StarGateWars Forums

buck wrote:And america doesnt have anything like Guntanamo Bay, Right? Oh wait...

Point conceded, to a degree. Yes, we have Gitmo. Not exactly the nicest place around, though it doesn't hold the nicest people either. And, yes, there are flaws in grabbing terrorists for there. But while there are some who have been held unjustly, there are also those who have returned to terrorism and been recaptured/killed after being released from Gitmo. So, it's not like most people being held are mistakes.

buck wrote:Anti Western? Answer me this, if your country was small in population and most but not all, naturaly resources, and you where being presured into things or bullied into things, by a much MUCH larger nation or group of nations, say your countries west, and these countries are all eastern, would you not be anti eastern, just as they are anti western?

Cute geopolitical spin with the anti-Eastern idea. However, Iran is a hostile government. They were a hostile government the moment they overthrew their previous government and blamed the US for it's failure, storming the US embassy at the same time. The US did nothing more than support a previously standing government, which was starting to die off and become unpopular. And, because we hold superpower status, it's easy to tack on an "America is evil" to a revolution. It gives a unifying effect for a rebellion to have an outside enemy to focus against. I've come to the conclusion that other people to blame America for their problems because we're so obviously the source of evil in the world.

buck wrote:Shoes on feet! Change them for a minute! And your socks for that matter...

I can see it from their perspective. I fail to see why they don't use some of their oil to make plastic for solar or wind power plants, and why it must be nuclear power, which in the process can create weapons grade uranium/plutonium that can be used for harmful actions. If they want more/cleaner power, there are other alternates. They can make it an "us vs them" match and act like the victim. But personally, I don't trust them with having the ability to create nukes, because all you need is one nut to call the rest of the world infidels who need to be cleansed and a big red button to get trouble. And unfortunately, religious organizations tend to turn these zealots up a lot easier than their civic counterparts.

buck wrote:Anti Western? Answer me this, if your country was small in population and most but not all, naturaly resources, and you where being presured into things or bullied into things, by a much MUCH larger nation or group of nations, say your countries west, and these countries are all eastern, would you not be anti eastern, just as they are anti western?

it happens that my country is small in population (and not just that), with not even much natural resources and we are being bullied and pressured into things by a much larger group of nations (exactly by group of self-appointed bureaucrats claiming to represent them)

Phoenix of Terra wrote:I can see it from their perspective. I fail to see why they don't use some of their oil to make plastic for solar or wind power plants, and why it must be nuclear power, which in the process can create weapons grade uranium/plutonium that can be used for harmful actions. If they want more/cleaner power, there are other alternates.

cos nuclear power is the cheappest, most efficient source of clean eco-friendly energy availiable?

People seem to forget that nuclear energy isn't unlimited either...so it's not really a solution to petroleum. In long term I mean.

Legendary Apophis wrote:People seem to forget that nuclear energy isn't unlimited either...so it's not really a solution to petroleum. In long term I mean.

There are ways to recycle it though. I think France actually pioneered them.

the french?? pioneered?? are ya sure??

Phoenix of Terra wrote:

Legendary Apophis wrote:People seem to forget that nuclear energy isn't unlimited either...so it's not really a solution to petroleum. In long term I mean.

There are ways to recycle it though. I think France actually pioneered them.

Yes, but if all is focused on it and we abandon gas, will be problematic.

@Corran, I feel for you, But at least you guys get a vote...

Our 30% of the population elected government tells us that we are going to say yes...Still, you all voted no, and they still claim its a big yes....lol

@Phoenix of terrer - I hate to play this card, but there is only one country who has used a nuke in an act of anger/agression....

buck wrote:

Phoenix of Terra wrote:

buck wrote:

APADAMEK! wrote:

Darth Optimus wrote:Yeah it would be funny if Iran just told Bush and Brown flat out no nuclear plants for us no oil for you. Man they would change their attitude quick. Or who knows they might just decide to just invade Iran just because. All they would have to do is to lie about some intel and then go to war. It wouldn't be hard for Bush cause he already lied about Saddam having WMDs.

