Iran the most powerful (nation) , says Ahmadinejad

[QUOTE="SmithWesson642"][QUOTE="Nwordjohn"][QUOTE="SmithWesson642"]

[QUOTE="Nwordjohn"]Its propaganda designed to raise American sentiment against Iran. "Iran thinks its the best? NO WAY WE ARE" is the reaction they're trying to raise in you. It really does amaze me that people don't realize that most of these articles and news stories being fed to them are just part of the psychological warfare that is propaganda.

Iran has done nothing wrong. There is no reason to invade them. If you do, you are the bad guys. Period.
Nwordjohn

If they tell us to invade Iran, then we have no choice.

That is exactly why I miss the 70's. When people had enough balls to stand up to their government's warmongering and protest. They're not going to stop unless people en masse show up outside the white house to protest it. Too bad you've already sacrified enough of your constitution that you would be considered terrorists and would be held without trial.

I'll be honest, Iraq isn't anything compared to Vietnam.

I'm sure if as many people were dying in IRaq as Nam, then people would stop joining the military, and civilians would be protesting ALOT more.

Are you implying that Iraqis are not people? Because the death toll for the civilians and "combatants" in Iraq is well over the million mark now. They down play it on CNN and Fox news because those are basically the neo-con mouth piece for Americans. The fact that human life isn't valued by people because of the nation they are born in is just disgusting. I'd choose an Iraqi over an American any day of the week and I'm not the only one. At least they are actually fighting the oppression thats being put over them. Enjoy your Patriot Act, Victory Act, Freedom Act, SPP and all of the other laws passed to protect you from "terrorists" while in reality they are stripping you of your Freedoms. Of course, you need to fight the terrorists.

Totally agree man. They seem to think that Iraqis are less human and worthwhile than other humans, it sickens me that they would even consider this. Tell me (not speaking directly to you) what has the Iraqis done? It has been proven and confirmed that they have NO connection to Al Qaeda, thus warranting no immediate war as many of those in the Bush Adminstration have stated. They have done no wrong. Our government didn't like the approach in which Sadam was choosing to deal with the oil crisis, so they decide to begin this war with Iraq.

Now, presently, we have primairly Americans showing no respect or compassion to the many deaths of Iraqis, and even Troops and political leaders seem to not care. Completely sickens me. 'A dead Iraqi is just another dead Iraqi... You know, so what?', states a US veteran. [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a-dead-iraqi-is-just-another-dead-iraqi-you-know-so-what-456905.html]

And here were are now praising our troops for all the sacrifices in which they commit, it is truly minimal compared to the total destructions caused in Iraq; it will truly never recover. "Iraqi Dead May Total 600,000, Study Says" [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/middleeast/11casualties.html]. This is only a study, me estimate? I'd say 700000-800000. And he we are mourning on deaths of 4000 troops. Let the famalies mourn, we must acknowledge the significant deaths here, the innocent children and famalies who have done know wrong but the stand up for survival. Rather, we praise the volunteers who are fighting a never-ending war, fighting for the unsignificant agenda in which our government holds.

Here I am typing what I believe. You might find it shocking but its true. Our western society (mainly the states) seems to have no compassion and no feeling for the destructions in which our country has caused. But it seems that we have no choice to continue this, becasue as soon as one speaks out with truth, the other is sure to quiet the outspoken individual claiming that they are a traitor or terrorist.

"We laugh at sheep because sheep just follow the one in front.



'Ah stupid sheep!'



We humans have out sheeped the sheep, because at least the sheep need a sheep dog to keep them in line.



Humans keep each other in line. And they do it by ridiculing or condemning anyone who commits the crime, and that's what its become, of being different."

[QUOTE="Vyse_The_Daring"]

[QUOTE="awsss"][QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"]The U.S is the only superpower in the world and its going to beat the #### out of Iran. :evil: j/pknowledge-funk

Actually, the United States gets most of its oil from Saudia Arabia and Canada.

Well if you acually believe that Iraq was not a war for oil than I suggest you read this.

http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp

yes because gas prices have plummeted here of late...

[QUOTE="knowledge-funk"][QUOTE="Vyse_The_Daring"]

[QUOTE="awsss"][QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"]The U.S is the only superpower in the world and its going to beat the #### out of Iran. :evil: j/pjlh47

Actually, the United States gets most of its oil from Saudia Arabia and Canada.

Well if you acually believe that Iraq was not a war for oil than I suggest you read this.

http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp

yes because gas prices have plummeted here of late...

Still does not change the fact that there is great significant evidence of the factor of oil regarding Iraq. Why don't you try looking for other reasons for this? How about trying to observe the extreme gain in profits for oil companies? I suggest exon?

I think it was put best with... War. What is it good for? The answer. Absolutely nothing.Nwordjohn

hmm... American revolution?

World war 1

Withouth ww2 we could still be in the depression..

[QUOTE="Nwordjohn"]I think it was put best with... War. What is it good for? The answer. Absolutely nothing.jlh47

hmm... American revolution?

World war 1

Withouth ww2 we could still be in the depression..

The depression warrants the many deaths in which occured?

[QUOTE="jlh47"]

[QUOTE="Nwordjohn"]I think it was put best with... War. What is it good for? The answer. Absolutely nothing.knowledge-funk

hmm... American revolution?

World war 1

Withouth ww2 we could still be in the depression..

