# Iran will rule the ME w/o firing a single shot



## Two Thumbs

They will back Hezbolla, and Hezbolla will get elected into seats of power and do and Iran commands.

'Day of rage' as Hezbollah gains power in Lebanon 
'Day of rage' as Hezbollah takes power in Lebanon - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com


TRIPOLI, Lebanon  Hundreds of angry protesters burned tires and blocked roads across Lebanon on Tuesday after Iranian-backed Hezbollah secured the appointment of its candidate to lead the next government. 

The nomination of Najib Mikati as prime minister, endorsed by President Michel Suleiman, is seen a victory for Hezbollah, which secured the parliamentary votes needed to wrest control of the Lebanese government. 

*Hezbollah's control over the government for the first time will sound alarm bells in Washington and Israel and raise concerns in moderate Sunni Arab states. *

The protesters turned out in many cities in support of Mikati's defeated rival Saad al-Hariri, a Sunni Muslim whose government was ousted this month by Shiite Hezbollah and its allies in a dispute over the investigation of his father's assassination in 2005. 

The protests were part of a "day of anger" called by loyalists of Hariri, who is backed by Saudi Arabia and Washington, to protest against Hezbollah, funded and supported by Tehran. 

You gotta admire the way the are going about it.

The Palistinians first (a victim class), then spread into Lebanan, get elected to the point they have full control, and Irans hands are CLEAN.

Iran has a military that scares the crap outta the rest of the ME, so none of those countries will do a damn thing.


Who's next?  My money is on Jordan.  thier reliance on a tourism economy would seem to make them ripe for take over.


----------



## zzzz

Back in the day when Persia was under the influence of the US that was what we wanted from them. What is our reason for being in the area. There is only one thing we want from there and that is oil. A Muslim Middle east will still sell oil because without money they would revert to the desert nomacdic economy which existed before the oil boom. Sure they had an embargo back in the early 70's but they are more dependent on oil now than they were back then. If we packed up and left the region nothing would change as to the availabilty of oil. 

Of course the dispute with Israel may cause complications and that has always been the main point of contention between the middle eastern countries and the US. Solve that problem (if it can ever be solved) and everything else will fall into place.


----------



## Sallow

Two Thumbs said:


> They will back Hezbolla, and Hezbolla will get elected into seats of power and do and Iran commands.
> 
> 'Day of rage' as Hezbollah gains power in Lebanon
> 'Day of rage' as Hezbollah takes power in Lebanon - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com
> 
> 
> TRIPOLI, Lebanon  Hundreds of angry protesters burned tires and blocked roads across Lebanon on Tuesday after Iranian-backed Hezbollah secured the appointment of its candidate to lead the next government.
> 
> The nomination of Najib Mikati as prime minister, endorsed by President Michel Suleiman, is seen a victory for Hezbollah, which secured the parliamentary votes needed to wrest control of the Lebanese government.
> 
> *Hezbollah's control over the government for the first time will sound alarm bells in Washington and Israel and raise concerns in moderate Sunni Arab states. *
> 
> The protesters turned out in many cities in support of Mikati's defeated rival Saad al-Hariri, a Sunni Muslim whose government was ousted this month by Shiite Hezbollah and its allies in a dispute over the investigation of his father's assassination in 2005.
> 
> The protests were part of a "day of anger" called by loyalists of Hariri, who is backed by Saudi Arabia and Washington, to protest against Hezbollah, funded and supported by Tehran.
> 
> You gotta admire the way the are going about it.
> 
> The Palistinians first (a victim class), then spread into Lebanan, get elected to the point they have full control, and Irans hands are CLEAN.
> 
> Iran has a military that scares the crap outta the rest of the ME, so none of those countries will do a damn thing.
> 
> 
> Who's next?  My money is on Jordan.  thier reliance on a tourism economy would seem to make them ripe for take over.



They learned from the best..


----------



## High_Gravity

Two Thumbs said:


> They will back Hezbolla, and Hezbolla will get elected into seats of power and do and Iran commands.
> 
> 'Day of rage' as Hezbollah gains power in Lebanon
> 'Day of rage' as Hezbollah takes power in Lebanon - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com
> 
> 
> TRIPOLI, Lebanon  Hundreds of angry protesters burned tires and blocked roads across Lebanon on Tuesday after Iranian-backed Hezbollah secured the appointment of its candidate to lead the next government.
> 
> The nomination of Najib Mikati as prime minister, endorsed by President Michel Suleiman, is seen a victory for Hezbollah, which secured the parliamentary votes needed to wrest control of the Lebanese government.
> 
> *Hezbollah's control over the government for the first time will sound alarm bells in Washington and Israel and raise concerns in moderate Sunni Arab states. *
> 
> The protesters turned out in many cities in support of Mikati's defeated rival Saad al-Hariri, a Sunni Muslim whose government was ousted this month by Shiite Hezbollah and its allies in a dispute over the investigation of his father's assassination in 2005.
> 
> The protests were part of a "day of anger" called by loyalists of Hariri, who is backed by Saudi Arabia and Washington, to protest against Hezbollah, funded and supported by Tehran.
> 
> You gotta admire the way the are going about it.
> 
> The Palistinians first (a victim class), then spread into Lebanan, get elected to the point they have full control, and Irans hands are CLEAN.
> 
> Iran has a military that scares the crap outta the rest of the ME, so none of those countries will do a damn thing.
> 
> 
> Who's next?  My money is on Jordan.  thier reliance on a tourism economy would seem to make them ripe for take over.



Syria is a possibility, the Islamists don't like Bashar Assad, so they would love to see him fall. I knew Lebanon was finished as soon as they let Hezbollah into their government, Islamic groups don't want to share power they want to run the whole fucking show.


----------



## uscitizen

Get elected into power...

You have a problem with democracy?


----------



## High_Gravity

I forgot to mention Egypt.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Sallow said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> They will back Hezbolla, and Hezbolla will get elected into seats of power and do and Iran commands.
> 
> 'Day of rage' as Hezbollah gains power in Lebanon
> 'Day of rage' as Hezbollah takes power in Lebanon - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com
> 
> 
> TRIPOLI, Lebanon  Hundreds of angry protesters burned tires and blocked roads across Lebanon on Tuesday after Iranian-backed Hezbollah secured the appointment of its candidate to lead the next government.
> 
> The nomination of Najib Mikati as prime minister, endorsed by President Michel Suleiman, is seen a victory for Hezbollah, which secured the parliamentary votes needed to wrest control of the Lebanese government.
> 
> *Hezbollah's control over the government for the first time will sound alarm bells in Washington and Israel and raise concerns in moderate Sunni Arab states. *
> 
> The protesters turned out in many cities in support of Mikati's defeated rival Saad al-Hariri, a Sunni Muslim whose government was ousted this month by Shiite Hezbollah and its allies in a dispute over the investigation of his father's assassination in 2005.
> 
> The protests were part of a "day of anger" called by loyalists of Hariri, who is backed by Saudi Arabia and Washington, to protest against Hezbollah, funded and supported by Tehran.
> 
> You gotta admire the way the are going about it.
> 
> The Palistinians first (a victim class), then spread into Lebanan, get elected to the point they have full control, and Irans hands are CLEAN.
> 
> Iran has a military that scares the crap outta the rest of the ME, so none of those countries will do a damn thing.
> 
> 
> Who's next?  My money is on Jordan.  thier reliance on a tourism economy would seem to make them ripe for take over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They learned from the best..
Click to expand...


And that would be?


----------



## High_Gravity

Hezbollah, Hamas and several other Islamic groups have central offices in Syria. Not to mention numerous Iraqi insurgent groups.


----------



## PoliticalChic

zzzz said:


> Back in the day when Persia was under the influence of the US that was what we wanted from them. What is our reason for being in the area. There is only one thing we want from there and that is oil. A Muslim Middle east will still sell oil because without money they would revert to the desert nomacdic economy which existed before the oil boom. Sure they had an embargo back in the early 70's but they are more dependent on oil now than they were back then. If we packed up and left the region nothing would change as to the availabilty of oil.
> 
> Of course the dispute with Israel may cause complications and that has always been the main point of contention between the middle eastern countries and the US. Solve that problem (if it can ever be solved) and everything else will fall into place.



"Solve that problem (if it can ever be solved) ..."

Of course, they will never solve the problem....start from that premise.

Z, one regularly hears of the time "Back in the day when Persia was under the influence of the US..."
but how many know of the day when 'Persia' was under the influence of the Nazis?

The name Iran means Aryan, and was chosen to support a massive Nazi-dominated infrastructure which was ready to provide oil to the Nazis. By the early 1930s, Reza Pahlavi's close ties with Nazi Germany began worrying the Allied states.[8] Germany's modern state and economy highly impressed the Shah, and there were hundreds of Germans involved in every aspect of the state, from setting up factories to building roads, railroads and bridges.[9]  German?Iranian relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Geopolitics often means more than 'follow the money.'


----------



## uptownlivin90

They're running in democratic elections and winning. I see nothing that concerns me here.


----------



## Sallow

Two Thumbs said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> They will back Hezbolla, and Hezbolla will get elected into seats of power and do and Iran commands.
> 
> 'Day of rage' as Hezbollah gains power in Lebanon
> 'Day of rage' as Hezbollah takes power in Lebanon - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com
> 
> 
> TRIPOLI, Lebanon  Hundreds of angry protesters burned tires and blocked roads across Lebanon on Tuesday after Iranian-backed Hezbollah secured the appointment of its candidate to lead the next government.
> 
> The nomination of Najib Mikati as prime minister, endorsed by President Michel Suleiman, is seen a victory for Hezbollah, which secured the parliamentary votes needed to wrest control of the Lebanese government.
> 
> *Hezbollah's control over the government for the first time will sound alarm bells in Washington and Israel and raise concerns in moderate Sunni Arab states. *
> 
> The protesters turned out in many cities in support of Mikati's defeated rival Saad al-Hariri, a Sunni Muslim whose government was ousted this month by Shiite Hezbollah and its allies in a dispute over the investigation of his father's assassination in 2005.
> 
> The protests were part of a "day of anger" called by loyalists of Hariri, who is backed by Saudi Arabia and Washington, to protest against Hezbollah, funded and supported by Tehran.
> 
> You gotta admire the way the are going about it.
> 
> The Palistinians first (a victim class), then spread into Lebanan, get elected to the point they have full control, and Irans hands are CLEAN.
> 
> Iran has a military that scares the crap outta the rest of the ME, so none of those countries will do a damn thing.
> 
> 
> Who's next?  My money is on Jordan.  thier reliance on a tourism economy would seem to make them ripe for take over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They learned from the best..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that would be?
Click to expand...


The United States..

We've fought plenty of Proxy wars..and heck..we overthrew the elected government of Iran using spook methods.


----------



## Two Thumbs

uscitizen said:


> Get elected into power...
> 
> You have a problem with democracy?



Of course not.  Don't be silly.

But you have to admit it's a great way to run the show.

Using Democracy, something Iran only pays lip service to, they now control the Pals and Lebanon.

Israel is nearly surrounded by people fully loyal to Iran. It's only a matter of time before they start to issue ultimatums.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Sallow said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> They learned from the best..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that would be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States..
> 
> We've fought plenty of Proxy wars..and heck..we overthrew the elected government of Iran using spook methods.
Click to expand...


meh.  true

Do you think they will be able to control better than we did or will they go down in revolt, like it did for us?


----------



## Two Thumbs

High_Gravity said:


> Hezbollah, Hamas and several other Islamic groups have central offices in Syria. Not to mention numerous Iraqi insurgent groups.



Looking at the map, I need to adjust who I think is next.

Controlling the West Bank and Lebenon, the next best place would be Egypt.  That would surround Israel with Iranian puppets.

Jordon would be very helpfull but Syria isn't actually needed.


----------



## uptownlivin90

Two Thumbs said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get elected into power...
> 
> You have a problem with democracy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  Don't be silly.
> 
> But you have to admit it's a great way to run the show.
> 
> Using Democracy, something Iran only pays lip service to, they now control the Pals and Lebanon.
> 
> Israel is nearly surrounded by people fully loyal to Iran. It's only a matter of time before they start to issue ultimatums.
Click to expand...


It's an interesting situation. It puts a sour taste in the mouth of freedom, sure, but there's really nothing you can do about it. With the dollar weakened, and America's economy dwindling, Israel looks to be in even more trouble. There's a perception in the World that Israel is defenseless without the United States funneling hundreds of millions of dollars to them every year. I doubt that's the case, but our money supply is dgoing to run out soon, so Israel might be in a spot where they might have to prove themselves to be self-reliant.


----------



## zzzz

PoliticalChic said:


> zzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back in the day when Persia was under the influence of the US that was what we wanted from them. What is our reason for being in the area. There is only one thing we want from there and that is oil. A Muslim Middle east will still sell oil because without money they would revert to the desert nomacdic economy which existed before the oil boom. Sure they had an embargo back in the early 70's but they are more dependent on oil now than they were back then. If we packed up and left the region nothing would change as to the availabilty of oil.
> 
> Of course the dispute with Israel may cause complications and that has always been the main point of contention between the middle eastern countries and the US. Solve that problem (if it can ever be solved) and everything else will fall into place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Solve that problem (if it can ever be solved) ..."
> 
> Of course, they will never solve the problem....start from that premise.
> 
> Z, one regularly hears of the time "Back in the day when Persia was under the influence of the US..."
> but how many know of the day when 'Persia' was under the influence of the Nazis?
> 
> The name Iran means Aryan, and was chosen to support a massive Nazi-dominated infrastructure which was ready to provide oil to the Nazis. By the early 1930s, Reza Pahlavi's close ties with Nazi Germany began worrying the Allied states.[8] Germany's modern state and economy highly impressed the Shah, and there were hundreds of Germans involved in every aspect of the state, from setting up factories to building roads, railroads and bridges.[9]  German?Iranian relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Geopolitics often means more than 'follow the money.'
Click to expand...


And Israel was originally supported by diplomatic means and weapons by Russia. A few laters we were the backers and Russia was backing their enemies. Geopolitical relationships can be turned upside down in a minute depending on the "flavor of the day'"


----------



## High_Gravity

Two Thumbs said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hezbollah, Hamas and several other Islamic groups have central offices in Syria. Not to mention numerous Iraqi insurgent groups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at the map, I need to adjust who I think is next.
> 
> Controlling the West Bank and Lebenon, the next best place would be Egypt.  That would surround Israel with Iranian puppets.
> 
> Jordon would be very helpfull but Syria isn't actually needed.
Click to expand...


Jordan would be tough, the Jordan Intelligence are ruthless and don't fuck around.


----------



## Samson

Two Thumbs said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get elected into power...
> 
> You have a problem with democracy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  Don't be silly.
> 
> But you have to admit it's a great way to run the show.
> 
> Using Democracy, something Iran only pays lip service to, they now control the Pals and Lebanon.
> 
> Israel is nearly surrounded by people fully loyal to Iran. It's only a matter of time before they start to issue ultimatums.
Click to expand...


Like what "ultimatum?"

If any country is prepared to receive ultimatums, I'd expect Israel would be at the top of the list.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Sallow said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> They learned from the best..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that would be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States..
> 
> We've fought plenty of Proxy wars..and heck..we overthrew the elected government of Iran using spook methods.
Click to expand...


Wrong.

 Mossadegh himself was appointed prime minister by the parliament upon recommendation of the Shah himself.

Parliament did not change. Only Mossadegh, the prime minister, was deposed. He was elected by parliament (which remained after he was deposed), not by any popular vote. And constitutionally, his dismissal was arguably within the Shah's power anyways. 

"On March 15, the Majlis voted to nationalize the oil industry. In April the shah yielded to Majlis pressure and demonstrations in the streets by naming Mossadeq prime minister."
Iran - MOSSADEQ AND OIL NATIONALIZATION


"The plot, known as Operation Ajax, centered around convincing Iran's monarch to use his constitutional authority to dismiss Mossadegh from office, as he had attempted some months earlier."
Mohammed Mossadeq - Discussion and Encyclopedia Article. Who is Mohammed Mossadeq? What is Mohammed Mossadeq? Where is Mohammed Mossadeq? Definition of Mohammed Mossadeq. Meaning of Mohammed Mossadeq.


But one can always count on folks like you, Sal, to promote the 'Blame America First' perspective.

One can only marvel at your consistency, as the above information will, I am certain, have absolutely no effect on your future dissemination of misinformation.

Carry on.


----------



## Trajan

wow, just saw this. 

this was set up 3 years ago when the leb army caved and  let hezzby shut them and Beirut down over the airport smuggling issues and telecommunications networks infrastructure dust up.

