misfortune of going to- it's ruled by the gangs, and the best that one could expect their are rapes, beatings, getting a shank stuck in your ribs, and other horrible things, and the guards there don't really care what happens. That is where the worst of the worst are sent to, and it's a far cry from Gitmo in any book.

Americans are bleeding and dying in Iraq, while the Eurotrash press and tabloids sit on the sidelines, doing little more than playing morality games, and even at times, giving comfort to our enemies via its propaganda machines. France, Germany, and particularly Russia have been the ring leaders in this tiresome game. As the old saying goes, with friends like that....

I think what breaks my heart&angers me the most are these self-righteous people worldwide who try to make USA citizens feel ashamed for being USA citizens. And, calling people arrogant just because they happen to be grateful that that were born here! What kind of haughtiness is THAT? Well, I'll say it again: I am glad I was born in USA instead of a third world country. So, sue me.

USA is not perfect&has made mistakes, of course, but what country hasn't, pray tell? And, its high time USAer's stood up&started acting like USAers instead of letting people from other countries lay a guilt trip on them. Our ancestors built this country from the ground up to make it what it is&I'll be damn if I let someone who does not even live here insult it or tear it down.

Finally, don't let these people who call us who defend USA "nationalists" fool you. Some of these people will wave their own countries flag, kiss its ground&pledge allegiance to their nation of birth.
If nationalism is a disease, I've been vaccinated.

BTW, I'm not a Bush fan but, I am a USAer&I'm NOT ashamed of that fact, if ANYONE ELSE does not like it, lump it!

One more thing, these people who will tirade against USA, then say "I have friends there&I like the lifestyle and society, bla, bla, bla...." Well, these folks are comparable to a golddigger who hates her rich hubby, his personality makes her sick YET, she loves the material things&goodies that go with being a rich guys wife.......using the guy to get all the good from him, yet despising his very existence.
Just remember, USA "haters/criticizers", our freedom of speech is what allows you to rail against us-----go try that in some of those MidEast countries you defend to the death.

browneyedgirl wrote:I think what breaks my heart&angers me the most are these self-righteous people worldwide who try to make USA citizens feel ashamed for being USA citizens. And, calling people arrogant just because they happen to be grateful that that were born here! What kind of haughtiness is THAT? Well, I'll say it again: I am glad I was born in USA instead of a third world country. So, sue me.

I could not have said it better myself, @BEG. Patriotism and nationalism are not necessarily synonymous. While we're on the subject of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, let's take a moment to examine a new monument that is currently being built to remember the 94+ million victims of that abomination touted by leftist college instructors and Che Guevara groupies worldwide: Communism-

victimsofcommunism.org

Dedicated just this week in Washington, I would say that this monument is probably unique; or in other words, I know of no other memorial of its kind anywhere else in the world, and what better home to have it in, than the Great Republic itself?

I was recently reading a true story about a small group of young Americans that were smuggling Russian-language Bibles into the former Soviet Union during the 1980's. They were continuously harassed by KGB and Interior Ministry operatives, who asked them: "Why are you breaking our laws? Religion is dead here anyway, and just where do you think that you are going now?"

The young Americans replied (in Russian!), "well, sir, we're on our way to Red Square to see your god, Lenin, and he is obviously still there in his tomb, encased in glass. We'd like to invite you to visit the tomb of our Lord, Jesus Christ, in Jerusalem. His tomb is empty, because He is not there, for He has risen." The police then (miraculously) told them to move along, and to stop causing a commotion about Jesus.

For all of the talk I've heard about the decline of the church, and how Christianity is a 2,000 year old fad that will somehow fade, it is rather interesting to note that the Orthodox church both pre-dated, as well as survived the Soviet Empire, despite the latter's most prodigious attempts to destroy the former.

Perhaps Jesus was on to something after all when he said to Peter in Matt. 16:18,

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

And it's not as if there has been a lack of trying these days from the command and control center in Hell itself. The most ruthless and efficient attacks actually occur inside the sanctuary itself, but in the end, these and all other attempts will prove to be an exercise in futility.