The depression warrants the many deaths in which occured?

we went into ww2 to fight for our freedom

Yep, the most powerful nation in the world alright. I bet that at least 40% of their population still sits around the campfire telling stories of the metal "birds" that scream across the sky a few times daily.

lol They have a Air Force? What is it 5 guys in a lego helicopter?mechwarrior_bob

You laugh now, but you'll be petrified when they reassemble their downed aircraft.

[QUOTE="knowledge-funk"][QUOTE="Vyse_The_Daring"]

[QUOTE="awsss"][QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"]The U.S is the only superpower in the world and its going to beat the #### out of Iran. :evil: j/pjlh47

Actually, the United States gets most of its oil from Saudia Arabia and Canada.

Well if you acually believe that Iraq was not a war for oil than I suggest you read this.

http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp

yes because gas prices have plummeted here of late...

A war for oil is very different from a war to lower costs for the public. Just because oil corporations are getting more oil doesn't mean we should expect to pay any less for it, that's just not a part of their busness model.

Their AF is pretty brutal for a third world federal religious government. Obviously not the best in the world but. . .Frattracide

You got that right. Against the might of the American air power they'd get their *** handed to them but they have a pretty impressive arsenal of aircraft for the nation. My hope is that people stop underestimating the will of Iran to obtain nukes and destroy Israel (which they call the Little Satan) and the US (which they call the Great Satan). It's no secret that their ultimate goal is the destruction of western culture. Not Iran as a whole, I'm talking about the fundamentalists Islamists that run rampant over in the middle east.

we went into ww2 to fight for our freedom

jlh47

WW2 was necessary to stimulate the economy out of the depression. War takes materials, the creation of war materials creates thousands upon thousands of jobs. Yes, we were defending ourselves from the Axis powers but it is perfectly acceptable to say that one of the reasons we entered the war was to jumpstart the economy.

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]Their AF is pretty brutal for a third world federal religious government. Obviously not the best in the world but. . .MarineJcksn

You got that right. Against the might of the American air power they'd get their *** handed to them but they have a pretty impressive arsenal of aircraft for the nation. My hope is that people stop underestimating the will of Iran to obtain nukes and destroy Israel (which they call the Little Satan) and the US (which they call the Great Satan). It's no secret that their ultimate goal is the destruction of western culture. Not Iran as a whole, I'm talking about the fundamentalists Islamists that run rampant over in the middle east.

Invading Iran is not the way to handle this, they are only gaining power now because they are funded by countries like Saudi Arabia. If we get involved in Iran they will just fund some other crazy islamist country.

[QUOTE="MarineJcksn"]

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]Their AF is pretty brutal for a third world federal religious government. Obviously not the best in the world but. . .darkmoney52

You got that right. Against the might of the American air power they'd get their *** handed to them but they have a pretty impressive arsenal of aircraft for the nation. My hope is that people stop underestimating the will of Iran to obtain nukes and destroy Israel (which they call the Little Satan) and the US (which they call the Great Satan). It's no secret that their ultimate goal is the destruction of western culture. Not Iran as a whole, I'm talking about the fundamentalists Islamists that run rampant over in the middle east.

Invading Iran is not the way to handle this, they are only gaining power now because they are funded by countries like Saudi Arabia. If we get involved in Iran they will just fund some other crazy islamist country.

That's why Iran is such a sticky situation, it's unlikely there will be justifiable use of force against them until they do something drastic. It's rapidly evolving into a WW3 type situation, you've got Iran and Russia forming a very close alliance where they didn't have one before, China could easily fold into the mix as well as North Korea. So basically from a military standpoint it could be seen as the new axis powers. Now, I doubt a more organized nation such as Russia will lead the charge, if anything it's going to be muslim extremists that do something major like detonate a tactical nuke in a western country that'll lead to WW3. Just in my opinion.

[QUOTE="knowledge-funk"][QUOTE="jlh47"]

[QUOTE="Nwordjohn"]I think it was put best with... War. What is it good for? The answer. Absolutely nothing.jlh47

hmm... American revolution?

World war 1

Withouth ww2 we could still be in the depression..

The depression warrants the many deaths in which occured?

we went into ww2 to fight for our freedom

We went to war because we got attacked. Sound similar?

attack on nation (pearl harbour)= fight for our freedom against the axis

attack on nation (9/11)= war on terror/ fight for our freedom

[QUOTE="jlh47"][QUOTE="knowledge-funk"][QUOTE="jlh47"]

[QUOTE="Nwordjohn"]I think it was put best with... War. What is it good for? The answer. Absolutely nothing.knowledge-funk

hmm... American revolution?

World war 1

Withouth ww2 we could still be in the depression..

The depression warrants the many deaths in which occured?

we went into ww2 to fight for our freedom

We went to war because we got attacked. Sound similar?

attack on nation (pearl harbour)= fight for our freedom against the axis

attack on nation (9/11)= war on terror/ fight for our freedom

We're at war right now against an enemy not unlike those we've faced before. America won a war on terrorism before, and we will do it again.

[QUOTE="knowledge-funk"][QUOTE="jlh47"][QUOTE="knowledge-funk"][QUOTE="jlh47"]

[QUOTE="Nwordjohn"]I think it was put best with... War. What is it good for? The answer. Absolutely nothing.MarineJcksn

hmm... American revolution?

World war 1

Withouth ww2 we could still be in the depression..

The depression warrants the many deaths in which occured?

we went into ww2 to fight for our freedom

We went to war because we got attacked. Sound similar?

attack on nation (pearl harbour)= fight for our freedom against the axis

attack on nation (9/11)= war on terror/ fight for our freedom

We're at war right now against an enemy not unlike those we've faced before. America won a war on terrorism before, and we will do it again.