Result? Hezzby owned the streets....

then the UN indictments for  the Rafik Hariri assassination...they have been sitting on it..Hezzby sent a warning  shot across their bow last month, the UN sat on it...and now Hezzby in a brilliant move looking ahead of the UN et al has preempted them by just flexing its muscle, and they caved again, they, the UN, EU and US  have been presented with a fait accompli, the indictments would be even more worthless now. 

So this certainly follows....we live a fools life, we meet a fools end.

As much as it pains me to say it; Iran, well done. They played us, along with Syria ( who has played us too) , they took advantage of every angle, between our complete ineptitude and blundering  ala the Palestinian-Jewish issues, and in the region overall, along with  craven UN and Euro leadership&#8230;.

last port of call for this ship of fools, all ashore that&#8217;s going ashore.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Samson said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get elected into power...
> 
> You have a problem with democracy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  Don't be silly.
> 
> But you have to admit it's a great way to run the show.
> 
> Using Democracy, something Iran only pays lip service to, they now control the Pals and Lebanon.
> 
> Israel is nearly surrounded by people fully loyal to Iran. It's only a matter of time before they start to issue ultimatums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ultimatums would probably go along the lines of leave the land or pay us money, leave or die, surrender to our authority, etc, etc,,,
> Like what "ultimatum?"
> 
> If any country is prepared to receive ultimatums, I'd expect Israel would be at the top of the list.
Click to expand...


One of Irans goals has been to either destroy Israel or push it into the sea. (same thing, but you get the picture)

If Iran proxy controls all of Israel flanks.  what keeps them for pushing for that ultimate goal?


----------



## PoliticalChic

zzzz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back in the day when Persia was under the influence of the US that was what we wanted from them. What is our reason for being in the area. There is only one thing we want from there and that is oil. A Muslim Middle east will still sell oil because without money they would revert to the desert nomacdic economy which existed before the oil boom. Sure they had an embargo back in the early 70's but they are more dependent on oil now than they were back then. If we packed up and left the region nothing would change as to the availabilty of oil.
> 
> Of course the dispute with Israel may cause complications and that has always been the main point of contention between the middle eastern countries and the US. Solve that problem (if it can ever be solved) and everything else will fall into place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Solve that problem (if it can ever be solved) ..."
> 
> Of course, they will never solve the problem....start from that premise.
> 
> Z, one regularly hears of the time "Back in the day when Persia was under the influence of the US..."
> but how many know of the day when 'Persia' was under the influence of the Nazis?
> 
> The name Iran means Aryan, and was chosen to support a massive Nazi-dominated infrastructure which was ready to provide oil to the Nazis. By the early 1930s, Reza Pahlavi's close ties with Nazi Germany began worrying the Allied states.[8] Germany's modern state and economy highly impressed the Shah, and there were hundreds of Germans involved in every aspect of the state, from setting up factories to building roads, railroads and bridges.[9]  German?Iranian relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Geopolitics often means more than 'follow the money.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Israel was originally supported by diplomatic means and weapons by Russia. A few laters we were the backers and Russia was backing their enemies. Geopolitical relationships can be turned upside down in a minute depending on the "flavor of the day'"
Click to expand...


Sorry that I neglected to make myself clear....the import of my note was that the inveterate hatred of the Jews by Moslems, rather than petrodollars,  is the reason that the Persians changed their name to Iran, and were working to aid the Nazi efforts...

From "Farhud," by Edwin Black:

1.	The Farhud, in this case,  means the *June 1941 Nazi-style pogrom in Baghdad *that set the stage for the devastation and expulsion of the Iraqi Jews and ultimately almost a million Jews across the Arab world. But it also means, in the larger sense, *the Nazia-Arab alliance*, the mutual attempts at genocide of the Jews.

a. When the progrom did not accomplish the extermination of Iraqs Jews, *the Arabs joined with the Iranians. *

2. Jews had lived in Iraq for some 2600 years, but *the origin of this mass Muslim movement was in 627. At that time, Mohammed, *defending Medina, judged the Jewish tribe to be guilty of aiding the Meccan attackers, and  oversaw such acts as the beheading of 900 captives of the Banu Qurayzah tribe, he watched the bodies thrown into a pit.( in his 1895 biography of Muhammad ("Mahomet and Islam", London, 1895, p. 151), which relied entirely on the original Muslim sources, the scholar Sir William Muir observed: 
"*The massacre of the Banu Coreiza *was a barbarous deed which cannot be justified by any reason of political necessity the indiscriminate slaughter of the whole tribe cannot be recognized otherwise than as an act of monstrous cruelty?")
The Legacy of Jihad [Andrew G. Bostom] - Muhammad, the Qurayza Massacre, and PBS

	a. The *extermination of the Jews of Medina represents the iconic moment in Islam, *just as the Sermon on the Mount is the iconic moment of Christianity, or the parting of the Red Sea is for the Jews. 

   b. Our *hatred for the Jews *dates from God's condemnation of them for their persecution and rejection of Isa (Jesus) and their subsequent rejection of His chosen Prophet." He added "that for a Muslim to kill a Jew, or for him to be killed by a Jew ensures him an immediate entry into Heaven and into the august presence of God Almighty." *November 23, 1937, Saudi Arabia's King Ibn Saud *told British Colonel H.R.P. Dickson. Official British document, Foreign Office File No. 371/20822 E 7201/22/31; Elie Kedourie, Islam in the Modern World, (London: Mansell, 1980), pp. 69-72.


----------



## PoliticalChic

High_Gravity said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hezbollah, Hamas and several other Islamic groups have central offices in Syria. Not to mention numerous Iraqi insurgent groups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at the map, I need to adjust who I think is next.
> 
> Controlling the West Bank and Lebenon, the next best place would be Egypt.  That would surround Israel with Iranian puppets.
> 
> Jordon would be very helpfull but Syria isn't actually needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jordan would be tough, the Jordan Intelligence are ruthless and don't fuck around.
Click to expand...


So true!  'else there would have been no Black September, and Jordan would be called Palestine.


----------



## Dr.Drock

You do have to give our government's p-r campaign a lot of credit.  Some of our closest allies in the middle east are a religious military dictatorship (King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia) and a man who admitted to having a sham election and then won by a higher percentage in the next election after that one (President Mu'barak in Egypt).  All the while preaching how important democracy is and how we want to bring it to the Middle East, yet when they have elections we don't have a hand in we freak out.


----------



## BlackAsCoal

uscitizen said:


> get elected into power...
> 
> You have a problem with democracy?



*Bingo !!!*

WE HAVE A WINNER


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Good for them. They can have it. We should dramatically scale back our presence in the Middle East. It's an insane & dangerous Hellhole. If Iran wants it,they can have it.


----------



## High_Gravity

Trajan said:


> wow, just saw this.
> 
> this was set up 3 years ago when the leb army caved and  let hezzby shut them and Beirut down over the airport smuggling issues and telecommunications networks infrastructure dust up.
> 
> Result? Hezzby owned the streets....
> 
> then the UN indictments for  the Rafik Hariri assassination...they have been sitting on it..Hezzby sent a warning  shot across their bow last month, the UN sat on it...and now Hezzby in a brilliant move looking ahead of the UN et al has preempted them by just flexing its muscle, and they caved again, they, the UN, EU and US  have been presented with a fait accompli, the indictments would be even more worthless now.
> 
> So this certainly follows....we live a fools life, we meet a fools end.
> 
> As much as it pains me to say it; Iran, well done. They played us, along with Syria ( who has played us too) , they took advantage of every angle, between our complete ineptitude and blundering  ala the Palestinian-Jewish issues, and in the region overall, along with  craven UN and Euro leadership.
> 
> last port of call for this ship of fools, all ashore thats going ashore.



You are right, but the US never had enough leverage in Lebanon to begin with. Iran always had Hezbollah and a sympathetic Shite Arab community there, I gave up on Lebanon years ago. R.I.P Lebanon


----------



## Sallow

PoliticalChic said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that would be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States..
> 
> We've fought plenty of Proxy wars..and heck..we overthrew the elected government of Iran using spook methods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Mossadegh himself was appointed prime minister by the parliament upon recommendation of the Shah himself.
> 
> Parliament did not change. Only Mossadegh, the prime minister, was deposed. He was elected by parliament (which remained after he was deposed), not by any popular vote. And constitutionally, his dismissal was arguably within the Shah's power anyways.
> 
> "On March 15, the Majlis voted to nationalize the oil industry. In April the shah yielded to Majlis pressure and demonstrations in the streets by naming Mossadeq prime minister."
> Iran - MOSSADEQ AND OIL NATIONALIZATION
> 
> 
> "The plot, known as Operation Ajax, centered around convincing Iran's monarch to use his constitutional authority to dismiss Mossadegh from office, as he had attempted some months earlier."
> Mohammed Mossadeq - Discussion and Encyclopedia Article. Who is Mohammed Mossadeq? What is Mohammed Mossadeq? Where is Mohammed Mossadeq? Definition of Mohammed Mossadeq. Meaning of Mohammed Mossadeq.
> 
> 
> But one can always count on folks like you, Sal, to promote the 'Blame America First' perspective.
> 
> One can only marvel at your consistency, as the above information will, I am certain, have absolutely no effect on your future dissemination of misinformation.
> 
> Carry on.
Click to expand...


Sorry..but Operation Ajax was outside meddling. 



> The Central Intelligence Agency pressured the weak monarch while bribing street thugs, clergy, politicians and Iranian army officers to take part in a propaganda campaign against Mosaddegh and his government.[10] At first, the coup appeared to be a failure when on the night of August 1516, Imperial Guard Colonel Nematollah Nassiri was arrested while attempting to arrest Mosaddegh. The Shah fled the country the next day. On August 19, a pro-Shah mob, paid by the CIA, marched on Mosaddegh's residence.[11] According to the CIA's declassified documents and records, some of the most feared mobsters in Teheran were hired by the CIA to stage pro-Shah riots on the 19th. Other CIA-paid men were brought into Tehran in buses and trucks, and took over the streets of the city.[12] Mosaddegh was arrested, tried and convicted of treason by the Shah's military court. On December 21, 1953, he was sentenced to three years in jail, then placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life.[13][14][15] Mosaddegh's supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed.
> 
> 1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



You seem to know very little about the spook world.


----------



## PoliticalChic

uptownlivin90 said:


> They're running in democratic elections and winning. I see nothing that concerns me here.



I believe it is a mistake, although we generally all do it, to assume that terms have an absolute meaning and do not require definition or elucidation.

Democracy is one of those terms...as it may not mean the same thing in every context.

Rather than provide it here, if you have the time and/or interest, I wrote a thread 'Free Markets and Democracy' in Economy Forum in which I gave examples of what happens when nations invest in democracy but may not be ready for it.


----------



## Two Thumbs

High_Gravity said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hezbollah, Hamas and several other Islamic groups have central offices in Syria. Not to mention numerous Iraqi insurgent groups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at the map, I need to adjust who I think is next.
> 
> Controlling the West Bank and Lebenon, the next best place would be Egypt.  That would surround Israel with Iranian puppets.
> 
> Jordon would be very helpfull but Syria isn't actually needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jordan would be tough, the Jordan Intelligence are ruthless and don't fuck around.
Click to expand...


Jordon is not needed with the West Bank.  It would be helpfull as it would shut Israel off to anything but the sea.

And the Jordon intellegence can't stop votes, unless they murder the opposition.  And that's totally unheard of over there[dripping with sarcasm]


----------



## ekrem

It's everyone's turn once in a while, so it has to be for a representative democracy. 
Words like 'takeover' don't describe the situation as they imply being deprived of a natural right for government. 
Lebanon's population also consists of Shiites, if they assemble a government, then we can say, that Lebanon's democracy has matured. 
'I rule or democracy I don't like' isn't really a democracy.


----------



## Trajan

ekrem said:


> It's everyone's turn once in a while, so it has to be for a representative democracy.
> Words like 'takeover' don't describe the situation as they imply being deprived of a natural right for government.
> Lebanon's population also consists of Shiites, if they assemble a government, then we can say, that Lebanon's democracy has matured.
> 'I rule or democracy I don't like' isn't really a democracy.





good one.


----------



## Sallow

Two Thumbs said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at the map, I need to adjust who I think is next.
> 
> Controlling the West Bank and Lebenon, the next best place would be Egypt.  That would surround Israel with Iranian puppets.
> 
> Jordon would be very helpfull but Syria isn't actually needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan would be tough, the Jordan Intelligence are ruthless and don't fuck around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jordon is not needed with the West Bank.  It would be helpfull as it would shut Israel off to anything but the sea.
> 
> And the Jordon intellegence can't stop votes, unless they murder the opposition.  And that's totally unheard of over there[dripping with sarcasm]
Click to expand...


Jordan, from what I understand (Never been there), is a pretty modern and reasonable country.


----------



## High_Gravity

Two Thumbs said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at the map, I need to adjust who I think is next.
> 
> Controlling the West Bank and Lebenon, the next best place would be Egypt.  That would surround Israel with Iranian puppets.
> 
> Jordon would be very helpfull but Syria isn't actually needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan would be tough, the Jordan Intelligence are ruthless and don't fuck around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jordon is not needed with the West Bank.  It would be helpfull as it would shut Israel off to anything but the sea.
> 
> And the Jordon intellegence can't stop votes, unless they murder the opposition.  And that's totally unheard of over there[dripping with sarcasm]
Click to expand...


Well Jordan has a King, so I don't see them having elections anytime soon.


----------



## Two Thumbs

LibocalypseNow said:


> Good for them. They can have it. We should dramatically scale back our presence in the Middle East. It's an insane & dangerous Hellhole. If Iran wants it,they can have it.



Let them go back to killing each other?

Not a bad idea


----------



## PoliticalChic

Sallow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The United States..
> 
> We've fought plenty of Proxy wars..and heck..we overthrew the elected government of Iran using spook methods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Mossadegh himself was appointed prime minister by the parliament upon recommendation of the Shah himself.
> 
> Parliament did not change. Only Mossadegh, the prime minister, was deposed. He was elected by parliament (which remained after he was deposed), not by any popular vote. And constitutionally, his dismissal was arguably within the Shah's power anyways.
> 
> "On March 15, the Majlis voted to nationalize the oil industry. In April the shah yielded to Majlis pressure and demonstrations in the streets by naming Mossadeq prime minister."
> Iran - MOSSADEQ AND OIL NATIONALIZATION
> 
> 
> "The plot, known as Operation Ajax, centered around convincing Iran's monarch to use his constitutional authority to dismiss Mossadegh from office, as he had attempted some months earlier."
> Mohammed Mossadeq - Discussion and Encyclopedia Article. Who is Mohammed Mossadeq? What is Mohammed Mossadeq? Where is Mohammed Mossadeq? Definition of Mohammed Mossadeq. Meaning of Mohammed Mossadeq.
> 
> 
> But one can always count on folks like you, Sal, to promote the 'Blame America First' perspective.
> 
> One can only marvel at your consistency, as the above information will, I am certain, have absolutely no effect on your future dissemination of misinformation.
> 
> Carry on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry..but Operation Ajax was outside meddling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Central Intelligence Agency pressured the weak monarch while bribing street thugs, clergy, politicians and Iranian army officers to take part in a propaganda campaign against Mosaddegh and his government.[10] At first, the coup appeared to be a failure when on the night of August 15&#8211;16, Imperial Guard Colonel Nematollah Nassiri was arrested while attempting to arrest Mosaddegh. The Shah fled the country the next day. On August 19, a pro-Shah mob, paid by the CIA, marched on Mosaddegh's residence.[11] According to the CIA's declassified documents and records, some of the most feared mobsters in Teheran were hired by the CIA to stage pro-Shah riots on the 19th. Other CIA-paid men were brought into Tehran in buses and trucks, and took over the streets of the city.[12] Mosaddegh was arrested, tried and convicted of treason by the Shah's military court. On December 21, 1953, he was sentenced to three years in jail, then placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life.[13][14][15] Mosaddegh's supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed.
> 
> 1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to know very little about the spook world.
Click to expand...


What I said was totally accurate.

What ever form of diplomacy used, meaning pressure short of warfare, the United States did not do as you stated, i.e. "we overthrew the elected government."

*Your statement is untrue *and you should retract it.

The only way you can support that point of view is to reduce all of the events of history to a bumper sticker.