Saddam Hussein's former throne room is now being used as a what? That's right, a church sanctuary for Iraqi Christians! This is no joke. I do detect some doubting Thomases and skeptics, do don't take my word for it, check out this book by former Iraqi Lt. Gen (and Air Marshal) Georges Sada- he was praying in the very room that he was nearly executed in:

Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied & Survived Saddam Hussein
amazon.com/Saddams-Secrets-General-Survived-Hussein/dp/B000GYI1QU/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-4217789-1411638?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181875213&sr=8-1

browneyedgirl wrote: USA is not perfect&has made mistakes, of course, but what country hasn't, pray tell?

Judging from the news media, and not to mention the neo-Marxists that populate the far left blogosphere, it seems apparent that America is the only country (oops, other than Israel), that has ever done anything wrong in the history of the world.

browneyedgirl wrote: And, its high time USAer's stood up&started acting like USAers instead of letting people from other countries lay a guilt trip on them. Our ancestors built this country from the ground up to make it what it is&I'll be damn if I let someone who does not even live here insult it or tear it down.

I can't really speak for the left coast, but there are plenty of patriotic Americans in the heartland (Midwest), the Southwest, and even the Northeast (outside of NYC at least), and the South, well, I doubt if it's patriotism has ever been called into question. And mark my words, before January of 2009 when the current president leaves office, the America-hating (and threatening) Iranian president will most definitely find out what it's really like to have America as an enemy, and he will face the wrath of the U.S. military, and it would not surprise me in the least if Iran does not also get a good dose from the IDF as well. Bushrer will be taken out by the Pentagon, and nuclear-tipped JDAMs are very likely to be used in that engagement. This could very well set the stage for the Gog-Magog battle.

browneyedgirl wrote: Finally, don't let these people who call us who defend USA "nationalists" fool you. Some of these people will wave their own countries flag, kiss its ground&pledge allegiance to their nation of birth. If nationalism is a disease, I've been vaccinated.

"Better to die for something, than to live for nothing" - Patton There will be no equivalents to Londonistan here- it quite simply, will not be tolerated, not now, and not ever.

browneyedgirl wrote:BTW, I'm not a Bush fan but, I am a USAer&I'm NOT ashamed of that fact, if ANYONE ELSE does not like it, lump it!

Nothing wrong with that. I did not like Clinton or Carter, but it did not preclude me from loving my country and our compatriots.

browneyedgirl wrote:One more thing, these people who will tirade against USA, then say "I have friends there&I like the lifestyle and society, bla, bla, bla...." Well, these folks are comparable to a golddigger who hates her rich hubby, his personality makes her sick YET, she loves the material things&goodies that go with being a rich guys wife.......using the guy to get all the good from him, yet despising his very existence.

Or in other words, a hypocritical whore. No shortage of those in this day and age. Fair weather friend is another term that comes to mind. My motto is, "please don't call us when Putin or Zhirinovsky start to slap you around; we won't be taking calls until after the Apocalypse!"

browneyedgirl wrote:Just remember, USA "haters/criticizers", our freedom of speech is what allows you to rail against us-----go try that in some of those MidEast countries you defend to the death.

Precisely- now let's allow all the good little goths to go and put on their black clothing and eyeliner and have a peace parade through Gaza while blasting out their "black metal". We'll see how well that goes over!

miditek wrote:
Can anyone respond intelligently to this post by actually defending Iran's well documented bad behavior without somehow blaming America?

Who said anything about defending Iran's actions? You know I dislike religious fanaticism intensely, so what on earth would possibly make me like Iran's regime? What I'm saying is the best way to deal with the situation is certainly not to start another war. That rarely solves anything, really.

I mean, when a skirmish occurs somewhere, if USA stays out of it the USA is called pansies or detached, or something, for not helping fight. OTOH, if USA jumps into the fire to even save a country from a dangerous megalomaniac ruler, the USA is seen as aggressive, warmongering bullies!