You proud or something? What is this terror you speak of? If we already won, why are we still in Iraq, and as well 130 different nations?

Iran is mountainous with plenty of sea ports and allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

See the difference? The only way the US military will win is if they launch tactical nuclear missiles.
knowledge-funk

[QUOTE="spark5050"][QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"]

[QUOTE="awsss"][QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"]The U.S is the only superpower in the world and its going to beat the #### out of Iran. :evil: j/pstereointegrity

China might have bigger Army then us, but we have the high tech machinery that they don't have.

As Al Murray would say there wouldn't be enough bullets

Still China airforce is bigger than the US ships will sink in now time, 500000 people per plane, Imagine all the plane flying around.

The skys will darken.

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"][QUOTE="spark5050"][QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"]

[QUOTE="awsss"][QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"]The U.S is the only superpower in the world and its going to beat the #### out of Iran. :evil: j/pMakemap

China might have bigger Army then us, but we have the high tech machinery that they don't have.

As Al Murray would say there wouldn't be enough bullets

Still China airforce is bigger than the US ships will sink in now time, 500000 people per plane, Imagine all the plane flying around.

The skys will darken.

What the **** are you talking about? :/

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"][QUOTE="spark5050"][QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"]

[QUOTE="awsss"][QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"]The U.S is the only superpower in the world and its going to beat the #### out of Iran. :evil: j/pMakemap

China might have bigger Army then us, but we have the high tech machinery that they don't have.

As Al Murray would say there wouldn't be enough bullets

Still China airforce is bigger than the US ships will sink in now time, 500000 people per plane, Imagine all the plane flying around.

The skys will darken.

Still China airforce is bigger than the US ships will sink in now time, 500000 people per plane, Imagine all the plane flying around.

The skys will darken.

Makemap

Don't expect people in the military to only have 1 type of skills, foot miltants can drive.

500,000 people per plane?!

US has the biggest, best Navy in the world just to let you know

Technology >>>>> numbers (This isn't like Nazis VS. US technology in WWII. sure the Nazis had better tech, but the Nazi wasn't THAT better)

Iran Air Force

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Air_Force

:o

[QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"]The U.S is the only superpower in the world and its going to beat the #### out of Iran. :evil: j/pawsss

U.S. never got a drop of oil from Iraq.. how about you learn about what youre talking about before you open your mouth

[QUOTE="MarineJcksn"][QUOTE="knowledge-funk"][QUOTE="jlh47"][QUOTE="knowledge-funk"][QUOTE="jlh47"]

[QUOTE="Nwordjohn"]knowledge-funk

You proud or something? What is this terror you speak of? If we already won, why are we still in Iraq, and as well 130 different nations?

Research the Barbary Wars of the early 1800's. Thomas Jefferson led the first US war on terror, and our Marine Corps kicked *** at Tripoli. Granted, it wasn't a global war on terror like now, but it was still a war against terrorists and we pwned them.

[QUOTE="knowledge-funk"][QUOTE="MarineJcksn"][QUOTE="knowledge-funk"][QUOTE="jlh47"][QUOTE="knowledge-funk"][QUOTE="jlh47"]

[QUOTE="Nwordjohn"]MarineJcksn

You proud or something? What is this terror you speak of? If we already won, why are we still in Iraq, and as well 130 different nations?

Research the Barbary Wars of the early 1800's. Thomas Jefferson led the first US war on terror, and our Marine Corps kicked *** at Tripoli. Granted, it wasn't a global war on terror like now, but it was still a war against terrorists and we pwned them.

Well thanks for the notice? Still dosen't answer my question.

[QUOTE="knowledge-funk"][QUOTE="MarineJcksn"][QUOTE="knowledge-funk"][QUOTE="jlh47"][QUOTE="knowledge-funk"][QUOTE="jlh47"]

[QUOTE="Nwordjohn"]MarineJcksn

You proud or something? What is this terror you speak of? If we already won, why are we still in Iraq, and as well 130 different nations?

Research the Barbary Wars of the early 1800's. Thomas Jefferson led the first US war on terror, and our Marine Corps kicked *** at Tripoli. Granted, it wasn't a global war on terror like now, but it was still a war against terrorists and we pwned them.

Terrorism is completely subjective.. So please stop talking like the United States is against all terrorists.. We have supported and still support terrorists and extremists..

And the Barbary war was against pirates.. Not Terrorists..

[QUOTE="awsss"][QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"]The U.S is the only superpower in the world and its going to beat the #### out of Iran. :evil: j/pizzi88

U.S. never got a drop of oil from Iraq.. how about you learn about what youre talking about before you open your mouth

How do you know this? Have you researched this?

Read this link: http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp

[QUOTE="awsss"][QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"]The U.S is the only superpower in the world and its going to beat the #### out of Iran. :evil: j/pTylendal

The U.S.'s military might isn't the best. Places like China can top them. The U.S. simply has more nukes than everyone else.

As far as I am concerned, the leader of Iran, is the reincarnation of hitler Prompt military force is needed in Iran to prevent any international incidents from occurring. buxboy

Wow. Great thinking there chuck.