As a side note, the *Democrat Party has made it its policy to force the United States in the direction of war, *much as they will - and, I'm sure you will- deny it.
This is the result of seeing to it that *covert opperations and the use of spy networks is curtailed...again by the Democrat Party.*

&#8220;&#8230;Congress moved in the mid-1970s to &#8220;reassert&#8221; its role in shaping American foreign policy, including the most controversial tool of that policy, *covert action.* Secrecy was seen as antithetical to the American way, and there was widespread agreement that &#8220;rogue&#8221; agencies such as the CIA were a threat to liberty. Proponents of congressional intelligence oversight *argued that openness and accountability were the cornerstone of a legitimate foreign policy,* and it was believed that Congress, due to its diversity of opinion, possessed greater wisdom than the executive branch.

*Senator Frank Church *and his allies claimed that an assertive legislative role would bring the United States &#8220;back to the genius of the Founding Fathers.&#8221; This assertion was made despite the fact that American presidents from 1789 to 1974 were given wide latitude to conduct clandestine operations they believed were in the national interest.

[A]s Henry Kissinger once observed about the Church Committee, that *it is an illusion that &#8220;tranquility can be achieved by an abstract purity of motive for which history offers no example.&#8221; *It is precisely this illusion which has prevailed in congressional circles since the heyday of *[Democrats]Frank Church and Otis Pike. *As Church himself once argued, the United States should not &#8220;fight fire with fire . . . evil with evil.&#8221;

*[Democrat]Senator Robert Torricelli of New Jersey*, who led the charge in the mid-1990s to prevent the CIA from hiring unsavory characters." 
Congressional Oversight and the Crippling of the CIA


So, friend Sally, it appears that it is you who 'seem to know very little about the spook world' and the world in general.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Two Thumbs said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for them. They can have it. We should dramatically scale back our presence in the Middle East. It's an insane & dangerous Hellhole. If Iran wants it,they can have it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let them go back to killing each other?
> 
> Not a bad idea
Click to expand...


It's this whole notion of us "letting them" do something that's the problem.  Why the assumption that we are and should be the world's hall monitor?

If 10,000 miles away they ignorantly elect leaders who kill them why should my taxdollars be the remedy?


----------



## Two Thumbs

Sallow said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan would be tough, the Jordan Intelligence are ruthless and don't fuck around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jordon is not needed with the West Bank.  It would be helpfull as it would shut Israel off to anything but the sea.
> 
> And the Jordon intellegence can't stop votes, unless they murder the opposition.  And that's totally unheard of over there[dripping with sarcasm]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jordan, from what I understand (Never been there), is a pretty modern and reasonable country.
Click to expand...


Jordon is ruled by a king that will pass on most of the power in that country to one of his sons (as H_G points out. I forgot).

But since Hezbolla is a terror org, they have no issue taking it to the streets where they can rally the poor.

But like I said, Jordon is not 'needed' to be able to put pressure on Israel.


----------



## uptownlivin90

Two Thumbs said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for them. They can have it. We should dramatically scale back our presence in the Middle East. It's an insane & dangerous Hellhole. If Iran wants it,they can have it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let them go back to killing each other?
> 
> Not a bad idea
Click to expand...


I always just wanted to build one big impenetrable wall around that whole region and just let it be. Maybe check on it every one and a while but for the most point just let them have at it. It'd cost us ALOT less as a nation.


----------



## ekrem

Trajan said:


> good one.



Based on 2009 election results, Shiites can't form a government.
If they can achieve to get support to be able to form a government with a Shiite as Prime Minister, then I don't see a problem. 
Parties in Lebanon having a problem with being ruled by a Shiite Prime Minister haven't really internalized the concept of inclusive democracy.  

The Arab dictatorships and what they think about Shiites forming a government isn't really something that should concern us. 
They are dictatorships and represent the will of USA rather then the will of their own population.
Off course, they are free to stop economical aid to Lebanon which is currently flowing to Lebanon.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Dr.Drock said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for them. They can have it. We should dramatically scale back our presence in the Middle East. It's an insane & dangerous Hellhole. If Iran wants it,they can have it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let them go back to killing each other?
> 
> Not a bad idea
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's this whole notion of us "letting them" do something that's the problem.  Why the assumption that we are and should be the world's hall monitor?
> 
> If 10,000 miles away they ignorantly elect leaders who kill them why should my taxdollars be the remedy?
Click to expand...


You wanna pull out completely, man the beaches and hope for the best.

Or kill terrorism in the womb?

I don't care one wit if they go around killing each other.  but I'm not gonna kid myself and assume when they are done that won't come here and kill us.


----------



## uptownlivin90

ekrem said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> good one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on 2009 election results, Shiites can't form a government.
> If they can achieve to get support to be able to form a government with a Shiite as Prime Minister, then I don't see a problem.
> Parties in Lebanon having a problem with being ruled by a Shiite Prime Minister haven't really internalized the concept of inclusive democracy.
> 
> The Arab dictatorships and what they think about Shiites forming a government isn't really something that should concern us.
> They are dictatorships and represent the will of USA rather then the will of their own population.
> Off course, *they are free to stop economical aid to Lebanon which is currently flowing to Lebanon*.
Click to expand...


My impenetrable wall should fix that shit in a hurry.


----------



## ekrem

uptownlivin90 said:


> My impenetrable wall should fix that shit in a hurry.



Where's your problem?


----------



## Samson

Two Thumbs said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  Don't be silly.
> 
> But you have to admit it's a great way to run the show.
> 
> Using Democracy, something Iran only pays lip service to, they now control the Pals and Lebanon.
> 
> Israel is nearly surrounded by people fully loyal to Iran. It's only a matter of time before they start to issue ultimatums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ultimatums would probably go along the lines of leave the land or pay us money, leave or die, surrender to our authority, etc, etc,,,
> Like what "ultimatum?"
> 
> If any country is prepared to receive ultimatums, I'd expect Israel would be at the top of the list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of Irans goals has been to either destroy Israel or push it into the sea. (same thing, but you get the picture)
> 
> If Iran proxy controls all of Israel flanks.  what keeps them for pushing for that ultimate goal?
Click to expand...


Well, it wouldn't be the first time anyone made the critical mistake of "pushing for that ultimate goal."

Influancing Lebanese politics via Hezbolla is a far cry from "controlling all of Israel flanks."

But let's imagine that somehow Iran would "rule the Middle East" (whatever that means), what advantage would they gain through a nuclear war?


----------



## Dr.Drock

Two Thumbs said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let them go back to killing each other?
> 
> Not a bad idea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's this whole notion of us "letting them" do something that's the problem.  Why the assumption that we are and should be the world's hall monitor?
> 
> If 10,000 miles away they ignorantly elect leaders who kill them why should my taxdollars be the remedy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wanna pull out completely, man the beaches and hope for the best.
> 
> Or kill terrorism in the womb?
> 
> I don't care one wit if they go around killing each other.  but I'm not gonna kid myself and assume when they are done that won't come here and kill us.
Click to expand...


Pulling out would greatly lower their eagerness to kill us imo.  

Killing terrorism in the womb is a nice thought in a fantasy world, much like socialism, world peace etc.

I'd rather focus on securing our borders, securing our ports, defense, enormous scale backs on troops abroad to decrease spending and taxes rather than be the expensive playground aid in the recess of the middle east.


----------



## ekrem

Apparently Hezbollah isn't regarded illegal by the constitutional authority in Lebanon who decides who can participate in elections. 
They participated in the elections, the current government collapsed and if they can form a new government, then this is the most natural thing. 
What foreign countries think isn't really important, as the Lebanese voted in the elections not the foreigners.


----------



## High_Gravity

ekrem said:


> Apparently Hezbollah isn't regarded illegal by the constitutional authority in Lebanon who decides who can participate in elections.
> They participated in the elections, the current government collapsed and if they can form a new government, then this is the most natural thing.
> What foreign countries think isn't really important, as the Lebanese voted in the elections not the foreigners.



Hahahaha we'll see what the Lebanese people think when Hezbollah goons runs through downtown Beirut and shut down those swanky night clubs and bars.


----------



## Samson

ekrem said:


> Apparently Hezbollah isn't regarded illegal by the constitutional authority in Lebanon who decides who can participate in elections.
> They participated in the elections, the current government collapsed and if they can form a new government, then this is the most natural thing.
> What foreign countries think isn't really important, as the Lebanese voted in the elections not the foreigners.



I thought the Turks had a handle on the Lebanese stituation.

WTF happened


----------



## High_Gravity

Dr.Drock said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's this whole notion of us "letting them" do something that's the problem.  Why the assumption that we are and should be the world's hall monitor?
> 
> If 10,000 miles away they ignorantly elect leaders who kill them why should my taxdollars be the remedy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wanna pull out completely, man the beaches and hope for the best.
> 
> Or kill terrorism in the womb?
> 
> I don't care one wit if they go around killing each other.  but I'm not gonna kid myself and assume when they are done that won't come here and kill us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pulling out would greatly lower their eagerness to kill us imo.
> 
> Killing terrorism is a nice thought in a fantasy world, much like socialism, world peace etc.
> 
> I'd rather focus on securing our borders, securing our ports, defense, enormous scale backs on troops abroad to decrease spending and taxes rather than be the expensive playground aid in the recess of the middle east.
Click to expand...


Huh? we were not in Iraq or Afghanistan when 9/11, Khobar towers, the USS Cole attacks or the bombings on the embassies in Africa happened. What makes you think pulling out will convince the terrorists to leave us alone?


----------



## ekrem

High_Gravity said:


> Hahahaha we'll see what the Lebanese people think when Hezbollah goons runs through downtown Beirut and shut down those swanky night clubs and bars.



Pure speculation.


----------



## High_Gravity

ekrem said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hahahaha we'll see what the Lebanese people think when Hezbollah goons runs through downtown Beirut and shut down those swanky night clubs and bars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pure speculation.
Click to expand...


Hezbollah is an Islamic organization, when they control Lebanon they are not going to tolerate scantily clad Lebanese women galavanting around Beirut.


----------



## ekrem

He has been chosen as Prime Minister
Najib Mikati - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He is Sunnite, but has backing of Shiites and others.


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Iran also controls Hamas. I suspect the Sunni Arabs will begin to openly oppose Iran's influence in the region very soon. And that's when the real trouble begins over there. I say let Iran have the Middle East though. They can have it. It's a miserable & dangerous Hellhole. We should immediately begin scaling back our presence over there. We can still buy their oil but we should immediately end our interfering in their internal affairs. We just don't have anything in common with those people other than the fact we need their oil. So scale it all back but continue to buy the oil. That's the logical way forward for us.


----------



## uptownlivin90

ekrem said:


> uptownlivin90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My impenetrable wall should fix that shit in a hurry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your problem?
Click to expand...


I'm not a fan of USAID the way it's been programed period. Personally I'm scaling back the aid we give to foreign nations to simply disaster relief funding. That means no yearly payments to ANYONE (including Israel) much less a Lebanon run by Hezbollah.

Can't afford it, and it doesn't do shit but make us look stupid anyway. Paying despots and dictators: Not a good idea.


----------



## Dr.Drock

High_Gravity said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wanna pull out completely, man the beaches and hope for the best.
> 
> Or kill terrorism in the womb?
> 
> I don't care one wit if they go around killing each other.  but I'm not gonna kid myself and assume when they are done that won't come here and kill us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pulling out would greatly lower their eagerness to kill us imo.
> 
> Killing terrorism is a nice thought in a fantasy world, much like socialism, world peace etc.
> 
> I'd rather focus on securing our borders, securing our ports, defense, enormous scale backs on troops abroad to decrease spending and taxes rather than be the expensive playground aid in the recess of the middle east.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh? we were not in Iraq or Afghanistan when 9/11, Khobar towers, the USS Cole attacks or the bombings on the embassies in Africa happened. What makes you think pulling out will convince the terrorists to leave us alone?
Click to expand...


We've been in the Middle East the entire time, they view it as the same, much like how we would react to a foreign country we weren't allied with trying to take over Canada.  We promoted the idea of empire expansion and tried to help Saddam with that exact cause, we promoted the idea radical islam to the Afghani's and Osama when they fought the soviets.

When we promote something to someone, then they use it, it's a sad way of lacking accountablility to say it's their fault especially when we have all the power.


----------



## High_Gravity

I'll tell you one thing though we need to stop all aid to Lebanon ASAP when Hezbollah takes that country over.


----------



## High_Gravity

Dr.Drock said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pulling out would greatly lower their eagerness to kill us imo.
> 
> Killing terrorism is a nice thought in a fantasy world, much like socialism, world peace etc.
> 
> I'd rather focus on securing our borders, securing our ports, defense, enormous scale backs on troops abroad to decrease spending and taxes rather than be the expensive playground aid in the recess of the middle east.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? we were not in Iraq or Afghanistan when 9/11, Khobar towers, the USS Cole attacks or the bombings on the embassies in Africa happened. What makes you think pulling out will convince the terrorists to leave us alone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've been in the Middle East the entire time, they view it as the same, much like how we would react to a foreign country we weren't allied with trying to take over Canada.  We promoted the idea of empire expansion and tried to help Saddam with that exact cause, we promoted the idea radical islam to the Afghani's and Osama when they fought the soviets.
> 
> When we promote something to someone, then they use it, it's a sad way of lacking accountablility to say it's their fault especially when we have all the power.
Click to expand...


So how far should we go to appease these people? remove the Military, shut down all US embassies and remove all American citizens from Muslim countries? that is not a reasonable request.


----------



## ekrem

LibocalypseNow said:


> Iran also controls Hamas.(...)



The ties between Hamas and Iran could only develop because there is a vacuum of Arab leadership for the Palestinian cause, the Arab governments all have become American puppets with their primary goal being 'regime survival'. 
The Arabs don't support the Palestinian cause and Fatah has become an absolute intimidated playball of the Israelis. Al Jazeera currently is  leaking 1.600 files from Fatah-led negotiations. It isn't good publicity for them as it becomes clear that Fatah has given up on main demands of the Palestinian cause, like return right of the refugees.  
The Palestine Papers - Al Jazeera English

Under these circumstances you (Hamas) take every support you get. And Iran is willing to support.


----------



## Dr.Drock

High_Gravity said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? we were not in Iraq or Afghanistan when 9/11, Khobar towers, the USS Cole attacks or the bombings on the embassies in Africa happened. What makes you think pulling out will convince the terrorists to leave us alone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've been in the Middle East the entire time, they view it as the same, much like how we would react to a foreign country we weren't allied with trying to take over Canada.  We promoted the idea of empire expansion and tried to help Saddam with that exact cause, we promoted the idea radical islam to the Afghani's and Osama when they fought the soviets.
> 
> When we promote something to someone, then they use it, it's a sad way of lacking accountablility to say it's their fault especially when we have all the power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how far should we go to appease these people? remove the Military, shut down all US embassies and remove all American citizens from Muslim countries? that is not a reasonable request.
Click to expand...


I don't view staying out of a country we have no business in as appeasing their people, I view it as doing what's in the best interest of the american people.

I'm not alone in thinking it'd be great for me and many others to receive a tax cut and a big decrease in gov't spending to get out of the middle east.  Let alone the obvious factor that essentially everything we do over there is unconstitutional.


----------



## MaggieMae

Two Thumbs said:


> They will back Hezbolla, and Hezbolla will get elected into seats of power and do and Iran commands.
> 
> 'Day of rage' as Hezbollah gains power in Lebanon
> 'Day of rage' as Hezbollah takes power in Lebanon - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com
> 
> 
> TRIPOLI, Lebanon  Hundreds of angry protesters burned tires and blocked roads across Lebanon on Tuesday after Iranian-backed Hezbollah secured the appointment of its candidate to lead the next government.
> 
> The nomination of Najib Mikati as prime minister, endorsed by President Michel Suleiman, is seen a victory for Hezbollah, which secured the parliamentary votes needed to wrest control of the Lebanese government.
> 
> *Hezbollah's control over the government for the first time will sound alarm bells in Washington and Israel and raise concerns in moderate Sunni Arab states. *
> 
> The protesters turned out in many cities in support of Mikati's defeated rival Saad al-Hariri, a Sunni Muslim whose government was ousted this month by Shiite Hezbollah and its allies in a dispute over the investigation of his father's assassination in 2005.
> 
> The protests were part of a "day of anger" called by loyalists of Hariri, who is backed by Saudi Arabia and Washington, to protest against Hezbollah, funded and supported by Tehran.
> 
> You gotta admire the way the are going about it.
> 
> The Palistinians first (a victim class), then spread into Lebanan, get elected to the point they have full control, and Irans hands are CLEAN.
> 
> Iran has a military that scares the crap outta the rest of the ME, so none of those countries will do a damn thing.
> 
> 
> Who's next?  My money is on Jordan.  thier reliance on a tourism economy would seem to make them ripe for take over.