You do realize that would screw their economy a hell of alot worse then the USA's?

Saudi Arabia is the big oil tycoon, iran doesnt have alot.

Saddam is a different kettle of fish, he was into genocide....Irans PM is not.

All i did was try to start a serious disscussion...and it turns into spammmmm!

We're talking about the same Iran which has used teens to clear minefields, right? They're just as good as killing those internal dissendents as Iraq, except they're dissendents can be labeled heretical because it's a religious government. So much cleaner that way. And, while we're at it, Iran is also the country which has called for the destruction of Isreal (nukes would help wonders there), kicked out UN observers who were looking over the power plant (only let them back in after serious external pressure), has a very anti-Western government (1979 anyone?), and is aiding insurgents in Iraq (not everything that comes out of press conferences is White House spin, as shown by Time Magazine here and here).

Oh, and last time I checked, has strong ties to China. That's where most of there oil is probably going (which is why China uses it's veto to stop actions against Iran in the Security Council), while we get most of our from Saudi Arabia, Venezuala ( ), and Alaska/Gulf Coast, among other places.

Not exactly a country I'd want to turn the other cheek to.

Corran Horn wrote:

Darth Optimus wrote:Or who knows they might just decide to just invade Iran just because. All they would have to do is to lie about some intel and then go to war. It wouldn't be hard for Bush cause he already lied about Saddam having WMDs.

can somebdy inform bush about some other countries. like venezuela? i'd greatly appreciate that...

Agreed. Chavez is an idiot. Of course, he adds to the effect every time he opens his mouth. Did he seriously think he would get away with invading Colombia?

And america doesnt have anything like Guntanamo Bay, Right? Oh wait...

Swings and roundabouts....

Anti Western? Answer me this, if your country was small in population and most but not all, naturaly resources, and you where being presured into things or bullied into things, by a much MUCH larger nation or group of nations, say your countries west, and these countries are all eastern, would you not be anti eastern, just as they are anti western?

Shoes on feet! Change them for a minute! And your socks for that matter...

Explain why that gives them the right to execute girls at age 9 and boys at 13.

buck wrote:@Phoenix of terrer - I hate to play this card, but there is only one country who has used a nuke in an act of anger/agression....

Operation Downfall

Seven figure casualties against a nation planning to force even schoolgirls to fight, destroying a significant portion of its population along with US troops, or drop two bombs, killing around 400,000. It's ugly, but it could have been much uglier and we might be sitting here saying instead "Why didn't the US do something else, or Japan surrender? That invasion devestated most of Japan." (As opposed to two cities).

And, while aggression might be applicable, despite the fact that we weren't the ones that launched preemptive strikes against most Pacific nations/colonies and Japan was warned about the coming destruction and offered to surrender plenty of times beforehand, I resent the implication that it was used out of anger. Those were both calculated strikes against military targets, which did have surrounding civilian populations. If we had been striking out in anger/malice, don't you think the greater population of Tokyo or the cultural significant Kyoto would have attracted a bombing instead?

Just letting you know im not ignoring the topic of disscussion, but i only have 5 minutes and i need at least 20 to formulate an answer worthy of you to read. Will make one later!

buck wrote:@Corran, I feel for you, But at least you guys get a vote...

Our 30% of the population elected government tells us that we are going to say yes...Still, you all voted no, and they still claim its a big yes....lol

and i'm now under the impression that this wasn't a vote but a test. we gave the wrong answer and now they're talking about punishing us (taoiseach has to explain, no commisioner and such) like bad pupils in school we'll have to come with our parents, stand a bit in the corner and write 100 times "EU is good for you". then ther'll be another test untill we learn our lesson and tick the right box.
so i want to be expelled from that school. here and now. period.

buck wrote:Just letting you know im not ignoring the topic of disscussion, but i only have 5 minutes and i need at least 20 to formulate an answer worthy of you to read. Will make one later!