[QUOTE="MarineJcksn"][QUOTE="knowledge-funk"][QUOTE="MarineJcksn"][QUOTE="knowledge-funk"][QUOTE="jlh47"][QUOTE="knowledge-funk"][QUOTE="jlh47"]

[QUOTE="Nwordjohn"]sSubZerOo

You proud or something? What is this terror you speak of? If we already won, why are we still in Iraq, and as well 130 different nations?

Research the Barbary Wars of the early 1800's. Thomas Jefferson led the first US war on terror, and our Marine Corps kicked *** at Tripoli. Granted, it wasn't a global war on terror like now, but it was still a war against terrorists and we pwned them.

Terrorism is completely subjective.. So please stop talking like the United States is against all terrorists.. We have supported and still support terrorists and extremists..

And the Barbary war was against pirates.. Not Terrorists..

The barbary Pirates used guerilla tactics to take merchant ships off the coast of Africa through violence and fear, terrorism. Modern terrorism is more religion-based, but this was still terrorism. And we stopped it. Yes, you are correct when you say we've supported terrorists. I'm far from following our government into oblivion by just thinking what they do is right, but I do believe the world is greatly underestimating muslim extremists throughout the middle east and their plans to destroy the west. They've already started floating the idea of Sharia Law in the UK, what if they actually make it happen?

Whats he smoking??

[QUOTE="ItalStallion777"][QUOTE="bryan2020"][QUOTE="mechwarrior_bob"][QUOTE="knowledge-funk"][QUOTE="mechwarrior_bob"][QUOTE="knowledge-funk"][QUOTE="mechwarrior_bob"][QUOTE="knowledge-funk"][QUOTE="Vyse_The_Daring"]

[QUOTE="awsss"][QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"]The U.S is the only superpower in the world and its going to beat the #### out of Iran. :evil: j/pknowledge-funk

Actually, the United States gets most of its oil from Saudia Arabia and Canada.

Well if you acually believe that Iraq was not a war for oil than I suggest you read this.

http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp

Actually I think I would be more happy if the U.S. wen't in for the oil, I don't think it makes us evil...We've gone into Latin America/South America TONS of times to protect trading interests why stop now?

So its okay for our government to lie to us saying that the war in Iraq is to progress democracy and find the evil weapons of mass destructions, when it is really for Oil. No its not okay. They do not have right to lie to us, and our country does not have a right to occupy another another country for its own beneficial purposes.

Why not kill 2 (or 3) birds in one stone?

First, once again, our country is not better than another. We have our own different policies, government, laws; a distinct way of living from other countries. We should not be enforcing our "democracy" on a another country, it does not make sense. Even so, it does not seem as they are even doing that objective. Second, no weapons were found, they should let the inspections go on longer. Now they are saying that it takes time for this, dosen't make much sense. So right there, we are not killing two birds with one stone, we are going right for oil. And oil, we shouldn't even be doing this. We must act fair and moral (even if we don't agree with anotehr nations ways) and obtain our needed glory of oil through basic far processes.

Whether or not you agree with the methods we are establishing Democracy and a potential ally that would be key in the Middle East (we need all we can get). Yes I agree our country is not better than another but I feel as a nation we have to promote the general commonwealth of the world and if that means through armoured columns then....so be it. I also feel that we are doing this (helping more then hurting etc.) in Iraq even if we're doing it for the oil. Until I see a general corruption to invade and plunder and leave then I will agree with our intentions.

I dont think america is getting any real ally in the middle east for invading iraq , i dont see any promotion to general commonwealth when all america did and still doing is killing thousands and invading iraq for their own benefit .

And its definitly hurting more than helping , if i invade your homeland and kill your people and suck your oil or any natural resources and make a mess of your country while doing so , then leaving when my need is done .... is that helping ?? not its not , thats down right evil .

the anti-american sentiment is strong in this one.

So me not agreeing what our concept of war is being anti-american now? That is exactly what is done within our society. If we choose not to agree with out government and its ways, were are considered anti-ameican and isolated from within. The fact is this war is unjustified, they had planned this war from before, they lied to us to get what they wished for, like before, and it will continue as long as there is ignorant people as yourself. You yourself seem unpatriotic for not wanting what our country was really about and choosing to continue and destroy ato destroy whats left of the US with these neverending wars in which we [as citizens] will never gain from, rather only the government in power will.

my apologies young padawan but it's hard to take you seriously when all i see is you pulling stuff out of your ass with no proof and no way to back it up. you call blaming your country for things it didnt do and not giving it credit for what it did good patriotic? i guess you would consider anyone with a opposing viewpoint to how our government acted or will act is a patriot, am i correct? i regress...

i'll break down your post and show you where you are incorrect.

lets start with your first paragraph: "I dont think america is getting any real ally in the middle east for invading iraq , i dont see any promotion to general commonwealth when all america did and still doing is killing thousands and invading iraq for their own benefit."

you thinking iraq will not be an ally is speculation and an opinion.

you not thinking iraq will be better off in the future is completely ignorant and shows you haven't done your homework (even though this still is an opinion). why don't you take a look at what saddam did during his reign, the terror he caused, and how the people were oppressed and then come and tell me they aren't better off or will be better off in the future.

then you go on to say how all america did is kill iraqis and invade iraq for our own benefit. yes we killed many military personnel and yes there were civilian casualties, like in every war. im not quite sure how this works into your argument. if you are implying that they should have never died you must also be implying that saddam should still be in power. if you are implying that american soldiers are murderers then you should should take a look at the soldiers rules of engagement and casualty reports with corresponding information how they died and realize its not us doing the majority of the killing, it's the insurgents and terrorists.