If and when Iran becomes the ME superpower, it won't be because of Hezbollah. It will be because young people now make up two-thirds of their population, and they have become westernized. They are educated and believe in a diverse democracy, not theocracy.


----------



## High_Gravity

Dr.Drock said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've been in the Middle East the entire time, they view it as the same, much like how we would react to a foreign country we weren't allied with trying to take over Canada.  We promoted the idea of empire expansion and tried to help Saddam with that exact cause, we promoted the idea radical islam to the Afghani's and Osama when they fought the soviets.
> 
> When we promote something to someone, then they use it, it's a sad way of lacking accountablility to say it's their fault especially when we have all the power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how far should we go to appease these people? remove the Military, shut down all US embassies and remove all American citizens from Muslim countries? that is not a reasonable request.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't view staying out of a country we have no business in as appeasing their people, I view it as doing what's in the best interest of the american people.
> 
> I'm not alone in thinking it'd be great for me and many others to receive a tax cut and a big decrease in gov't spending to get out of the middle east.  Let alone the obvious factor that essentially everything we do over there is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


How is everything we do over there unconstitutional? wer never going to be able to force all the Americans to leave the Middle East, if thats what you trying to say. I think Saudi Arabia has more than 100,000 Americans living there alone as civilians.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Samson said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ultimatums would probably go along the lines of leave the land or pay us money, leave or die, surrender to our authority, etc, etc,,,
> Like what "ultimatum?"
> 
> If any country is prepared to receive ultimatums, I'd expect Israel would be at the top of the list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of Irans goals has been to either destroy Israel or push it into the sea. (same thing, but you get the picture)
> 
> If Iran proxy controls all of Israel flanks.  what keeps them for pushing for that ultimate goal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it wouldn't be the first time anyone made the critical mistake of "pushing for that ultimate goal."
> 
> Influancing Lebanese politics via Hezbolla is a far cry from "controlling all of Israel flanks."
> 
> But let's imagine that somehow Iran would "rule the Middle East" (whatever that means), what advantage would they gain through a nuclear war?
Click to expand...


They wouldn't need nuclear war.  If they politically control a country, they can stop all trade with Israel.  If they then went to war with Israel, they would act as one and not a bunch of disjointed countries.


----------



## LibocalypseNow

ekrem said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran also controls Hamas.(...)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ties between Hamas and Iran could only develop because there is a vacuum of Arab leadership for the Palestinian cause, the Arab governments all have become American puppets with their primary goal being 'regime survival'.
> The Arabs don't support the Palestinian cause and Fatah has become an absolute intimidated playball of the Israelis. Al Jazeera currently is  leaking 1.600 files from Fatah-led negotiations. It isn't good publicity for them as it becomes clear that Fatah has given up on main demands of the Palestinian cause, like return right of the refugees.
> The Palestine Papers - Al Jazeera English
> 
> Under these circumstances you (Hamas) take every support you get. And Iran is willing to support.
Click to expand...


Personally i could care less who controls Hamas. I just don't want my Government giving them any more American Tax Dollars. Cretins who routinely burn American Flags and screech "Death to America!" should not receive American Tax Dollars. Hey,say what you want about Israel,at least they pretend to like us. I can't stand the fact our Government gives Hamas & Fatah Tax Dollars. What have Hamas & Fatah ever done for American Citizens? All i've ever seen is them burning our Flag and rejoicing after 911. Our Foreign Policy is pretty messed up. Giving hard-earned American Tax Dollars to cretins who hate us is just plain criminal. I would like to see a major revolutionary overhaul of our Foreign Policy. To Hell with Hamas. What have they ever done for me?


----------



## Sallow

High_Gravity said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wanna pull out completely, man the beaches and hope for the best.
> 
> Or kill terrorism in the womb?
> 
> I don't care one wit if they go around killing each other.  but I'm not gonna kid myself and assume when they are done that won't come here and kill us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pulling out would greatly lower their eagerness to kill us imo.
> 
> Killing terrorism is a nice thought in a fantasy world, much like socialism, world peace etc.
> 
> I'd rather focus on securing our borders, securing our ports, defense, enormous scale backs on troops abroad to decrease spending and taxes rather than be the expensive playground aid in the recess of the middle east.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh? we were not in Iraq or Afghanistan when 9/11, Khobar towers, the USS Cole attacks or the bombings on the embassies in Africa happened. What makes you think pulling out will convince the terrorists to leave us alone?
Click to expand...


People in the middle east were still getting killed as a result of American actions and activity. That..and there is the whole unfettered support of Israel..no matter what they do.


----------



## High_Gravity

LibocalypseNow said:


> ekrem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran also controls Hamas.(...)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ties between Hamas and Iran could only develop because there is a vacuum of Arab leadership for the Palestinian cause, the Arab governments all have become American puppets with their primary goal being 'regime survival'.
> The Arabs don't support the Palestinian cause and Fatah has become an absolute intimidated playball of the Israelis. Al Jazeera currently is  leaking 1.600 files from Fatah-led negotiations. It isn't good publicity for them as it becomes clear that Fatah has given up on main demands of the Palestinian cause, like return right of the refugees.
> The Palestine Papers - Al Jazeera English
> 
> Under these circumstances you (Hamas) take every support you get. And Iran is willing to support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally i could care less who controls Hamas. I just don't want my Government giving them any more American Tax Dollars. Cretins who routinely burn American Flags and screech "Death to America!" should not receive American Tax Dollars. Hey,say what you want about Israel,at least they pretend to like us. I can't stand the fact our Government gives Hamas & Fatah Tax Dollars. What have Hamas & Fatah ever done for American Citizens? All i've ever seen is them burning our Flag and rejoicing after 911. Our Foreign Policy is pretty messed up. Giving hard-earned American Tax Dollars to cretins who hate us is just plain criminal. I would like to see a major revolutionary overhaul of our Foreign Policy. To Hell with Hamas. What have they ever done for me?
Click to expand...


Absofuckinglutely! America gives billions to Pakistan, Egypt, Yemen and various other Islamic countries where 95% of the people despise us. America is the only country that gives money to people who want them dead.


----------



## Samson

Two Thumbs said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of Irans goals has been to either destroy Israel or push it into the sea. (same thing, but you get the picture)
> 
> If Iran proxy controls all of Israel flanks.  what keeps them for pushing for that ultimate goal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it wouldn't be the first time anyone made the critical mistake of "pushing for that ultimate goal."
> 
> Influancing Lebanese politics via Hezbolla is a far cry from "controlling all of Israel flanks."
> 
> But let's imagine that somehow Iran would "rule the Middle East" (whatever that means), what advantage would they gain through a nuclear war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They wouldn't need nuclear war.  If they politically control a country, they can stop all trade with Israel.  If they then went to war with Israel, they would act as one and not a bunch of disjointed countries.
Click to expand...


Why?


----------



## High_Gravity

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pulling out would greatly lower their eagerness to kill us imo.
> 
> Killing terrorism is a nice thought in a fantasy world, much like socialism, world peace etc.
> 
> I'd rather focus on securing our borders, securing our ports, defense, enormous scale backs on troops abroad to decrease spending and taxes rather than be the expensive playground aid in the recess of the middle east.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? we were not in Iraq or Afghanistan when 9/11, Khobar towers, the USS Cole attacks or the bombings on the embassies in Africa happened. What makes you think pulling out will convince the terrorists to leave us alone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People in the middle east were still getting killed as a result of American actions and activity. That..and there is the whole unfettered support of Israel..no matter what they do.
Click to expand...


To be honest I know the US bombed Iraq a few times, Sudan and Afghanistan once, but I don't really remember the US doing much in the region Militarily before 9/11. All our troops were mostly in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and they werent doing that much.


----------



## Dr.Drock

High_Gravity said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how far should we go to appease these people? remove the Military, shut down all US embassies and remove all American citizens from Muslim countries? that is not a reasonable request.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't view staying out of a country we have no business in as appeasing their people, I view it as doing what's in the best interest of the american people.
> 
> I'm not alone in thinking it'd be great for me and many others to receive a tax cut and a big decrease in gov't spending to get out of the middle east.  Let alone the obvious factor that essentially everything we do over there is unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is everything we do over there unconstitutional? wer never going to be able to force all the Americans to leave the Middle East, if thats what you trying to say. I think Saudi Arabia has more than 100,000 Americans living there alone as civilians.
Click to expand...


It's not our government's responsibility to protect people living abroad.  It's our gov'ts responsiblity to do so in their territories, not when people are living under the rule of other govts.

What our government does to tax us in order to have troops occupy the middle east and build embassies is entirely unconstitutional.

We've been trying to use our muscle and $ to influence the middle east for decades and they've hated us consistently with that hate so strong they're willing to blow themselves up in order to "teach us a lesson."

I'm not going to arrogantly sit here and say I can predict the future and guarantee my plan will work.  But I will arrogantly sit here and say my common sense tells me that after decades of the same plan with the same results it's time to try something radically different.


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Yea giving American Tax Dollars to people who burn our Flag,screech "Death to America!",and rejoice over 911 really is criminal. Unfortunately the American People have no say in how this "Foreign Aid" money is spent. I mean it's only our money right? What have Hamas & Fatah ever done for American Citizens? The answer is a big ZIP. The whole Foreign Aid idea has to be re-examined and the American People need to have more say in how it's spent. They just announced they're giving Hamas another $500,000 in "Aid." It just doesn't make any sense. We need big changes.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Samson said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it wouldn't be the first time anyone made the critical mistake of "pushing for that ultimate goal."
> 
> Influancing Lebanese politics via Hezbolla is a far cry from "controlling all of Israel flanks."
> 
> But let's imagine that somehow Iran would "rule the Middle East" (whatever that means), what advantage would they gain through a nuclear war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They wouldn't need nuclear war.  If they politically control a country, they can stop all trade with Israel.  If they then went to war with Israel, they would act as one and not a bunch of disjointed countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...


Why what?

Why not nukes?  The world would gather together to exterminate them.
Why cut off trade?  To starve them out or force them to play nice.
Why would they act as one?  A single leader giving out orders looking to achieve a goal vs 5 leaders trying to do what they want to do.


----------



## Sallow

High_Gravity said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ekrem said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ties between Hamas and Iran could only develop because there is a vacuum of Arab leadership for the Palestinian cause, the Arab governments all have become American puppets with their primary goal being 'regime survival'.
> The Arabs don't support the Palestinian cause and Fatah has become an absolute intimidated playball of the Israelis. Al Jazeera currently is  leaking 1.600 files from Fatah-led negotiations. It isn't good publicity for them as it becomes clear that Fatah has given up on main demands of the Palestinian cause, like return right of the refugees.
> The Palestine Papers - Al Jazeera English
> 
> Under these circumstances you (Hamas) take every support you get. And Iran is willing to support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally i could care less who controls Hamas. I just don't want my Government giving them any more American Tax Dollars. Cretins who routinely burn American Flags and screech "Death to America!" should not receive American Tax Dollars. Hey,say what you want about Israel,at least they pretend to like us. I can't stand the fact our Government gives Hamas & Fatah Tax Dollars. What have Hamas & Fatah ever done for American Citizens? All i've ever seen is them burning our Flag and rejoicing after 911. Our Foreign Policy is pretty messed up. Giving hard-earned American Tax Dollars to cretins who hate us is just plain criminal. I would like to see a major revolutionary overhaul of our Foreign Policy. To Hell with Hamas. What have they ever done for me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absofuckinglutely! America gives billions to Pakistan, Egypt, Yemen and various other Islamic countries where 95% of the people despise us. America is the only country that gives money to people who want them dead.
Click to expand...


Just about every western nation, the Chinese, the Japanese and the Russians do exactly the same thing.


----------



## Dr.Drock

LibocalypseNow said:


> Yea giving American Tax Dollars to people who burn our Flag,screech "Death to America!",and rejoice over 911 really is criminal. Unfortunately the American People have no say in how this "Foreign Aid" money is spent. I mean it's only our money right? What have Hamas & Fatah ever done for American Citizens? The answer is a big ZIP. The whole Foreign Aid idea has to be re-examined and the American People need to have more say in how it's spent. They just announced they're giving Hamas another $500,000 in "Aid." It just doesn't make any sense. We need big changes.



Giving them money is an absolute idiotic waste I agree, however I'm more worried about the billions we've given Israel who essentially encourages the entire middle east to hate America with their foreign policy decisions (not that our own don't influence it enough).


----------



## Sallow

High_Gravity said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? we were not in Iraq or Afghanistan when 9/11, Khobar towers, the USS Cole attacks or the bombings on the embassies in Africa happened. What makes you think pulling out will convince the terrorists to leave us alone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People in the middle east were still getting killed as a result of American actions and activity. That..and there is the whole unfettered support of Israel..no matter what they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be honest I know the US bombed Iraq a few times, Sudan and Afghanistan once, but I don't really remember the US doing much in the region Militarily before 9/11. All our troops were mostly in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and they werent doing that much.
Click to expand...


The whole "Desert Storm" thing killed a crap load of Iraqis. And Clinton's embargo did in a whole lot more. Additionally we have a looong history there.

And aside from that, the Brits and other western nations practically "made" the Middle East, in that they established borders that didn't exist prior to their presence.


----------



## High_Gravity

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally i could care less who controls Hamas. I just don't want my Government giving them any more American Tax Dollars. Cretins who routinely burn American Flags and screech "Death to America!" should not receive American Tax Dollars. Hey,say what you want about Israel,at least they pretend to like us. I can't stand the fact our Government gives Hamas & Fatah Tax Dollars. What have Hamas & Fatah ever done for American Citizens? All i've ever seen is them burning our Flag and rejoicing after 911. Our Foreign Policy is pretty messed up. Giving hard-earned American Tax Dollars to cretins who hate us is just plain criminal. I would like to see a major revolutionary overhaul of our Foreign Policy. To Hell with Hamas. What have they ever done for me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absofuckinglutely! America gives billions to Pakistan, Egypt, Yemen and various other Islamic countries where 95% of the people despise us. America is the only country that gives money to people who want them dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just about every western nation, the Chinese, the Japanese and the Russians do exactly the same thing.
Click to expand...


The Chinese and Japanese give billions to Pakistan, Saudi. etc? I thought we were leading the pack in that?


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Dr.Drock said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea giving American Tax Dollars to people who burn our Flag,screech "Death to America!",and rejoice over 911 really is criminal. Unfortunately the American People have no say in how this "Foreign Aid" money is spent. I mean it's only our money right? What have Hamas & Fatah ever done for American Citizens? The answer is a big ZIP. The whole Foreign Aid idea has to be re-examined and the American People need to have more say in how it's spent. They just announced they're giving Hamas another $500,000 in "Aid." It just doesn't make any sense. We need big changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Giving them money is an absolute idiotic waste I agree, however I'm more worried about the billions we've given Israel who essentially encourages the entire middle east to hate America with their foreign policy decisions (not that our own don't influence it enough).
Click to expand...


I hear ya but at least Israel pretends to like us. Giving hard-earned American Tax Dollars to cretins who routinely burn our Flag and rejoice over 911 just seems ludicrous and even criminal. The American People need more say in how "Foreign Aid" money is spent. Another $500,000 for Hamas? For what? What a sad scam.


----------



## High_Gravity

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> People in the middle east were still getting killed as a result of American actions and activity. That..and there is the whole unfettered support of Israel..no matter what they do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest I know the US bombed Iraq a few times, Sudan and Afghanistan once, but I don't really remember the US doing much in the region Militarily before 9/11. All our troops were mostly in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and they werent doing that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole "Desert Storm" thing killed a crap load of Iraqis. And Clinton's embargo did in a whole lot more. Additionally we have a looong history there.
> 
> And aside from that, the Brits and other western nations practically "made" the Middle East, in that they established borders that didn't exist prior to their presence.
Click to expand...


Desert Storm did kill alot of Iraqis but was actually childs plays compared to the wars we have now in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus that ended in 91. Until 9/11 the US wasn't attacking anyone really in the region, just protecting Saudi and Kuwait.


----------



## Dr.Drock

LibocalypseNow said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea giving American Tax Dollars to people who burn our Flag,screech "Death to America!",and rejoice over 911 really is criminal. Unfortunately the American People have no say in how this "Foreign Aid" money is spent. I mean it's only our money right? What have Hamas & Fatah ever done for American Citizens? The answer is a big ZIP. The whole Foreign Aid idea has to be re-examined and the American People need to have more say in how it's spent. They just announced they're giving Hamas another $500,000 in "Aid." It just doesn't make any sense. We need big changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Giving them money is an absolute idiotic waste I agree, however I'm more worried about the billions we've given Israel who essentially encourages the entire middle east to hate America with their foreign policy decisions (not that our own don't influence it enough).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hear ya but at least Israel pretends to like us. Giving hard-earned American Tax Dollars to cretins who routinely burn our Flag and rejoice over 911 just seems ludicrous and even criminal. The American People need more say in how "Foreign Aid" money is spent. Another $500,000 for Hamas? For what? What a sad scam.
Click to expand...