You miss the point. Trying to use the excuse of 'saving a country from a megalomaniacal ruler' as a reason to start a war is hollow and empty, as I can name 10 nations off the top of my head that are in precisely such a situation yet have not even had a word of hassle from the American government. People will call America 'pansies' for not going in there purely to highlight the hypocrisy of saying the Iraq war happened in order to topple Saddam. Using that reasoning, why are we not seeing the Burmese regime being taken out? Why is Kim Jong-Il, who is undeniably completely raving mad and undeniably armed with nuclear weapons, being negotiated with?

It's just the whole 'We're there to help them out' excuse simply doesn't hold water. America acts purely in her own interests, as does every other country on earth. There's no shame in admitting it.

And you still seem to be pretty fixated on Ahmandinejad being a megalomaniacal dictator, when he's actually just a lightning rod for the regime in Iran. It's been explained that he holds no real power, that he's basically a figurehead. But you seem to like figureheads and generalisations, catchy phrases like 'Islamofascist' 'Marxist' and whatnot so naturally you like to draw parallels between him and Hitler (who did hold absolute power in Nazi Germany).

Are you suggesting that if Iran had no involvement in Iraq at all, everything would be peaceful there? The situation is far, far more complicated than that as are most things... recommending an attack on Iran for every US casualty would be singling them out as the sole instigators of such acts, when nothing could possibly be further from the truth. Other forces acting against the US would effectively be pardoned and indeed strengthened and encouraged, as Iran would take the fall for their actions.

The current 'solution' to the Iraq crisis being floated around is an immediate and complete withdrawal of US and British forces from the country, when in fact it would be the worst possible thing to do at the moment, because again the situation is not nearly that simple.

You seem to think that Iran's aims are to cause massive destruction on the Western world, and that they are driven by religious fanaticism. Once again, those are not their aims. Their aims are to increase their influence in the Middle East and Gulf region. They have politically sophisticated methods and aims, and Ahmandinejad's rhetoric is having the precise effect he desires on you and others who take him that seriously.

As for Europe's 'indifference'... aren't Britain and France permanent members of the UN Security Council? Did they not vote to impose sanctions? Not supporting a military solution to the problem is not the same as defending Iran's actions. European countries are in general very cautious about going to war, and understandibly so... when was the last major conflict on US soil? War is an unpleasant buisiness and is to be avoided as far as possible.

Unlike in the US, it is not seen as a practical or effective solution to move in with military force, unless it is a last resort.

Could the US defeat Iran in a conventional war? I don't think anyone would doubt that. Bear in mind, it would be nothing like the walkover that the last Iraq war was.

Would the American public want another war however? Ultimately, would it achieve any good, a net 'profit' if you will against the thousands upon thousands who would die in such a conflict as well as the geopolitical mess that would ensue? There would be precisely zero international support for such an undertaking, and for some reason I don't see congress being too happy about it either. I also think you'll agree that Britain's support has been invaluable in Iraq, but America would certainly not be able to expect such support in Iran.

Just to make it clear, people who blindly condemn anything and everything America does irritate me even more than those who blindly support everything it does. I have my eyes open. I challenge you to find a single line in a single post of mine that states that America achieves no good.

I guess one way to solve everything would be for USA to get permission from every other country in the world before they invade somewhere.
But, isn't that what the UN is for?

browneyedgirl wrote:I guess one way to solve everything would be for USA to get permission from every other country in the world before they invade somewhere.
But, isn't that what the UN is for?

That is what the UN is for.

But I don't believe America is a force of Good and Righteousness in the world. America looks out for Number One and acts accordingly. And can anyone blame them for that? Find a single citizen of any country in the world who would want to vote for a leader who did not have the interests of the country as their number one priority.

Everything America does, is in it's own interest. Everything any country does, is in it's own interest. America is not a crusader for justice in the world. America takes care of itself.