since you have stated that america only invaded iraq for its own benefit i guess you don't consider half a trillion dollars of reconstruction as a benefit to iraq. do you have any idea the infrastructure we have rebuilt/built for them? why don't you take a look for yourself. good news from iraq

on to the second paragraph...."And its definitely hurting more than helping , if i invade your homeland and kill your people and suck your oil or any natural resources and make a mess of your country while doing so , then leaving when my need is done .... is that helping ?? not its not , thats down right evil."

hurting more than helping? from that statement one could only gather that you would have preferred saddam to have stayed in power. disagreeing with the war and thinking it should have never happened is one thing but how could anyone say that saddam, a genocidal dictator, is better than the current "mess" iraq is in?

war for oil: oh jeez, do people honestly still think that we went to war for oil? sucking their oil? lol you do know that we receive a fairly small percentage of our oil from iraq than we do from other nations such as canada and saudi arabia right? and even then we pay for every single barrel. the cost of the war greatly outweighs any benefits we can potentially get from the oil in iraq. think about it logically; if we really needed oil that badly why wouldn't we just drill in various other places in this country, such as alaska, rather than going to war? i'm pretty sure war and the invasion of a country is a little worse than some small environmental problems.

then you call america evil because we are apparently leaving when our need is done. did we leave iraq out to dry after the main part of the conflict? no. aren't we continuing to battle alongside the iraqis to make sure that when we eventually pull out a stable democracy will remain? aren't we the country that is pouring all this money to help them rebuild their struggling country? if the "need" is oil then wouldn't we have already pulled out by now? you are the epitome of an ignorance.

i salute you sir, you are one hell of a patriot.

[QUOTE="SmithWesson642"][QUOTE="Nwordjohn"][QUOTE="SmithWesson642"]

[QUOTE="Nwordjohn"]Its propaganda designed to raise American sentiment against Iran. "Iran thinks its the best? NO WAY WE ARE" is the reaction they're trying to raise in you. It really does amaze me that people don't realize that most of these articles and news stories being fed to them are just part of the psychological warfare that is propaganda.

Iran has done nothing wrong. There is no reason to invade them. If you do, you are the bad guys. Period.
Nwordjohn

If they tell us to invade Iran, then we have no choice.

That is exactly why I miss the 70's. When people had enough balls to stand up to their government's warmongering and protest. They're not going to stop unless people en masse show up outside the white house to protest it. Too bad you've already sacrified enough of your constitution that you would be considered terrorists and would be held without trial.

I'll be honest, Iraq isn't anything compared to Vietnam.

I'm sure if as many people were dying in IRaq as Nam, then people would stop joining the military, and civilians would be protesting ALOT more.

Are you implying that Iraqis are not people? Because the death toll for the civilians and "combatants" in Iraq is well over the million mark now. They down play it on CNN and Fox news because those are basically the neo-con mouth piece for Americans. The fact that human life isn't valued by people because of the nation they are born in is just disgusting. I'd choose an Iraqi over an American any day of the week and I'm not the only one. At least they are actually fighting the oppression thats being put over them. Enjoy your Patriot Act, Victory Act, Freedom Act, SPP and all of the other laws passed to protect you from "terrorists" while in reality they are stripping you of your Freedoms. Of course, you need to fight the terrorists.

In regards to the US military + China posts:

China has more active troops.

The US has a bigger and better airforce and a bigger and better navy.

Case in point: The US has over 30 aircraft carriers, China have none.

China's military is purely for defence, keeping order and if they ever get the chance; Taiwan.

Also America would have no problem going to war with Iran, they wouldnt even need to invade. Park some Carriers, get the air superiorty going and then commence bombing. No need for ground forces or even nukes.

And funk, Pakistan are greater allies with America than Iran. Same goes for Afghanistan as NATO are currently occupying it.

[QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"]

[QUOTE="awsss"][QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"]The U.S is the only superpower in the world and its going to beat the #### out of Iran. :evil: j/pRKfromDownunder

China might have bigger Army then us, but we have the high tech machinery that they don't have.

Wow, uninformed much?

America HAS THE LARGEST STANDING ARMY IN THE WORLD. China downsized MANY years ago, they have no need for war as their secret police put down any attempts of civil revolution and in terms of foriegn issues, well, they don't actually have any to speak of. China wins through financial domination, not war.

And if a real war did break out between China and America, guess what, you're gona die! You think China would let America touch her soil without WIPING your major cities off the map? Get real. They may be capitalist but they still have one of the most hardline and dangerous governments in the world. Who shoots who's plane down won't matter when your exchanging titan missiles.

Cmon people. China IS a superpower. You may not like it but they are. THEY OWN 80% of your nation! If you stop buying their products they will simply recal their loans and instantly castrate your economy. If either makes a move its financial MAD.

Ok...no...just no. First of all. The People's Liberation Army is still the largest standing army in the world, totaling 2.255 million troops vs the USA's 1.426 million. Second, there's a high chance that China will take military action (war) if Taiwan declares a Republic of Taiwan. Third, China doesn't own the USA's economy. 19% of the US's imports come from China and exports 10% of it's goods to China. In the event of war, nuclear weapons would not be used because it means China will be wiped off the map too.

On the other hand, China exports 21% of it's goods to the USA...guess who's more dependent on who?