I guess I'm more worried about the dollar figure than who it goes to.  Giving both of them money is harmful to us in the middle east as well as unconstitutional, just one dollar figure is way higher than the other.

In principle, we're in exact agreement.  Foreign aid is the opposite of fiscal conservatism.


----------



## High_Gravity

If it were up to me Hamas wouldn't get 1 red cent of our moneys.


----------



## ekrem

MaggieMae said:


> If and when Iran becomes the ME superpower, it won't be because of Hezbollah. It will be because young people now make up two-thirds of their population, and they have become westernized. They are educated and believe in a diverse democracy, not theocracy.



There won't come any democratically-elected government in any Muslim nation to power, which will sing Haleluljah on USA.
Especially in Iran after the tumults in US-Iran relations in modern times. All sanctions the USA has pushed forward has hit also the population. 
The US has lost its force of attraction for 'Joe Muslim', the period starting in 2002 has widened this loss also to non-Persians.
I was in Tebriz and I know some German-Iranians, which aren't refugees like California-Iranians, but have immigrated to Germany by classical brain-drain. 
My impression is, that the USA isn't liked that much like the Americans seem to think.

If Iran is run post-clerically in some decades, it won't abandon it's natural role to play 'big-brother' for every Shiite out of its border. 
This Shiite connection gives real power, even a secular government would board that train for the sake of power.


----------



## Sallow

High_Gravity said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest I know the US bombed Iraq a few times, Sudan and Afghanistan once, but I don't really remember the US doing much in the region Militarily before 9/11. All our troops were mostly in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and they werent doing that much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole "Desert Storm" thing killed a crap load of Iraqis. And Clinton's embargo did in a whole lot more. Additionally we have a looong history there.
> 
> And aside from that, the Brits and other western nations practically "made" the Middle East, in that they established borders that didn't exist prior to their presence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Desert Storm did kill alot of Iraqis but was actually childs plays compared to the wars we have now in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus that ended in 91. Until 9/11 the US wasn't attacking anyone really in the region, just protecting Saudi and Kuwait.
Click to expand...


Well there was the embargo and the bombings. But, okay, aside from those things, wouldn't foreign troops deployed in your homeland to protect you, make you a little angry?

That's about 70% of Bin Laden's argument.


----------



## High_Gravity

ekrem said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> If and when Iran becomes the ME superpower, it won't be because of Hezbollah. It will be because young people now make up two-thirds of their population, and they have become westernized. They are educated and believe in a diverse democracy, not theocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There won't come any democratically-elected government in any Muslim nation to power, which will sing Haleluljah on USA.
> Especially in Iran after the tumults in US-Iran relations in modern times. All sanctions the USA has pushed forward has hit also the population.
> The US has lost its force of attraction for 'Joe Muslim', the period starting in 2002 has widened this loss also to non-Persians.
> I was in Tebriz and I know some German-Iranians, which aren't refugees like California-Iranians, but have immigrated to Germany by classical brain-drain.
> My impression is, that the USA isn't liked that much like the Americans seem to think.
> 
> If Iran is run post-clerically in some decades, it won't abandon it's natural role to play 'big-brother' for every Shiite out of its border.
> This Shiite connection gives real power, even a secular government would board that train for the sake of power.
Click to expand...


California has the largest population of Iranians outside Iran, I'm not saying all Iranians love America but they certainly all don't despise it like you are implying.


----------



## High_Gravity

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole "Desert Storm" thing killed a crap load of Iraqis. And Clinton's embargo did in a whole lot more. Additionally we have a looong history there.
> 
> And aside from that, the Brits and other western nations practically "made" the Middle East, in that they established borders that didn't exist prior to their presence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desert Storm did kill alot of Iraqis but was actually childs plays compared to the wars we have now in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus that ended in 91. Until 9/11 the US wasn't attacking anyone really in the region, just protecting Saudi and Kuwait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well there was the embargo and the bombings. But, okay, aside from those things, wouldn't foreign troops deployed in your homeland to protect you, make you a little angry?
> 
> That's about 70% of Bin Laden's argument.
Click to expand...


Well those troops were there at the invitation of the Saudis, they were not occupying that country. Bin Laden is a liar who doesn't really care for the Saudis anyways, besides, our Military bases in Saudi closed after we invaded Iraq.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> People in the middle east were still getting killed as a result of American actions and activity. That..and there is the whole unfettered support of Israel..no matter what they do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest I know the US bombed Iraq a few times, Sudan and Afghanistan once, but I don't really remember the US doing much in the region Militarily before 9/11. All our troops were mostly in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and they werent doing that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole "Desert Storm" thing killed a crap load of Iraqis. And Clinton's embargo did in a whole lot more. Additionally we have a looong history there.
> 
> And aside from that, the Brits and other western nations practically "made" the Middle East, in that they established borders that didn't exist prior to their presence.
Click to expand...


Such a great point that so few people know.  That embargo under Clinton most likely killed more Iraqi's directly than the War in Iraq has.  

You'd have to almost be crazy to live in the Middle East and not hate America.


----------



## Sallow

High_Gravity said:


> ekrem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> If and when Iran becomes the ME superpower, it won't be because of Hezbollah. It will be because young people now make up two-thirds of their population, and they have become westernized. They are educated and believe in a diverse democracy, not theocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There won't come any democratically-elected government in any Muslim nation to power, which will sing Haleluljah on USA.
> Especially in Iran after the tumults in US-Iran relations in modern times. All sanctions the USA has pushed forward has hit also the population.
> The US has lost its force of attraction for 'Joe Muslim', the period starting in 2002 has widened this loss also to non-Persians.
> I was in Tebriz and I know some German-Iranians, which aren't refugees like California-Iranians, but have immigrated to Germany by classical brain-drain.
> My impression is, that the USA isn't liked that much like the Americans seem to think.
> 
> If Iran is run post-clerically in some decades, it won't abandon it's natural role to play 'big-brother' for every Shiite out of its border.
> This Shiite connection gives real power, even a secular government would board that train for the sake of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> California has the largest population of Iranians outside Iran, I'm not saying all Iranians love America but they certainly all don't despise it like you are implying.
Click to expand...


Very true. A vast majority of Iran and Iranians in general love America.


----------



## ekrem

High_Gravity said:


> California has the largest population of Iranians outside Iran, I'm not saying all Iranians love America but they certainly all don't despise it like you are implying.



How much of the California-Iranians are political refugees?
Political refugees have an agenda, it's like with Ahmed Chalabi in case of Iraq that might give the impression Americans will be welcomed with flowers.


----------



## High_Gravity

ekrem said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> California has the largest population of Iranians outside Iran, I'm not saying all Iranians love America but they certainly all don't despise it like you are implying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much of the California-Iranians are political refugees?
> Political refugees have an agenda, it's like with Ahmed Chalabi in case of Iraq that might give the impression Americans will be welcomed with flowers.
Click to expand...


I don't know and why does it matter? how are the Iranians in Germany any better than the ones in California?


----------



## High_Gravity

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ekrem said:
> 
> 
> 
> There won't come any democratically-elected government in any Muslim nation to power, which will sing Haleluljah on USA.
> Especially in Iran after the tumults in US-Iran relations in modern times. All sanctions the USA has pushed forward has hit also the population.
> The US has lost its force of attraction for 'Joe Muslim', the period starting in 2002 has widened this loss also to non-Persians.
> I was in Tebriz and I know some German-Iranians, which aren't refugees like California-Iranians, but have immigrated to Germany by classical brain-drain.
> My impression is, that the USA isn't liked that much like the Americans seem to think.
> 
> If Iran is run post-clerically in some decades, it won't abandon it's natural role to play 'big-brother' for every Shiite out of its border.
> This Shiite connection gives real power, even a secular government would board that train for the sake of power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California has the largest population of Iranians outside Iran, I'm not saying all Iranians love America but they certainly all don't despise it like you are implying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very true. A vast majority of Iran and Iranians in general love America.
Click to expand...


Every Iranian I have met has had no problems with the US and loved it here, I also love Iranian food which I enjoy when I can.


----------



## jillian

Two Thumbs said:


> They will back Hezbolla, and Hezbolla will get elected into seats of power and do and Iran commands.
> 
> 'Day of rage' as Hezbollah gains power in Lebanon
> 'Day of rage' as Hezbollah takes power in Lebanon - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com
> 
> 
> TRIPOLI, Lebanon &#8212; Hundreds of angry protesters burned tires and blocked roads across Lebanon on Tuesday after Iranian-backed Hezbollah secured the appointment of its candidate to lead the next government.
> 
> The nomination of Najib Mikati as prime minister, endorsed by President Michel Suleiman, is seen a victory for Hezbollah, which secured the parliamentary votes needed to wrest control of the Lebanese government.
> 
> *Hezbollah's control over the government for the first time will sound alarm bells in Washington and Israel and raise concerns in moderate Sunni Arab states. *
> 
> The protesters turned out in many cities in support of Mikati's defeated rival Saad al-Hariri, a Sunni Muslim whose government was ousted this month by Shiite Hezbollah and its allies in a dispute over the investigation of his father's assassination in 2005.
> 
> The protests were part of a "day of anger" called by loyalists of Hariri, who is backed by Saudi Arabia and Washington, to protest against Hezbollah, funded and supported by Tehran.
> 
> You gotta admire the way the are going about it.
> 
> The Palistinians first (a victim class), then spread into Lebanan, get elected to the point they have full control, and Irans hands are CLEAN.
> 
> Iran has a military that scares the crap outta the rest of the ME, so none of those countries will do a damn thing.
> 
> 
> Who's next?  My money is on Jordan.  thier reliance on a tourism economy would seem to make them ripe for take over.



did you notice that the lebanese citizens are not tolerating Hezbollah destroying their government?

This, from today's edition of Ha'aretz.



> Nasrallah: Hezbollah will not control next Lebanon government
> 
> 
> Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah said Tuesday that his organization will not be the leader of Lebanon's new government, despite Hezbollah's backing of the new Lebanese prime minister-designate, Najib Mikati.
> 
> "Hezbollah will not lead the next government&#8230; Najib Mikati is not a Hezbollah man," Nasrallah said in a televised address to the people of Lebanon, in a bid to try to calm the ensuing riots in the country by supporters of former Prime Minister Saad Hariri, whose government was recently toppled by Hezbollah.



Nasrallah: Hezbollah will not control next Lebanon government - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News


----------



## Two Thumbs

jillian said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> They will back Hezbolla, and Hezbolla will get elected into seats of power and do and Iran commands.
> 
> 'Day of rage' as Hezbollah gains power in Lebanon
> 'Day of rage' as Hezbollah takes power in Lebanon - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com
> 
> 
> TRIPOLI, Lebanon  Hundreds of angry protesters burned tires and blocked roads across Lebanon on Tuesday after Iranian-backed Hezbollah secured the appointment of its candidate to lead the next government.
> 
> The nomination of Najib Mikati as prime minister, endorsed by President Michel Suleiman, is seen a victory for Hezbollah, which secured the parliamentary votes needed to wrest control of the Lebanese government.
> 
> *Hezbollah's control over the government for the first time will sound alarm bells in Washington and Israel and raise concerns in moderate Sunni Arab states. *
> 
> The protesters turned out in many cities in support of Mikati's defeated rival Saad al-Hariri, a Sunni Muslim whose government was ousted this month by Shiite Hezbollah and its allies in a dispute over the investigation of his father's assassination in 2005.
> 
> The protests were part of a "day of anger" called by loyalists of Hariri, who is backed by Saudi Arabia and Washington, to protest against Hezbollah, funded and supported by Tehran.
> 
> You gotta admire the way the are going about it.
> 
> The Palistinians first (a victim class), then spread into Lebanan, get elected to the point they have full control, and Irans hands are CLEAN.
> 
> Iran has a military that scares the crap outta the rest of the ME, so none of those countries will do a damn thing.
> 
> 
> Who's next?  My money is on Jordan.  thier reliance on a tourism economy would seem to make them ripe for take over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> did you notice that the lebanese citizens are not tolerating Hezbollah destroying their government?
> 
> This, from today's edition of Ha'aretz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nasrallah: Hezbollah will not control next Lebanon government
> 
> 
> Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah said Tuesday that his organization will not be the leader of Lebanon's new government, despite Hezbollah's backing of the new Lebanese prime minister-designate, Najib Mikati.
> 
> "Hezbollah will not lead the next government Najib Mikati is not a Hezbollah man," Nasrallah said in a televised address to the people of Lebanon, in a bid to try to calm the ensuing riots in the country by supporters of former Prime Minister Saad Hariri, whose government was recently toppled by Hezbollah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nasrallah: Hezbollah will not control next Lebanon government - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
Click to expand...


I knew the sunnis had taken to the streets to riot.

But your info is new.

Wonder if it's true or lip service to calm the rioters?


----------



## High_Gravity

Hezbollah is going to take over that country, nothing they can do about it.


----------



## Sallow

High_Gravity said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Desert Storm did kill alot of Iraqis but was actually childs plays compared to the wars we have now in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus that ended in 91. Until 9/11 the US wasn't attacking anyone really in the region, just protecting Saudi and Kuwait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well there was the embargo and the bombings. But, okay, aside from those things, wouldn't foreign troops deployed in your homeland to protect you, make you a little angry?
> 
> That's about 70% of Bin Laden's argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well those troops were there at the invitation of the Saudis, they were not occupying that country. Bin Laden is a liar who doesn't really care for the Saudis anyways, besides, our Military bases in Saudi closed after we invaded Iraq.
Click to expand...


That's basically not the point. In addition to waging a conventional war, we are waging an ideological one as well. And if we don't understand the argument of our enemies we will never quite understand what steps to take to invalidate them.

Terrorist groups don't suddenly disappear because they all get killed (well usually), they disappear because they are no longer needed.


----------



## ekrem

High_Gravity said:


> I don't know and why does it matter? how are the Iranians in Germany any better than the ones in California?



German-Iranians still travel to Iran in holiday, these are no refugees and still have a connection to Iran. 
Political refugees don't travel or don't have the option to travel into Iran, how can they get an impression from what's happening inside Iran?

A Turk living in USA very likely will also love America, just like Iranians living in USA. 
But, that doesn't mean, that they represent the so-called zeitgeist of their brethren at home. 
Plus, Iranians in Iran have to cope with US driven sanctions.


----------



## LibocalypseNow

The Sunni Arabs are going to begin opposing Iran in the near future. And that's when all Hell really breaks loose over there. We haven't seen anything yet. The Sunni Arabs are very nervous about Iran. Iran currently controls Hezbollah & Hamas. They can wreak havoc if they want to. Look for a very dangerous Sunni Arab/Iran confrontation at some point.


----------



## Trajan

ekrem said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> good one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on 2009 election results, Shiites can't form a government.
> If they can achieve to get support to be able to form a government with a Shiite as Prime Minister, then I don't see a problem.
> Parties in Lebanon having a problem with being ruled by a Shiite Prime Minister haven't really internalized the concept of inclusive democracy.
> 
> The Arab dictatorships and what they think about Shiites forming a government isn't really something that should concern us.
> They are dictatorships and represent the will of USA rather then the will of their own population.
> Off course, they are free to stop economical aid to Lebanon which is currently flowing to Lebanon.
Click to expand...


uhm what? what does this  have to do with arab dictatorships? taif? remember?

does anyone here know who the Lebanese gov. is organized ...and why? 

the agreement is a sunni gets the prime minister spot, the shiite  speaker of the parliament is  Christians get the presidency.....this is a major change up.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Trajan said:


> ekrem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> good one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on 2009 election results, Shiites can't form a government.
> If they can achieve to get support to be able to form a government with a Shiite as Prime Minister, then I don't see a problem.
> Parties in Lebanon having a problem with being ruled by a Shiite Prime Minister haven't really internalized the concept of inclusive democracy.
> 
> The Arab dictatorships and what they think about Shiites forming a government isn't really something that should concern us.
> They are dictatorships and represent the will of USA rather then the will of their own population.
> Off course, they are free to stop economical aid to Lebanon which is currently flowing to Lebanon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> uhm what? what does this  have to do with arab dictatorships? taif? remember?
> 
> does anyone here know who the Lebanese gov. is organized ...and why?
> 
> the agreement is a sunni gets the prime minister spot, the shiite  speaker of the parliament is  Christians get the presidency.....this is a major change up.
Click to expand...


crazy

Thank the Founders for putting religion outside of politics.