Completely understand, been in that situation before. I await when you have more time

1.) to all Americans out there & American lovers why do you think the USA is so world wide hated? because you enforce your ways to everybody! US needs oil, US invades Iraq. US needs to build a gas line, US invades Afghanistan. US needs to control its ppl, the Bush family invents Osama bin Ladn! i mean c'mon no wonder the "anti US" countries (those which don't wanna suck up to you) feel threatened!!!! and US allowed Pakistan the right to build nuclear power plants, why not allow the Iranians???? I'm 100% sure that there are more terrorists in Pakistan than Iran!!!!!!!

2.) what's so wrong with hating Israel????????? Those ***** came to Palestine and claimed that land for their own!!! how would you feel is fome1 would come to NY and claim it for his new "long lost" motherland?????



@ buck: Iran has 4. largest world oil reserves

Pink_Bunny wrote:1.) to all Americans out there & American lovers why do you think the USA is so world wide hated? because you enforce your ways to everybody! US needs oil, US invades Iraq. US needs to build a gas line, US invades Afghanistan. US needs to control its ppl, the Bush family invents Osama bin Ladn! i mean c'mon no wonder the "anti US" countries (those which don't wanna suck up to you) feel threatened!!!! and US allowed Pakistan the right to build nuclear power plants, why not allow the Iranians???? I'm 100% sure that there are more terrorists in Pakistan than Iran!!!!!!!

2.) what's so wrong with hating Israel????????? Those ***** came to Palestine and claimed that land for their own!!! how would you feel is fome1 would come to NY and claim it for his new "long lost" motherland?????



@ buck: Iran has 4. largest world oil reserves

Thank you for giving me something to do while the ever-lovable Buck is busy. It's people like you which makes us Americans roll our eyes.

First, Iraq was not invaded for oil. If it was, then it was a secondary reason at best. And somebody needs to get on that then, because the price of crude should be cheaper in the US than it is atm. Cause if we're supposed to be going to war for oil, we should at least take advantage of the situation and stop allowing the Iraqis (especially the Kurds) to sell it! What's the world going to do, complain we went to war for oil? Oh, and we already did build a gas line, or at least have begun working on one. At least, the Kurds have almost completed one from Kirkuk to Mediterranean seaports, shown <here>.

Now, on the Afghanistan, which happened before Iraq (thought I should mention that, seeing as you have them from latest to earliest in your post. Something you probably already know, but it's always best to order chronologically). Afghanistan was the location of <Al-Qaeda> training camps. It was also the home of a totalarian government of religious zealots. We've all seen what lengths the <Taliban> has gone too in recent years. That doesn't just happen overnight (I don't remember ever hearing about the Northern Alliance video taping beheadings). When Al-Qaeda launched attacks on the US, what did you want us to do? Sit on our hands and cry about how it's too bad that they came up with a hairbrained scheme that hurt us? That we really can't do anything about it? Perhaps you'd rather we sent it to the World Court! Of course, neither the US or Al-Qaeda/Taliban are associated with the World Court (BTW, that means Bush can't be charged for war crimes outside of US, unless we say so. Just fyi). Finally, Bin Ladin has been around since the 80's. First he fought with the Mujaheeden in the mountains of Afghanistan against the Soviets, then he started terrorizing the US, seen <here>, <here>, and <here>; all these incidents are before 9/11.

Finally, on the "unfairness" of allowing Pakistan nukes and not Iran. Plain and simple, we didn't allow anything. The Pakistanis stole nuclear technology from a German company to compete with the Indians, who had already developed nuclear technology on their own. More on Pakistan cen be seen <here>, and a small tidbit on India can be seen <here>.

Edit: My coding refused to underline or color my links, despite my constant pleas. So, link words are designated by <word>

the question is:

should the civilized nations intervene to stop the barbarities of barbaric nations or should they adopt some kind of a prime directive?