China is a growing power with the potential to become a super power, that's all there is.

my apologies young padawan but it's hard to take you seriously when all i see is you pulling stuff out of your ass with no proof and no way to back it up. you call blaming your country for things it didnt do and not giving it credit for what it did good patriotic? i guess you would consider anyone with a opposing viewpoint to how our government acted or will act is a patriot, am i correct? i regress...

i'll break down your post and show you where you are incorrect.

lets start with your first paragraph: "I dont think america is getting any real ally in the middle east for invading iraq , i dont see any promotion to general commonwealth when all america did and still doing is killing thousands and invading iraq for their own benefit."

you thinking iraq will not be an ally is speculation and an opinion.

you not thinking iraq will be better off in the future is completely ignorant and shows you haven't done your homework (even though this still is an opinion). why don't you take a look at what saddam did during his reign, the terror he caused, and how the people were oppressed and then come and tell me they aren't better off or will be better off in the future.

then you go on to say how all america did is kill iraqis and invade iraq for our own benefit. yes we killed many military personnel and yes there were civilian casualties, like in every war. im not quite sure how this works into your argument. if you are implying that they should have never died you must also be implying that saddam should still be in power. if you are implying that american soldiers are murderers then you should should take a look at the soldiers rules of engagement and casualty reports with corresponding information how they died and realize its not us doing the majority of the killing, it's the insurgents and terrorists.

since you have stated that america only invaded iraq for its own benefit i guess you don't consider half a trillion dollars of reconstruction as a benefit to iraq. do you have any idea the infrastructure we have rebuilt/built for them? why don't you take a look for yourself. good news from iraq

on to the second paragraph...."And its definitely hurting more than helping , if i invade your homeland and kill your people and suck your oil or any natural resources and make a mess of your country while doing so , then leaving when my need is done .... is that helping ?? not its not , thats down right evil."

hurting more than helping? from that statement one could only gather that you would have preferred saddam to have stayed in power. disagreeing with the war and thinking it should have never happened is one thing but how could anyone say that saddam, a genocidal dictator, is better than the current "mess" iraq is in?

war for oil: oh jeez, do people honestly still think that we went to war for oil? sucking their oil? lol you do know that we receive a fairly small percentage of our oil from iraq than we do from other nations such as canada and saudi arabia right? and even then we pay for every single barrel. the cost of the war greatly outweighs any benefits we can potentially get from the oil in iraq. think about it logically; if we really needed oil that badly why wouldn't we just drill in various other places in this country, such as alaska, rather than going to war? i'm pretty sure war and the invasion of a country is a little worse than some small environmental problems.

then you call america evil because we are apparently leaving when our need is done. did we leave iraq out to dry after the main part of the conflict? no. aren't we continuing to battle alongside the iraqis to make sure that when we eventually pull out a stable democracy will remain? aren't we the country that is pouring all this money to help them rebuild their struggling country? if the "need" is oil then wouldn't we have already pulled out by now? you are the epitome of an ignorance.

i salute you sir, you are one hell of a patriot.

ItalStallion777

Well, considering you are arguing at points in which I did not make but others did, you won't go far. You state that I provide no proof or evidence, your did so yourself; only link I see is from a blog. Once again I suggested others to view the link I provided; since most seem to not attempt to view this link, I will provid the info for you to see.

PROOF - WAR ON IRAQ IS FOR OIL

Bush decided to invade Iraq in April 2001, six months before September 11th, and the official reason was to improve Western access to Iraqi oil.

"President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains

a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets

from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to

the US 'military intervention' is necessary."[1]

The decision for military action had nothing to do with 9/11, the war on terrorism, the UN weapons inspections, weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi human rights, or any of the factors that the US government would like you to believe are the true motives for war.


The only people who will benefit from the war on Iraq are the elite wealthy oil men who finance Bush's election campaigns, and people like Bush who have huge personal investments in the oil industry. Oil company profits have already increased by fifty percent this year because of the war, and the invasion hasn't even started yet!



"Profits in the fourth quarter soared 50% to $4.09bn (£2.5bn),

beating analyst expectations."[2]

War-time propaganda tells you what you want to hear; that your politicians have noble motives for the war on Iraq.



Before you choose what to believe, have you considered the facts[3] for yourself?

SOURCES:

[1] Sunday Herald newspaper (UK), "Official: US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis", 6 October 2002.
http://www.sundayherald.com/print28285


[2] BBC News (UK), "Oil prices lift ExxonMobil", 30 January 2003.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2710597.stm


[3] Council on Foreign Relations, "Strategic Energy Policy Challanges for the 21st Century", April 2001.
http://www.bakerinstitute.org/

US VICE-PRESIDENT CHENEY SHARES OUT IRAQ'S OIL

Halliburton, an oil services company based in Bush's home-state of Texas, which was formerly run by US Vice-President Dick Cheney, has already been awarded a contract by the US government to operate in post-war Iraq.[1]

"Reports in the Wall Street Journal suggested the

contracts could be worth as much as $900m."[2]

Haliburton "has a history of government contracts" and will be a "leading beneficiary" of the war on Iraq. Mr Cheney should receive huge financial rewards for the war on Iraq through substantial investments in the corporation he once headed.



Iraq is currently the world's second largest source of oil, but the majority of subterranean oil reserves have never been tapped. After the war, when US oil corporations have fully developed the oil industry's potential, Iraq is expected to become the largest single supply of oil on Earth.