Can you imagine spreading control around to the different religions here?


----------



## LibocalypseNow

The Iranian puppets are rapidly growing in power & influence. Hamas,Hezbollah,and Al Sadr in Iraq will cause terrible problems in the Middle East. It's just inevitable in my opinion. Don't count on the Sunni Arabs to stay quiet on this. Big big problems are coming to the Middle East.


----------



## ekrem

Sallow said:


> Very true. A vast majority of Iran and Iranians in general love America.



How do you know? Did you have any contacts with Iranians not living in USA?


----------



## High_Gravity

ekrem said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know and why does it matter? how are the Iranians in Germany any better than the ones in California?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> German-Iranians still travel to Iran in holiday, these are no refugees and still have a connection to Iran.
> Political refugees don't travel or don't have the option to travel into Iran, how can they get an impression from what's happening inside Iran?
> 
> A Turk living in USA very likely will also love America, just like Iranians living in USA.
> But, that doesn't mean, that they represent the so-called zeitgeist of their brethren at home.
> Plus, Iranians in Iran have to cope with US driven sanctions.
Click to expand...


So the Iranians living in Germany are not refugees? the only difference I see between them and the Iranians living here are what you said, Iranians can travel easily between Germany and Iran but encounter problems coming from the US because of the relations between the countries. Plus I wouldn't say all Iranians living in the US don't have a connection to Iran, many of them still go to Iran to visit family regardless of the risks and they have family there, so I think they do know whats going on.


----------



## High_Gravity

ekrem said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very true. A vast majority of Iran and Iranians in general love America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know? Did you have any contacts with Iranians not living in USA?
Click to expand...


I met many Iranians in Kuwait when I was there, and they all wanted to come to the US.


----------



## jillian

Two Thumbs said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> They will back Hezbolla, and Hezbolla will get elected into seats of power and do and Iran commands.
> 
> 'Day of rage' as Hezbollah gains power in Lebanon
> 'Day of rage' as Hezbollah takes power in Lebanon - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com
> 
> 
> TRIPOLI, Lebanon &#8212; Hundreds of angry protesters burned tires and blocked roads across Lebanon on Tuesday after Iranian-backed Hezbollah secured the appointment of its candidate to lead the next government.
> 
> The nomination of Najib Mikati as prime minister, endorsed by President Michel Suleiman, is seen a victory for Hezbollah, which secured the parliamentary votes needed to wrest control of the Lebanese government.
> 
> *Hezbollah's control over the government for the first time will sound alarm bells in Washington and Israel and raise concerns in moderate Sunni Arab states. *
> 
> The protesters turned out in many cities in support of Mikati's defeated rival Saad al-Hariri, a Sunni Muslim whose government was ousted this month by Shiite Hezbollah and its allies in a dispute over the investigation of his father's assassination in 2005.
> 
> The protests were part of a "day of anger" called by loyalists of Hariri, who is backed by Saudi Arabia and Washington, to protest against Hezbollah, funded and supported by Tehran.
> 
> You gotta admire the way the are going about it.
> 
> The Palistinians first (a victim class), then spread into Lebanan, get elected to the point they have full control, and Irans hands are CLEAN.
> 
> Iran has a military that scares the crap outta the rest of the ME, so none of those countries will do a damn thing.
> 
> 
> Who's next?  My money is on Jordan.  thier reliance on a tourism economy would seem to make them ripe for take over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> did you notice that the lebanese citizens are not tolerating Hezbollah destroying their government?
> 
> This, from today's edition of Ha'aretz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nasrallah: Hezbollah will not control next Lebanon government
> 
> 
> Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah said Tuesday that his organization will not be the leader of Lebanon's new government, despite Hezbollah's backing of the new Lebanese prime minister-designate, Najib Mikati.
> 
> "Hezbollah will not lead the next government&#8230; Najib Mikati is not a Hezbollah man," Nasrallah said in a televised address to the people of Lebanon, in a bid to try to calm the ensuing riots in the country by supporters of former Prime Minister Saad Hariri, whose government was recently toppled by Hezbollah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nasrallah: Hezbollah will not control next Lebanon government - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I knew the sunnis had taken to the streets to riot.
> 
> But your info is new.
> 
> Wonder if it's true or lip service to calm the rioters?
Click to expand...


that was from yesterday's israeli paper, ha'aretz. they're pretty good with info. what happens with the uprising remains to be seen.

this is today's from the jerusalem post

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=205167


----------



## High_Gravity

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well there was the embargo and the bombings. But, okay, aside from those things, wouldn't foreign troops deployed in your homeland to protect you, make you a little angry?
> 
> That's about 70% of Bin Laden's argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well those troops were there at the invitation of the Saudis, they were not occupying that country. Bin Laden is a liar who doesn't really care for the Saudis anyways, besides, our Military bases in Saudi closed after we invaded Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's basically not the point. In addition to waging a conventional war, we are waging an ideological one as well. *And if we don't understand the argument of our enemies we will never quite understand what steps to take to invalidate them.*
> Terrorist groups don't suddenly disappear because they all get killed (well usually), they disappear because they are no longer needed.
Click to expand...



You are correct.


----------



## ekrem

High_Gravity said:


> ekrem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very true. A vast majority of Iran and Iranians in general love America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know? Did you have any contacts with Iranians not living in USA?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I met many Iranians in Kuwait when I was there, and they all wanted to come to the US.
Click to expand...


The question was directed towards Sallow. I don't ask you questions, because I have the conviction, that you have no clue about Middle-East anyway. 
Don't take it personal.


----------



## High_Gravity

ekrem said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ekrem said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know? Did you have any contacts with Iranians not living in USA?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I met many Iranians in Kuwait when I was there, and they all wanted to come to the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question was directed towards Sallow. I don't ask you questions, because I have the conviction, that you have no clue about Middle-East anyway.
> Don't take it personal.
Click to expand...


Hahahahaha what the fuck ever man, I have been to the Middle East several times and several of my friends are from there, your just talking shit because we disagree on some issues, grow up child.


----------



## Two Thumbs

jillian said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> did you notice that the lebanese citizens are not tolerating Hezbollah destroying their government?
> 
> This, from today's edition of Ha'aretz.
> 
> 
> 
> Nasrallah: Hezbollah will not control next Lebanon government - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew the sunnis had taken to the streets to riot.
> 
> But your info is new.
> 
> Wonder if it's true or lip service to calm the rioters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that was from yesterday's israeli paper, ha'aretz. they're pretty good with info. what happens with the uprising remains to be seen.
> 
> this is today's from the jerusalem post
> 
> Hizbullah candidate Mikati to form new Lebanese gov't
Click to expand...


That makes me very confused.

Is hezbulla running the show or not?

It does seem they gained some power, but all that is very confusing.

I did notice they blamed America and Israel for inciting the riots.


----------



## Two Thumbs

ekrem said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ekrem said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know? Did you have any contacts with Iranians not living in USA?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I met many Iranians in Kuwait when I was there, and they all wanted to come to the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question was directed towards Sallow. I don't ask you questions, because I have the conviction, that you have no clue about Middle-East anyway.
> Don't take it personal.
Click to expand...


This is a public forum where any posting can be responded to by anyone.

If you have issues with that the "sour grapes" forum is that way ------>


----------



## jillian

Two Thumbs said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew the sunnis had taken to the streets to riot.
> 
> But your info is new.
> 
> Wonder if it's true or lip service to calm the rioters?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that was from yesterday's israeli paper, ha'aretz. they're pretty good with info. what happens with the uprising remains to be seen.
> 
> this is today's from the jerusalem post
> 
> Hizbullah candidate Mikati to form new Lebanese gov't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes me very confused.
> 
> Is hezbulla running the show or not?
> 
> It does seem they gained some power, but all that is very confusing.
> 
> I did notice they blamed America and Israel for inciting the riots.
Click to expand...


i thought the jpost article a bit confusing, too. it looks to me as if there is a compromise candidate. but maybe someone closer to the situation can elaborate.

you expected them *not* to blame america???


----------



## ekrem

Two Thumbs said:


> This is a public forum where any posting can be responded to by anyone.
> 
> If you have issues with that the "sour grapes" forum is that way ------>



I asked a question to Sallow. 
High_Gravity responded to that question. I explained to High_Gravity, why I don't ask questions from him. 

Just like anyone can respond to other member's posts in a forum, anyone can have perceptions on other members based on their past discussion-profile. 
That discussion-profile leads me to the conviction, that High_Gravity has no clue when it comes to Middle-East.

Where's your problem? You are not the person to tell me whom I shall take serious.


----------



## Two Thumbs

jillian said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> that was from yesterday's israeli paper, ha'aretz. they're pretty good with info. what happens with the uprising remains to be seen.
> 
> this is today's from the jerusalem post
> 
> Hizbullah candidate Mikati to form new Lebanese gov't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes me very confused.
> 
> Is hezbulla running the show or not?
> 
> It does seem they gained some power, but all that is very confusing.
> 
> I did notice they blamed America and Israel for inciting the riots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i thought the jpost article a bit confusing, too. it looks to me as if there is a compromise candidate. but maybe someone closer to the situation can elaborate.
> 
> you expected them *not* to blame america???
Click to expand...


Well, yes.  To be honest I don't know how much influence they think we have.  Lets be honest, if we could get the Sunnis to riot in the streets, we coulda put a puppet in charge of each country there by now.

Blaming the Jews is like the sun coming up everyday.  Not a real shocker.  Not after the Mossad trained attack sharks, Pig guts in pepsi, and arresting a vulture that had and Israel college tag on its claw for spying.


----------



## Ropey

Two Thumbs said:


> Blaming the Jews is like the sun coming up everyday.  Not a real shocker.  Not after the Mossad trained attack sharks, Pig guts in pepsi, and arresting a vulture that had and Israel college tag on its claw for spying.



Curses, foiled again...


----------



## High_Gravity

ekrem said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a public forum where any posting can be responded to by anyone.
> 
> If you have issues with that the "sour grapes" forum is that way ------>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked a question to Sallow.
> High_Gravity responded to that question. I explained to High_Gravity, why I don't ask questions from him.
> 
> Just like anyone can respond to other member's posts in a forum, anyone can have perceptions on other members based on their past discussion-profile.
> That discussion-profile leads me to the conviction, that High_Gravity has no clue when it comes to Middle-East.
> 
> Where's your problem? You are not the person to tell me whom I shall take serious.
Click to expand...



You are the one who has "no clue" idiot, I have forgotten more about the Middle East than you know.


----------



## rhodescholar

uptownlivin90 said:


> They're running in democratic elections and winning. I see nothing that concerns me here.



So did the Nazi party in 1933...

Islamist elections = one man, one vote, one time.


----------



## Sallow

ekrem said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very true. A vast majority of Iran and Iranians in general love America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know? Did you have any contacts with Iranians not living in USA?
Click to expand...


I travel a great deal. So yes..I bump into Iranian nationals from time to time. In addition a friend of mine traveled to Tehran not to long ago. He met nothing but friendly and very warm people.


----------



## rhodescholar

ekrem said:


> It's everyone's turn once in a while, so it has to be for a representative democracy.
> Words like 'takeover' don't describe the situation as they imply being deprived of a natural right for government.
> Lebanon's population also consists of Shiites, if they assemble a government, then we can say, that Lebanon's democracy has matured.
> 'I rule or democracy I don't like' isn't really a democracy.



1st, only 1/3 of lebanon is shiite, so any rule by them wold be tyranny.

2nd, democracy is not one party having its onw private army, killing its citizens like PMs and journalists at will, and being wholly funded by illegal drugs and a foreign country using it as a proxy army.

That is as far from "democracy" as humanly possible.


----------



## rhodescholar

uptownlivin90 said:


> I always just wanted to build one big impenetrable wall around that whole region and just let it be. Maybe check on it every one and a while but for the most point just let them have at it. It'd cost us ALOT less as a nation.



This would work if so many of our allies were not dependent on middle east oil.  Remember how in WW2, Japan fought the US in part to have unfettered access to ME oil.


----------



## rhodescholar

Two Thumbs said:


> You wanna pull out completely, man the beaches and hope for the best. Or kill terrorism in the womb?  I don't care one wit if they go around killing each other.  but I'm not gonna kid myself and assume when they are done that won't come here and kill us.



We tried the isolationist method between WW1 and WW2, how'd that work out?

Anyone who thinks the muslim filth will stop their global conquest after they achieve the ME is clueless; they will spread like they did in the early Middle Ages across the planet, until war is needed to push them back. 

And given that likely scenario, I'd rather keep them oppressed and holed up in their own countries, and fight them on their turf - than in Europe or the US.


----------



## rhodescholar

ekrem said:


> Apparently Hezbollah isn't regarded illegal by the constitutional authority in Lebanon who decides who can participate in elections.  They participated in the elections, the current government collapsed and if they can form a new government, then this is the most natural thing.  What foreign countries think isn't really important, as the Lebanese voted in the elections not the foreigners.



Hilarious how morons like this try to defend islamic terrorists as "indigenous" while ignoring the fact that iran is arming and funding this terrorist group.  Of course the government allowed them in, they had a knife to the throat of the other parties, and used it in 2008.

Or in your twisted mental state, only other nations than the US like iran are allowed to interfere and arm/fund one side?


----------



## rdean

Uhh, Iran is mostly Shiite.  Not so for the rest of the Middle East.


----------



## rhodescholar

Sallow said:


> Well there was the embargo and the bombings. But, okay, aside from those things, wouldn't foreign troops deployed in your homeland to protect you, make you a little angry?  That's about 70% of Bin Laden's argument.



Foreign troops, like israel, is a fig leaf.  I don't see Germans, Japanese (some, a minority), South Koreans, etc. complaining about the US military bases there.

In fact, in Germany they keep advocating to extend the leases there, as its brings money to their areas.

Only those clueless to the world - or with an agenda - buy into the muslim filth's nonsense/justifications for violence and murder, and the hezbollah trash's complaints are amongst the most hilariously nonensical justifications for endless war.


----------



## rhodescholar

Sallow said:


> Terrorist groups don't suddenly disappear because they all get killed (well usually), they disappear because they are no longer needed.



Guess you never heard of the Tamil tigers?

Until the West and other targeted nations (see Russia airport bombing yesterday) decides they have had enough, and decide to take the necessary fierce actions to stop them, the terrorist groups will continue.


----------



## elvis

rhodescholar said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorist groups don't suddenly disappear because they all get killed (well usually), they disappear because they are no longer needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you never heard of the Tamil tigers?
> 
> Until the West and other targeted nations (see Russia airport bombing yesterday) decides they have had enough, and decide to take the necessary fierce actions to stop them, the terrorist groups will continue.
Click to expand...


tamil tigers?  Sri Lanka, right?


----------



## Ropey

elvis said:


> tamil tigers?  Sri Lanka, right?



Yes, I believe that they are the standard to follow with regards to terrorism used to gain political ends.


----------



## Dr.Drock

rhodescholar said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wanna pull out completely, man the beaches and hope for the best. Or kill terrorism in the womb?  I don't care one wit if they go around killing each other.  but I'm not gonna kid myself and assume when they are done that won't come here and kill us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We tried the isolationist method between WW1 and WW2, how'd that work out?
> 
> Anyone who thinks the muslim filth will stop their global conquest after they achieve the ME is clueless; they will spread like they did in the early Middle Ages across the planet, until war is needed to push them back.
> 
> And given that likely scenario, I'd rather keep them oppressed and holed up in their own countries, and fight them on their turf - than in Europe or the US.
Click to expand...


The mistake we made between world war 1 and 2 was interfering with free market capitalism, we don't start idiotic trade embargos and pearl harbor never happens.

Terrorists want nothing more than for us to be over there, makes recruiting more terrorists soooo much easier and takes far fewer resources to kill americans.


----------



## rhodescholar

Dr.Drock said:


> Terrorists want nothing more than for us to be over there, makes recruiting more terrorists soooo much easier and takes far fewer resources to kill americans.



Its hard to believe that there are still people this clueless... 

To the terrorist muslim filth, what we DO is irrelevent, they will simply manufacture some "grievance" to justify their violence and claims.  

Look at hezbollah and israel; israel left Lebanon - and the UN certified its exit - ELEVEN YEARS ago - but the hez filth still demands that israel exit some tiny farm "or there will be hell on earth and endless _ war_"...  It is our EXISTENCE that the islamic filth cannot tolerate, and they will never, ever, ever stop trying to fight the West until it is subjugated, and eventually destroyed/eliminated.