Let's discuss "megalamaniac" leaders for a second.
There is a redneck saying,"a barking dog never bites". Well, in the real world we all know that saying is not necessarily true.
One leader that kinda makes me nervous is Chavez of South America. AFAIK, there are no nukes involved in his country, or anything like that, but he seems to dislike(understatement)USA alot. So, he could, in a pinch, choose sides&become a real threat, rhetoric wise. Know what I mean?

browneyedgirl wrote:Let's discuss "megalamaniac" leaders for a second.
There is a redneck saying,"a barking dog never bites". Well, in the real world we all know that saying is not necessarily true.
One leader that kinda makes me nervous is Chavez of South America. AFAIK, there are no nukes involved in his country, or anything like that, but he seems to dislike(understatement)USA alot. So, he could, in a pinch, choose sides&become a real threat, rhetoric wise. Know what I mean?

Many people tend to overlook the fact that oil-rich nations heavily depend on the US and its allies. A lot. The US is their biggest customer and source of revenue. True, India and China are also getting there, but the US is still the biggest consumer of oil. If the economy of the US suffers, so does theirs. We saw a case of that in 1929, and things are just as relevant now.

Bush recently stated that America is 'addicted' to oil, and I fully agree with him. It is a serious strategic weakness that needs to be addressed.

Chavez likes to talk and make noise. He should try taking care of his own country for a change, though... he spends most of his time slagging off the US and not actually taking care of the real issues facing Venezuelans on an everyday basis.

Yes, we are addicted to "oil". Gas is the correct term!
Go, go, go&travel, thats the way of life here in USA. Its sad, but gas has overtaken Food in the budget department.

And, Chavez does give me the Creeps with his rhetoric. :nervous:

Aussie sailors repelled Iran attack, BBC says
navytimes.com/news/2007/06/navy_aussie_sailors_070622w

"They reboarded the ship they had just searched and trained their weapons on the Iranians, warning them “in colorful language” to back off. The Iranians withdrew. The Australian sailors were later extracted by helicopter, according to the story. Reuters reported that the boarding team was from the frigate Adelaide. It also reported that two Australian sailors were awarded medals after the incident."

I love good hunting stories like this.

Iran 'unable to take Australians'
'Having none of it'
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6228342.stm

Everyone gets a case of beer for that one!

I wonder what happened to those Finland guys that got captured? Never heard Part 2!

Those Aussies should've turned a Tasmanian Devil loose on those Iranians. Almost as bad as an UZI.

See, that's the way you fight wars... hurl horrendous abuse at your enemies and they'll back off [/url]

NeonVomit wrote:See, that's the way you fight wars... hurl horrendous abuse at your enemies and they'll back off [/url]

They backed off because apparently a confrontation with the Aussies turned out to be a little more than they jihadi larva bargained for. There are some new wire reports that mentioned that they are currently cleaning the shit out of their pants!

Wasn't an Al-Quaeda terror attack thwarted in London a couple days ago? I've been too busy to keep up with much news!

browneyedgirl wrote:Wasn't an Al-Quaeda terror attack thwarted in London a couple days ago? I've been too busy to keep up with much news!

I believe that there were two separate incidents; one at Heathrow, and the other at Glasgow, unless I'm mistaken.

miditek wrote:

browneyedgirl wrote:Wasn't an Al-Quaeda terror attack thwarted in London a couple days ago? I've been too busy to keep up with much news!

I believe that there were two separate incidents; one at Heathrow, and the other at Glasgow, unless I'm mistaken.

There was no attempt at Heathrow Airport. The London incidents were near Haymarket and Park Lane, in the center of the city. Heathrow airport was designed to be very difficult to attack in that manner (due to the IRA troubles in the 1970s).

I read a page today that was kinda interesting. In 2001 a group of nations formed the SCO, and now they are inviting Iran&India to join them. Once of the aims of this group is to have a united front in case USA ever decides to invade Iran.
Intersting......I hope this link works---

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... tviewedbox