"The new oilfields, when developed, could produce up

to eight million barrels a day within a few years - thus

rivalling Saudi Arabia, the present kingpin of oil."[3]

The world's largest oil corporations are lining-up to exploit what could be the world's greatest supply of oil, and the US government has ensured that companies owned and heavily invested in by America are first in the queue.[4]

SOURCES

[1] Evening Standard (UK), "Cheney under fire over spoils of war", 11 March 2003.

"THE company once headed by US Vice-President
Dick Cheney is set to be a big corporate winner in the
event of a war with Iraq that ended in US victory."

[2] BBC News (UK), "US firms vie to rebuild Iraq", 10 March 2003.

"Aside from Halliburton unit Kellogg Brown and Root,
they include Bechtel, Fluor, Louis Berger and Parsons.
All five are US-owned and headquartered."

[3] Evening Standard, "Is this war all about oil?", 11 March 2003 (PM).

"In the past few days the United States has brought
unprecedented financial pressure on other members
of the UN Security Council - particularly Russia, so
far without success - to join the war on Iraq."

[4] Evening Standard, "Giants see post-war oil bonanza", 10 March 2003.

"President Saddam Hussein is believed to be sitting on
reserves of at least 115bn barrels, the second-biggest in
the world after Saudi Arabia."

FURTHER READING

BBC News, "Oil firms 'discuss Iraqi stake'", 12 March 2003.

"Oil firms BP and Shell [both owned primarily by big
investors in the US and the UK] have held discussions
with the government over a possible stake in Iraq's oil
reserves..."

Washington Post (USA), "Companies Selected to Bid on Iraq Reconstruction", 11 March 2003.

"The Bush administration, preparing what would be
the most ambitious U.S. rebuilding project since the
aftermath of World War II, expects in coming days to
award a construction contract worth hundreds of
millions of dollars to begin remaking Iraq, U.S. officials
said yesterday."



"A few U.S. construction giants -- including the Bechtel
Group Inc., Halliburton Co. and Fluor Corp. -- were
invited to bid for the work..."

BBC News, "Analysis: Oil and the Bush cabinet", 29 January 2001.

"What makes the new Bush administration different
from previous wealthy cabinets is that so many of
the officials have links to the same industry - oil."

BBC News, "Dick Cheney: Leading hawk", 10 September 2002.

"The vice president has also been deeply involved in the
oil industry for much of his career."

BBC News, "New Enron sleaze allegations", 8 October 2002.

"The 'creative' accountancy of Arthur Andersen in Dick
Cheney's firm Halliburton is now under official
investigation."

AMERICA SOLD SADDAM HUSSEIN HIS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

The US government is attempting to justify their plans for war on Iraq, the world's second largest source of oil, by accusing Iraq of possessing weapons of mass destruction.

The US government has proclaimed that Saddam Hussein must be disarmed. However, recently [hidden] official government documents reveal that Iraq was armed with weapons of mass destruction by the USA!


SECRET DEAL


The US Defence Secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, is a strong supporter of president Bush's plan to invade Iraq, yet a few years ago he personally helped to supply Iraq with biological and chemical weapons!

Donald H. Rumsfeld attended a secret meeting with Saddam Hussein in Iraq on behalf of the US government in December 1983, and agreed to sell Iraq weapons of mass destruction and arranged a loan to give Saddam Hussein the money to buy them. At that time, Iraq was using weapons of mass destruction against its neighbours, and the US not only allowed this but actively supported it.


IS AMERICA MORE DANGEROUS THAN IRAQ AND AL-QAEDA?

Would a war to disarm Iraq solve the true problem? Should we invade Iraq for possessing weapons of mass destruction? Or would it be more worthwhile to stop America supporting terrorism and rogue states?

The US government supported Osama bin Laden during the cold war, and now they want to destroy al-Qaeda. But if we defeat Iraq and al-Qaeda, will it solve the problem or prevent such things from happening again?

The US government supports terrorists dangerous regimes when it suits them. America profits from selling weapons, and then profits by charging interest on the loans which allowed the weapons to be purchased! American weapons are sometimes sold to dangerous regimes, and to both sides in some conflicts. The US government supported Iraq, now they want to disarm Iraq, but while some people make money, unfortunately many people die during both processes.


SADDAM HUSSEIN'S SUSPICIOUS SILENCE:

Why did Saddam Hussein keep this fact secret, when details of such terrible American hypocrisy could have been used as a powerful weapon in his propaganda war against the USA?

What might have been revealed about the secret side of America's relationship with Iraq within the 8,500 pages that the US government removed from Iraq's 12,000 page weapons declaration before most UN security council members were allowed to see it?


INVESTIGATING AMERICA'S TRUE MOTIVES FOR WAR WITH IRAQ:

The US government's official reasons for wanting to invade Iraq have proved to be false, so we must consider other motives that have not been declared such as oil.

PRIMARY SOURCE:

"Washington Post" newspaper article (USA)

Title: "U.S. had key role in Iraq build up"

Author: Michael Dobbs

Date: 30 Dec 2002

Page: front page

Extracts:



"Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds"



"High on the Bush administration's list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists. What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally."



"Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. De****fied documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an 'almost daily' basis in defiance of international conventions."



"The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend.'"



...



"A review of thousands of de****fied government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."

Extracts:

"Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds"



"High on the Bush administration's list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists. What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally."



"Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. De****fied documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an 'almost daily' basis in defiance of international conventions."



"The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend.'"



...



"A review of thousands of de****fied government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."