It is humorous how you mention WW2, yet fail to mention Hitler's endless demands of the West: "give me the Sudetenland, and I will leave you alone..."  then it was "give me Austria, and I will leave you alone," then it was "give me Poland, and I will leave you alone,"... See the pattern here?

When you knuckle under and start allowing the nonsensical demands of the islamic filth to be treated as justifiable, you are doomed, as they will continue to make these demands until you have nothing left.


----------



## Sallow

Dr.Drock said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wanna pull out completely, man the beaches and hope for the best. Or kill terrorism in the womb?  I don't care one wit if they go around killing each other.  but I'm not gonna kid myself and assume when they are done that won't come here and kill us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We tried the isolationist method between WW1 and WW2, how'd that work out?
> 
> Anyone who thinks the muslim filth will stop their global conquest after they achieve the ME is clueless; they will spread like they did in the early Middle Ages across the planet, until war is needed to push them back.
> 
> And given that likely scenario, I'd rather keep them oppressed and holed up in their own countries, and fight them on their turf - than in Europe or the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mistake we made between world war 1 and 2 was interfering with free market capitalism, we don't start idiotic trade embargos and pearl harbor never happens.
> 
> Terrorists want nothing more than for us to be over there, makes recruiting more terrorists soooo much easier and takes far fewer resources to kill americans.
Click to expand...


It's not the "Terrorists" really that want us over there..as much as it is the very conservative governments of the Middle East..starting with the Saudis. It make it easier for them to pillage those nations and not get left holding the bag when the blame game starts. They can just point to the big bad West and say.. "They are the great evil responsible for your misery".

And there are of course the simple minded around, in this country, that will point to "one" religion as being "evil". It's something that's always been done. The racists and bigots in this country want simple answers to complex problems. And this is helpful to despots overseas as well.

Thus the cycle continues and it's BAU.


----------



## rhodescholar

elvis said:


> tamil tigers?  Sri Lanka, right?



Indeed, know how they were stopped, finally?

It wasn't the laughably useless, endless, pointless "negotiations" that the Sri Lankans had to endure imposed on them by the idiots in europe, particularly the norwegians for years - that terminated this terrorist group.  No, it was brute force and massive firepower, being as aggressive as possible to crush the terrorists and their abettors/supporters.

And history is repeating itself with the 8 years of useless, endless, pointless "negotiations" we are engaged in with iran, but save that for another thread...


----------



## Two Thumbs

Sallow said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> We tried the isolationist method between WW1 and WW2, how'd that work out?
> 
> Anyone who thinks the muslim filth will stop their global conquest after they achieve the ME is clueless; they will spread like they did in the early Middle Ages across the planet, until war is needed to push them back.
> 
> And given that likely scenario, I'd rather keep them oppressed and holed up in their own countries, and fight them on their turf - than in Europe or the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mistake we made between world war 1 and 2 was interfering with free market capitalism, we don't start idiotic trade embargos and pearl harbor never happens.
> 
> Terrorists want nothing more than for us to be over there, makes recruiting more terrorists soooo much easier and takes far fewer resources to kill americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not the "Terrorists" really that want us over there..as much as it is the very conservative governments of the Middle East..starting with the Saudis. It make it easier for them to pillage those nations and not get left holding the bag when the blame game starts. They can just point to the big bad West and say.. "They are the great evil responsible for your misery".
> 
> And there are of course the simple minded around, in this country, that will point to "one" religion as being "evil". It's something that's always been done. The racists and bigots in this country want simple answers to complex problems. And this is helpful to despots overseas as well.
> 
> Thus the cycle continues and it's BAU.
Click to expand...


wikileaks made it clear that SA wants us to war with Iran while they stand back and do nothing.

Seems like if we don't, Iran will run the ME b/c none of them have the stones to do it themselves.


----------



## High_Gravity

rhodescholar said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> tamil tigers?  Sri Lanka, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, know how they were stopped, finally?
> 
> It wasn't the laughably useless, endless, pointless "negotiations" that the Sri Lankans had to endure imposed on them by the idiots in europe, particularly the norwegians for years - that terminated this terrorist group.  No, it was brute force and massive firepower, being as aggressive as possible to crush the terrorists and their abettors/supporters.
> 
> And history is repeating itself with the 8 years of useless, endless, pointless "negotiations" we are engaged in with iran, but save that for another thread...
Click to expand...


Sri Lanka crushed the Tamil Tigers by force but the thing is the US will get crucified by the media if they went after the Taliban the same way the Sri Lankans did the Tigers. The US is somehow supposed to win a war against the Taliban while at the same time being polite, not offending anyone and winning hearts and minds.


----------



## High_Gravity

Two Thumbs said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mistake we made between world war 1 and 2 was interfering with free market capitalism, we don't start idiotic trade embargos and pearl harbor never happens.
> 
> Terrorists want nothing more than for us to be over there, makes recruiting more terrorists soooo much easier and takes far fewer resources to kill americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the "Terrorists" really that want us over there..as much as it is the very conservative governments of the Middle East..starting with the Saudis. It make it easier for them to pillage those nations and not get left holding the bag when the blame game starts. They can just point to the big bad West and say.. "They are the great evil responsible for your misery".
> 
> And there are of course the simple minded around, in this country, that will point to "one" religion as being "evil". It's something that's always been done. The racists and bigots in this country want simple answers to complex problems. And this is helpful to despots overseas as well.
> 
> Thus the cycle continues and it's BAU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wikileaks made it clear that SA wants us to war with Iran while they stand back and do nothing.
> 
> Seems like if we don't, Iran will run the ME b/c none of them have the stones to do it themselves.
Click to expand...


The Saudis want Iran gone but they don't want to do it themselves, they are lobbying the US and Israel behind the scenes to do it for them because they are cowards.


----------



## Sallow

High_Gravity said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> tamil tigers?  Sri Lanka, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, know how they were stopped, finally?
> 
> It wasn't the laughably useless, endless, pointless "negotiations" that the Sri Lankans had to endure imposed on them by the idiots in europe, particularly the norwegians for years - that terminated this terrorist group.  No, it was brute force and massive firepower, being as aggressive as possible to crush the terrorists and their abettors/supporters.
> 
> And history is repeating itself with the 8 years of useless, endless, pointless "negotiations" we are engaged in with iran, but save that for another thread...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sri Lanka crushed the Tamil Tigers by force but the thing is the US will get crucified by the media if they went after the Taliban the same way the Sri Lankans did the Tigers. The US is somehow supposed to win a war against the Taliban while at the same time being polite, not offending anyone and winning hearts and minds.
Click to expand...


The Tamil Tigers have been fighting for decades. This wasn't overnight. And the Tamils were essentially "immigrants" to Sri Lanka. And it's not exactly clear it's worked. The Tigers are essentially elminated as the "army" they once were..but if the grievances, that is religious and ethnic persecution, aren't addressed..this whole thing could start right up again.

The Taliban are an entirely different story. The United States has killed a whole lot of them. But it doesn't matter. If the Afghans feel that their country is being run by outsiders, the Taliban isn't going away. Over the long run, fighting them tribe to tribe is probably the wrong way to go. And in reality..the mission should have been to clean out the camps and get out. Now it's a mess. And I think Biden has the right solution.


----------



## Sallow

High_Gravity said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the "Terrorists" really that want us over there..as much as it is the very conservative governments of the Middle East..starting with the Saudis. It make it easier for them to pillage those nations and not get left holding the bag when the blame game starts. They can just point to the big bad West and say.. "They are the great evil responsible for your misery".
> 
> And there are of course the simple minded around, in this country, that will point to "one" religion as being "evil". It's something that's always been done. The racists and bigots in this country want simple answers to complex problems. And this is helpful to despots overseas as well.
> 
> Thus the cycle continues and it's BAU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wikileaks made it clear that SA wants us to war with Iran while they stand back and do nothing.
> 
> Seems like if we don't, Iran will run the ME b/c none of them have the stones to do it themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Saudis want Iran gone but they don't want to do it themselves, they are lobbying the US and Israel behind the scenes to do it for them because they are cowards.
Click to expand...


Absolutely.


----------



## High_Gravity

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> wikileaks made it clear that SA wants us to war with Iran while they stand back and do nothing.
> 
> Seems like if we don't, Iran will run the ME b/c none of them have the stones to do it themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Saudis want Iran gone but they don't want to do it themselves, they are lobbying the US and Iran behind the scenes to do it for them because they are cowards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.
Click to expand...


I mean to say the Saudis were lobbying Israel and the US, typo.


----------



## High_Gravity

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, know how they were stopped, finally?
> 
> It wasn't the laughably useless, endless, pointless "negotiations" that the Sri Lankans had to endure imposed on them by the idiots in europe, particularly the norwegians for years - that terminated this terrorist group.  No, it was brute force and massive firepower, being as aggressive as possible to crush the terrorists and their abettors/supporters.
> 
> And history is repeating itself with the 8 years of useless, endless, pointless "negotiations" we are engaged in with iran, but save that for another thread...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sri Lanka crushed the Tamil Tigers by force but the thing is the US will get crucified by the media if they went after the Taliban the same way the Sri Lankans did the Tigers. The US is somehow supposed to win a war against the Taliban while at the same time being polite, not offending anyone and winning hearts and minds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Tamil Tigers have been fighting for decades. This wasn't overnight. And the Tamils were essentially "immigrants" to Sri Lanka. And it's not exactly clear it's worked. The Tigers are essentially elminated as the "army" they once were..but if the grievances, that is religious and ethnic persecution, aren't addressed..this whole thing could start right up again.
> 
> The Taliban are an entirely different story. The United States has killed a whole lot of them. But it doesn't matter. If the Afghans feel that their country is being run by outsiders, the Taliban isn't going away. Over the long run, fighting them tribe to tribe is probably the wrong way to go. And in reality..the mission should have been to clean out the camps and get out. Now it's a mess. And I think Biden has the right solution.
Click to expand...


What does Biden want to do?


----------



## Sallow

High_Gravity said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Saudis want Iran gone but they don't want to do it themselves, they are lobbying the US and Israel behind the scenes to do it for them because they are cowards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I mean to say the Saudis were lobbying Israel and the US, typo.
Click to expand...


Made the correction..but I got you the first time.


----------



## Sallow

High_Gravity said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sri Lanka crushed the Tamil Tigers by force but the thing is the US will get crucified by the media if they went after the Taliban the same way the Sri Lankans did the Tigers. The US is somehow supposed to win a war against the Taliban while at the same time being polite, not offending anyone and winning hearts and minds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tamil Tigers have been fighting for decades. This wasn't overnight. And the Tamils were essentially "immigrants" to Sri Lanka. And it's not exactly clear it's worked. The Tigers are essentially elminated as the "army" they once were..but if the grievances, that is religious and ethnic persecution, aren't addressed..this whole thing could start right up again.
> 
> The Taliban are an entirely different story. The United States has killed a whole lot of them. But it doesn't matter. If the Afghans feel that their country is being run by outsiders, the Taliban isn't going away. Over the long run, fighting them tribe to tribe is probably the wrong way to go. And in reality..the mission should have been to clean out the camps and get out. Now it's a mess. And I think Biden has the right solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does Biden want to do?
Click to expand...


Stop fighting a conventional war there..and conduct special operations as needed.

I agree 150%.


----------



## Ropey

Sallow said:


> Stop fighting a conventional war there..and conduct special operations as needed.



I believe that this will be the fight of the future in the arena of Radical Islam.


----------



## High_Gravity

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tamil Tigers have been fighting for decades. This wasn't overnight. And the Tamils were essentially "immigrants" to Sri Lanka. And it's not exactly clear it's worked. The Tigers are essentially elminated as the "army" they once were..but if the grievances, that is religious and ethnic persecution, aren't addressed..this whole thing could start right up again.
> 
> The Taliban are an entirely different story. The United States has killed a whole lot of them. But it doesn't matter. If the Afghans feel that their country is being run by outsiders, the Taliban isn't going away. Over the long run, fighting them tribe to tribe is probably the wrong way to go. And in reality..the mission should have been to clean out the camps and get out. Now it's a mess. And I think Biden has the right solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does Biden want to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop fighting a conventional war there..and conduct special operations as needed.
> 
> I agree 150%.
Click to expand...


I do too but I only think that can be manageable if the Afghan Army can step up, Special Ops can't do much by itself if the Taliban retakes the country.


----------



## Sallow

Ropey said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop fighting a conventional war there..and conduct special operations as needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that this will be the fight of the future in the arena of Radical Islam.
Click to expand...


Something most people don't understand is that "Radical Islam" is pretty much a convoluted form of Nationalism.

In a nutshell most of these countries where you see this movement started off by killing the opposition. Those that were left found a haven in religious places. That's basically how the "Radicals" started. And it became useful to these depots to encourage it as they kept blaming the West for internal troubles.


----------



## rhodescholar

High_Gravity said:


> I do too but I only think that can be manageable if the Afghan Army can step up, Special Ops can't do much by itself if the Taliban retakes the country.



Regular army, Spec Ops, doesn't matter - so long as the worst elements of the Taliban are protected and shielded in Pakistan by the paki government/intelligence agencies, there is no way to crush them.


----------



## High_Gravity

We should have just let Russia have Afghanistan in the 80's.


----------



## High_Gravity

rhodescholar said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do too but I only think that can be manageable if the Afghan Army can step up, Special Ops can't do much by itself if the Taliban retakes the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regular army, Spec Ops, doesn't matter - so long as the worst elements of the Taliban are protected and shielded in Pakistan by the paki government/intelligence agencies, there is no way to crush them.
Click to expand...


100% correct.


----------



## Two Thumbs

High_Gravity said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the "Terrorists" really that want us over there..as much as it is the very conservative governments of the Middle East..starting with the Saudis. It make it easier for them to pillage those nations and not get left holding the bag when the blame game starts. They can just point to the big bad West and say.. "They are the great evil responsible for your misery".
> 
> And there are of course the simple minded around, in this country, that will point to "one" religion as being "evil". It's something that's always been done. The racists and bigots in this country want simple answers to complex problems. And this is helpful to despots overseas as well.
> 
> Thus the cycle continues and it's BAU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wikileaks made it clear that SA wants us to war with Iran while they stand back and do nothing.
> 
> Seems like if we don't, Iran will run the ME b/c none of them have the stones to do it themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Saudis want Iran gone but they don't want to do it themselves, they are lobbying the US and Israel behind the scenes to do it for them because they are cowards.
Click to expand...


They read American papers.  It's not just cowardice, they don't want to pay for war.  

They have been living like kings (some very literally) and have no idea how to go about living a hard (normal) life.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Ropey said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop fighting a conventional war there..and conduct special operations as needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that this will be the fight of the future in the arena of Radical Islam.
Click to expand...


Then we need to prepare oursleves for a decades long war.

And I do mean decades more.


----------



## Two Thumbs

High_Gravity said:


> We should have just let Russia have Afghanistan in the 80's.



You know damn well we couldn't let the Russians win a damn thing.


----------



## High_Gravity

Two Thumbs said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> wikileaks made it clear that SA wants us to war with Iran while they stand back and do nothing.
> 
> Seems like if we don't, Iran will run the ME b/c none of them have the stones to do it themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Saudis want Iran gone but they don't want to do it themselves, they are lobbying the US and Israel behind the scenes to do it for them because they are cowards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They read American papers.  It's not just cowardice, they don't want to pay for war.
> 
> They have been living like kings (some very literally) and have no idea how to go about living a hard (normal) life.
Click to expand...


Besides that, they don't have the muscle to take down Iran even if they want to. Iraq was the Arab counterweight to Iran and since we smashes their Military to pieces there is no Arab country that can step up to Iran, Saudi Arabia would get thrashed by the Persians if they tried anything with them.


----------



## Sallow

Two Thumbs said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have just let Russia have Afghanistan in the 80's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know damn well we couldn't let the Russians win a damn thing.
Click to expand...


It didn't buy us all that much. The Soviet Union was on it's way out. If anything this was a costly exercise in developing a radical movement that bit us in the ass.


----------



## High_Gravity

Two Thumbs said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have just let Russia have Afghanistan in the 80's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know damn well we couldn't let the Russians win a damn thing.
Click to expand...


That was the attitude back than but looking back, might have just been better to let the Russians have it.


----------



## High_Gravity

Sallow said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have just let Russia have Afghanistan in the 80's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know damn well we couldn't let the Russians win a damn thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It didn't buy us all that much. The Soviet Union was on it's way out. If anything this was a costly exercise in developing a radical movement that bit us in the ass.
Click to expand...


We matched the Saudis dollar for dollar for what they put into Afghanistan, and I believe they spent billions.


----------



## Sallow

High_Gravity said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know damn well we couldn't let the Russians win a damn thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't buy us all that much. The Soviet Union was on it's way out. If anything this was a costly exercise in developing a radical movement that bit us in the ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We matched the Saudis dollar for dollar for what they put into Afghanistan, and I believe they spent billions.
Click to expand...


And the Russians would have had to leave one way or the other.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Sallow said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have just let Russia have Afghanistan in the 80's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know damn well we couldn't let the Russians win a damn thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It didn't buy us all that much. The Soviet Union was on it's way out. If anything this was a costly exercise in developing a radical movement that bit us in the ass.
Click to expand...


We didn't "know" for certain they were done once we got involved.  But I'd bet my bottom dollar it was one of the things that crushed them.

Our only mistake in getting involved with that war was leaving right behind the Russians.

I think if we stayed and 'helped' rebuild, Iraq would not have attacked Kuwait with an American ally (Afgahnistan) at thier flank.

but we packed up and moved and the men that were used to war never became men of peace.


----------



## High_Gravity

Two Thumbs said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop fighting a conventional war there..and conduct special operations as needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that this will be the fight of the future in the arena of Radical Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we need to prepare oursleves for a decades long war.
> 
> And I do mean decades more.
Click to expand...


Americans don't have the stomach for that, everyone wants to forget Afghanistan and we haven't been there 10 years yet, no way people here will buy into a decades long war.


----------



## High_Gravity

Two Thumbs said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know damn well we couldn't let the Russians win a damn thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't buy us all that much. The Soviet Union was on it's way out. If anything this was a costly exercise in developing a radical movement that bit us in the ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We didn't "know" for certain they were done once we got involved.  But I'd bet my bottom dollar it was one of the things that crushed them.
> 
> Our only mistake in getting involved with that war was leaving right behind the Russians.
> 
> I think if we stayed and 'helped' rebuild, Iraq would not have attacked Kuwait with an American ally (Afgahnistan) at thier flank.
> 
> but we packed up and moved and the men that were used to war never became men of peace.
Click to expand...


Afghanistan is separated from Iraq by a huge buffer, Iran, I don't think Saddam would have been scared to invade Kuwait because of the Aghans.


----------



## High_Gravity

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't buy us all that much. The Soviet Union was on it's way out. If anything this was a costly exercise in developing a radical movement that bit us in the ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We matched the Saudis dollar for dollar for what they put into Afghanistan, and I believe they spent billions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the Russians would have had to leave one way or the other.
Click to expand...


Yeh but maybe if they set up a puppet commie government there, things would have been totally different in Afghanistan?


----------



## Trajan

jillian said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> did you notice that the lebanese citizens are not tolerating Hezbollah destroying their government?
> 
> This, from today's edition of Ha'aretz.
> 
> 
> 
> Nasrallah: Hezbollah will not control next Lebanon government - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew the sunnis had taken to the streets to riot.
> 
> But your info is new.
> 
> Wonder if it's true or lip service to calm the rioters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that was from yesterday's israeli paper, ha'aretz. they're pretty good with info. what happens with the uprising remains to be seen.
> 
> this is today's from the jerusalem post
> 
> Hizbullah candidate Mikati to form new Lebanese gov't
Click to expand...



This means that Nasrallah will command 2 of the 3 major government positions, a clear break with the past, since 762.... 

Nasrallah will command both the  prime minister position AND the Speaker of Parliament position ( which is historically assigned to the Shia) and the Sunni's will have........? The position of PM was a Sunni position here to fore.

Suleiman as President is from the Christian sect. How long the Christians keep that is anyone's  guess. If I were Nasrallah I would let them keep it, hes got what he wants/needs.


----------



## Dr.Drock

rhodescholar said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorists want nothing more than for us to be over there, makes recruiting more terrorists soooo much easier and takes far fewer resources to kill americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its hard to believe that there are still people this clueless...
> 
> To the terrorist muslim filth, what we DO is irrelevent, they will simply manufacture some "grievance" to justify their violence and claims.
> 
> Look at hezbollah and israel; israel left Lebanon - and the UN certified its exit - ELEVEN YEARS ago - but the hez filth still demands that israel exit some tiny farm "or there will be hell on earth and endless _ war_"...  It is our EXISTENCE that the islamic filth cannot tolerate, and they will never, ever, ever stop trying to fight the West until it is subjugated, and eventually destroyed/eliminated.
> 
> It is humorous how you mention WW2, yet fail to mention Hitler's endless demands of the West: "give me the Sudetenland, and I will leave you alone..."  then it was "give me Austria, and I will leave you alone," then it was "give me Poland, and I will leave you alone,"... See the pattern here?
> 
> When you knuckle under and start allowing the nonsensical demands of the islamic filth to be treated as justifiable, you are doomed, as they will continue to make these demands until you have nothing left.
Click to expand...


The amazing thing about your last 2 posts is that you're simultaneously saying we were isolationist at the same time period in history in which Hitler+Germany demanded that we give them countries.  If we're being isolationist how could we be involved with those countries and be able to "give them" to Germany?  This is basic common sense that you're arguing with, not me.

The only reason we have a country is because when the french asked us for help in their revolution against the british we told them no.  The US gov't isn't obligated to do what's best for other countries and save them from other countries.  The US gov't is supposed to be obligated to the Constitution.

Sounds like you're calling for a holy war, much the same as the terrorists are, an eerily similar mindsight.  It's kind of that same dumb, ignorant argument kids use about their dads being stronger and nicer than the other guys dad in terms of how you and your ilk talk about your God being stronger and nicer than the other guys (muslims) God.


----------



## rhodescholar

Dr.Drock said:


> The amazing thing about your last 2 posts is that you're simultaneously saying we were isolationist at the same time period in history in which Hitler+Germany demanded that we give them countries.  If we're being isolationist how could we be involved with those countries and be able to "give them" to Germany?  This is basic common sense that you're arguing with, not me.



I think you are confused, or trying to make an argument out of thin air.  It wasn't the acquiescence of the US that Hitler had been seeking, it was Europe's, mainly France and England.  The US did not have pacts with the soon-to-be devoured countries like Poland did with England.  The US was isolationist at the time, and there were huge demonstrations in the US to avoid getting involved in another of Europe's wars.



> Sounds like you're calling for a holy war, much the same as the terrorists are, an eerily similar mindsight.  It's kind of that same dumb, ignorant argument kids use about their dads being stronger and nicer than the other guys dad in terms of how you and your ilk talk about your God being stronger and nicer than the other guys (muslims) God.



Iran has murdered more Americans than any other nation - EVER - without the US declaring war on it.  It is not the US chanting in state-sanctioned rallies "death to iran".  It is not the US who takes iranian hostages on a regular basis.  And it is not the US who is driving proxies to foment wars or conduct suicide bombings against other nations' civilian populations.  

Iran is guilty of all of these, and its diseased dictatorship's raison d'etre is to "spread its revolution."  It is a cancer who now has several nations under its spell, and this situation is not acceptable, nor is its drive for nuclear weapons.


----------



## Trajan

I'd also add that this just about guarantees another major war in Lebanon in the next 5 years, if that. And the last one will look relatively tame  by comparison.


----------



## Trajan

MaggieMae said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> They will back Hezbolla, and Hezbolla will get elected into seats of power and do and Iran commands.
> 
> 'Day of rage' as Hezbollah gains power in Lebanon
> 'Day of rage' as Hezbollah takes power in Lebanon - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com
> 
> 
> TRIPOLI, Lebanon  Hundreds of angry protesters burned tires and blocked roads across Lebanon on Tuesday after Iranian-backed Hezbollah secured the appointment of its candidate to lead the next government.
> 
> The nomination of Najib Mikati as prime minister, endorsed by President Michel Suleiman, is seen a victory for Hezbollah, which secured the parliamentary votes needed to wrest control of the Lebanese government.
> 
> *Hezbollah's control over the government for the first time will sound alarm bells in Washington and Israel and raise concerns in moderate Sunni Arab states. *
> 
> The protesters turned out in many cities in support of Mikati's defeated rival Saad al-Hariri, a Sunni Muslim whose government was ousted this month by Shiite Hezbollah and its allies in a dispute over the investigation of his father's assassination in 2005.
> 
> The protests were part of a "day of anger" called by loyalists of Hariri, who is backed by Saudi Arabia and Washington, to protest against Hezbollah, funded and supported by Tehran.
> 
> You gotta admire the way the are going about it.
> 
> The Palistinians first (a victim class), then spread into Lebanan, get elected to the point they have full control, and Irans hands are CLEAN.
> 
> Iran has a military that scares the crap outta the rest of the ME, so none of those countries will do a damn thing.
> 
> 
> Who's next?  My money is on Jordan.  thier reliance on a tourism economy would seem to make them ripe for take over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If and when Iran becomes the ME superpower, it won't be because of Hezbollah. It will be because young people now make up two-thirds of their population, and they have become westernized. They are educated and believe in a diverse democracy, not theocracy.
Click to expand...


please share MM, you got me here... I am flabbergasted as to how you connect the 2, there is no metaphor to be had here, what does this have to do with what just occurred and even Lebanon for that matter?


----------



## Trajan

just a general note; 

where are or is our resident  pro arab/persian  USMB lobby?


----------



## Two Thumbs

Trajan said:


> just a general note;
> 
> where are or is our resident  pro arab/persian  USMB lobby?



They are over in the religion threads making fun of jews.

But, yea, I would have thought at least Sunni man would be here.  Since it is the Sunni's that are getting it in the ass.

And I would have loved thier special reflection on what's going on over there.


----------



## Dr.Drock

rhodescholar said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> The amazing thing about your last 2 posts is that you're simultaneously saying we were isolationist at the same time period in history in which Hitler+Germany demanded that we give them countries.  If we're being isolationist how could we be involved with those countries and be able to "give them" to Germany?  This is basic common sense that you're arguing with, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are confused, or trying to make an argument out of thin air.  It wasn't the acquiescence of the US that Hitler had been seeking, it was Europe's, mainly France and England.  The US did not have pacts with the soon-to-be devoured countries like Poland did with England.  The US was isolationist at the time, and there were huge demonstrations in the US to avoid getting involved in another of Europe's wars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you're calling for a holy war, much the same as the terrorists are, an eerily similar mindsight.  It's kind of that same dumb, ignorant argument kids use about their dads being stronger and nicer than the other guys dad in terms of how you and your ilk talk about your God being stronger and nicer than the other guys (muslims) God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran has murdered more Americans than any other nation - EVER - without the US declaring war on it.  It is not the US chanting in state-sanctioned rallies "death to iran".  It is not the US who takes iranian hostages on a regular basis.  And it is not the US who is driving proxies to foment wars or conduct suicide bombings against other nations' civilian populations.
> 
> Iran is guilty of all of these, and its diseased dictatorship's raison d'etre is to "spread its revolution."  It is a cancer who now has several nations under its spell, and this situation is not acceptable, nor is its drive for nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...


All I'm doing in terms of the isolationist argument is using your own words against you, you said we were simultaneously isolationalist and had power over countries Germany wanted.  You said that, not me.

You do know that the US ended real democracy in Iran and gave full financial backing to Saddam in his war (which included gas warfare) against Iran, correct?


----------



## Da Word

All arab/muslim/camel countries should be nuked, they're a major waste of a good sandpile.


----------



## mdn2000

Dr.Drock said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> The amazing thing about your last 2 posts is that you're simultaneously saying we were isolationist at the same time period in history in which Hitler+Germany demanded that we give them countries.  If we're being isolationist how could we be involved with those countries and be able to "give them" to Germany?  This is basic common sense that you're arguing with, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are confused, or trying to make an argument out of thin air.  It wasn't the acquiescence of the US that Hitler had been seeking, it was Europe's, mainly France and England.  The US did not have pacts with the soon-to-be devoured countries like Poland did with England.  The US was isolationist at the time, and there were huge demonstrations in the US to avoid getting involved in another of Europe's wars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you're calling for a holy war, much the same as the terrorists are, an eerily similar mindsight.  It's kind of that same dumb, ignorant argument kids use about their dads being stronger and nicer than the other guys dad in terms of how you and your ilk talk about your God being stronger and nicer than the other guys (muslims) God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran has murdered more Americans than any other nation - EVER - without the US declaring war on it.  It is not the US chanting in state-sanctioned rallies "death to iran".  It is not the US who takes iranian hostages on a regular basis.  And it is not the US who is driving proxies to foment wars or conduct suicide bombings against other nations' civilian populations.
> 
> Iran is guilty of all of these, and its diseased dictatorship's raison d'etre is to "spread its revolution."  It is a cancer who now has several nations under its spell, and this situation is not acceptable, nor is its drive for nuclear weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I'm doing in terms of the isolationist argument is using your own words against you, you said we were simultaneously isolationalist and had power over countries Germany wanted.  You said that, not me.
> 
> You do know that the US ended real democracy in Iran and gave full financial backing to Saddam in his war (which included gas warfare) against Iran, correct?
Click to expand...


Full financial backing, what does that mean? The subject has been debated in the threads and have yet to see your premise remotely proved or even presented other than as a talking point.

All those Russian made weapons were a 100% financed by the USA, is that what your saying, I assume that is what you mean by full backing.

Why say the U.S. ended real democracy in Iran when that was strictly the Liberal Democrat party that ended Democracy in Iran. Jimmy Carter, the President who's policies keep on giving.

Your statement should read;

You do know that the Democrats ended real Democracy in Iran and gave full financial backing to Saddam in his war (which included gas warfare) against Iran, correct?

That is an accurate statement, of course it leads to another question, gas warfare is WMD warfare and that would mean Saddam has WMDs. That means Bush was right and did not lie. 

So much in one sentence.


----------



## Ropey

> Stuxnet returns to Bushehr reactor. *Russia warns of nuclear explosion *





> Iran's atomic energy chief Ali Akbar Salehi said on Jan. 29 that the Bushehr nuclear power plant would be connected to the national grid on April 9. He "forgot" about Tehran's promise to fully activate its first nuclear reactor Tuesday, Jan. 25.  Moscow sources reveal that on that day, Iran's hand on the switch was held back at the last minute by Sergei Kiriyenko, chief of Rosatom (the Russian national nuclear energy commission which oversaw the reactor's construction. He came hurrying over to warn Tehran that Stuxnet was back and switching the reactor on could trigger a calamitous nuclear explosion that could cost a million Iranian lives and devastate neighboring populations. He complained to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the Iranian nuclear and engineering staff were ignoring the presence of the malworm and must be stopped.
> 
> Kiriyenko told the Iranian president that the Russian engineers employed at the reactor notified Moscow that Stuxnet was again attacking the Bushehr systems after apparently taking a rest from its first onslaught last June. There was no telling which systems had been infected, because a key feature of the virus is that the systems' screens show they are working normally when in fact they have been fatally disarmed. Activating the reactor in these circumstances could cause an explosion far more powerful than the disaster at the Russian reactor at Chernobyl, Ukraine in April 1986, which released 400 times more radioactive material than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.
> 
> The impression the Rosatom chief had gained from his staff at Bushehr was that the Iranian teams had been ordered to activate the reactor at any price to prove that the Islamic Republic had beaten Stuxnet. This concern overrode security. The consequences of ignoring this fearful hazard, said Kiriyenko, were unthinkable and would destroy the revolutionary Islamic regime in Tehran in their wake.





> This week, Salehi, who is also Iran's foreign minister, hinted at the cause of the delay when he said: "The reactor has started its operation and the next step is to reach critical phase which will happen by the end of Bahman (February 20) in presence of Russians. We have said before that due to some tests, we may have to face delays but these delays are around a week or two." He added, "We aim at launching Bushehr nuclear reactor safely not to merely launch it."
> 
> In Jerusalem, Maj-Gen. Aviv Kohavi, the new head of IDF military intelligence - MI, who appeared before the Knesset Security and Foreign Affairs Committee for his first briefing on Jan. 25 said Bushehr could be quickly converted from producing electricity for civilian use to a military reactor and incorporated into Iran's weapons program.
> 
> The next day, Jan. 26, Moscow took the unusual step of demanding a NATO investigation into last year's computer attack on the Russian-built nuclear reactor in Iran.
> 
> Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, said: T"his virus, which is very toxic, very dangerous, could have very serious implications," he said, describing the virus's impact as being like "explosive mines".
> 
> "These 'mines' could lead to a new Chernobyl," he said.



*Link*



> The IAEA &#8212; the U.N. monitor of Iran's nuclear activities &#8212; declined comment on damage at Bushehr. But officials, who asked for anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the issue, have said the agency is unhappy with safety and operating standards at the reactor.



*Link*

I hope these Iranian "Rulers" do not blow themselves up first.


----------