SECONDARY SOURCE

"Daily Mail" newspaper article (UK)

Title: "Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons'"

Date: 31 December 2002

Author: William Lowther

Page: front page

TERTIARY SOURCE:

USA Today
Title: "U.S. supplied the kinds of germs Iraq later used for biological weapons"
Date: 30 September 2002.

Extract:

"Iraq's bioweapons program that President Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq.

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show."


Extract:

"U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfield helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of biological and chemical weapons, it was revealed last night."


TERTIARY SOURCE:



USA Today
Title: "U.S. supplied the kinds of germs Iraq later used for biological weapons"
Date: 30 September 2002.



Extract:

"Iraq's bioweapons program that President Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq.



"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show."





FURTHER READING:


BBC News, "Rumsfeld cautious on Iraqi compliance", 12 December 2002.

BBC News, "Donald Rumsfeld: Tough and determined", 10 September 02.

BBC News, "Bush: Iraq's 'day of reckoning' looms", 3 January 03.

As you can see here in the picture, without being a military commander, i've drawn up a rough military execution for ground troop movements. No doubt we would secure some rights from turkey to move troops through their territory, and Iraq and Afghanistan are a given, wether they like it or not. The Iraq War would become a non-issue and we'd leave it's own security to iraq local security forces. Given that we are engaging the major source for terrorists in iraq in the first place, i doubt they'd have much of an issue.

As you can see the primary strategy for ground troops beyond securing ports and military bases and air fields, will be to take over the government center of Tehran. We'd have troops go through southern iraq into iran to help secure southern ports along the Persian gulf. Many of our own naval assets will already have taken over much of the Persian gulf and essentially sealed off the ports from outside influence, and we could then proceed to ship in more troops via naval travel.

Through Northern Iraq, Turkey, and Afghanistan marines will mobilize taking routes to major air fields and bases, and securing a route to Tehran. Meanwhile we will have a contingent of troops take a parth north of iran to secure ports along the caspian sea, and set up command posts along Iran's northern borders.

Depending upon Pakistan's involement, troops may want to set up an artificial border along the gray dotted line to cut off Pakistani forces from interfering elsewhere in the country. The main goal will be to hold off pakistan until Iran's primary government has been killed or capture.

With the proximity of the Persian Gulf, having an Aircraft carrier present allows many air attacks on the country with little time in between reloads, allowing for quick reaction to troop movements and tank spotting. Primary targets will include but not be limited to Army Bases, Uranium Enrichment facilities, weapons cache's, and Targets-of-opportunity.

Anyway, suffice it to say, it seems to me the layout of Iran gidoesnt give the US any trouble, and the Persian Gulf gives us Naval Assets a close and direct route to Iran.

Tolwan

Dont worry guys. We're gonna be alright. :D

BRITISH NEWSPAPER SUGGESTS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL

In today's front-page news, the UK's Daily Mirror newspaper highlighted the overwhelming evidence that the US government's plans for war are motivated by oil more than anything else.[1] However, the government has not yet informed the public that oil is a motive for the "war on terrorism".

The newspaper also warned that America and her allies could face over 10 years of war. According to a Captain currently training US soldiers: "We must reckon with 30 per cent casualties in such combat". A General who served in the Gulf War has predicted that the invasion of Iraq that: "It will be a bloodbath."[2]

America is preparing to plunge the world into an extremely serious military campaign at the end of January 2003[3], but has the US government been open and honest with the public about their reasons?
Read the evidence and decide for yourself.


SOURCES

[1] Daily Mirror, "Why George Bush Jnr is hell-bent on war with Iraq", front-page, 6 January 2003.

[2] Daily Mirror, "Our 10 year war", 6 January 2003.

[3] Washington Post newspaper, "Bush Tells Troops: Prepare For War", 4 January 2003, front page.

U.N. DECLARES 'NO CASE' FOR AMERICA'S WAR WITH IRAQ
NO REASON FOR IRAQ WAR

United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has admitted that there is
"no basis" yet for the use of force against Iraq.

"I don't see an argument for military action now"

- Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General


"We haven't found an iota of concealed material yet

- UN weapons inspector

[ BBC News, "'No basis' for Iraq war now", 31 December 2002 ]


U.N. CONTRADICTS US ACCUSATIONS

This contradicts the US government's claim that Iraq is in "material

breach" of UN resolutions. The deliberate use of this term is significant,

because a "material breach" would give the US legal power to invade Iraq.


[ BBC News, "Bush to speak on Iraq 'violation'", 20 December 2002 ]



TOP-SECRET AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE

The US government claimed last year they possessed intelligence against

Saddam Hussein and promised to share this with the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq.


[ BBC News, "US agrees to share Iraq intelligence", 21 December 2002 ]


However, the UN weapons inspectors have not yet seen any of the

intelligence that the US and the UK governments claim to have.


"We need intelligence reports if they exist"

- UN weapons inspector

[ BBC News, "'No basis' for Iraq war now", 31 December 2002 ]

VATICAN WARNS AMERICA THAT WAR ON IRAQ IS NOT JUSTIFED

The Vatican has warned president Bush that a war against Iraq would be:

"a war of aggression that cannot be justified"

An official Catholic newspaper reports that this statement was made during a press-press conference by the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace at the headquarters of the Catholic church.[1]
The American president has announced that the US military will be ready for war with Iraq by 27 January 2003.[2]


SOURCES

[1] The Universe, "Vatican condemns US determination to attack", 6 January 2003.
[2] Washington Post newspaper, "Bush Tells Troops: Prepare For War", 4 January 2003, front page.