Khatami promises ”hell” to any aggressor

[cgannon64]

Wow, Azadre, I see you've found more than one kook to claim that he is ready for a US invasion. But I'm sure you can find more than just two.

 

[BasketCase]

As many other posters have said, the situation will be the same as Iraq, only multiplied many times over.

Those posters are wrong. Most of them predicted a massacre in Iraq--it didn't happen. The solidly united Sunni faction....well....failed to unite against us. There is merely a very small hardcore group that's doing the bombings and shootings, to the tune of a dozen or so dead people a day. Tops. I don't see piles of Sunni corpses littering the streets--and believe me, if any such piles existed, they WOULD get onto the front page of the newspaper. Most Sunnis simply boycotted the recent election, heaved a sigh of resignation, and went on with their lives.

Religious zealotry didn't help the Taliban, it hasn't helped the Arabs destroy Israel after fifty years of trying (a case where the Arabs have decent technology AND vastly superior numbers, as well as religion!), and religious zealotry didn't turn the medieval Crusades into a smashing success, either.

 

[JohnRM]

Yes, the great and allpowerful United States will bomb the whole world for pursuing their own interests rather than bowing down to Bush and doing his bidding... That's the kind of arrogance that makes people all over the world hate Americans... And rightly so...

I think you were reading too much into what I was saying. I just don't think raising tensions is the best idea, at this point. If everyone goes ahead and makes those kinds of deals, you are going to intensify America's paranoia by about one-hundred times. Nobody needs that to happen.

 

[klopolov]

They can go ahead and do so, but I would not recommend any nation accept this deal. There will be far greater consequences should they do so.

That sounds like a threatening invitation to me, no matter how much I read into it.

If everyone goes ahead and makes those kinds of deals, you are going to intensify America's paranoia by about one-hundred times.

What? If several of the world's countries make "those" deals, I will be personaly responsible for the intense level of American paranoia? You give me too much credit... And I guess the sarcasm of my statement was wasted on you... Honestly, the comments such as yours (quoted above) raise tentions much more than a healthy dose of sarcasm that answers them...

 

[JohnRM]

That sounds like a threatening invitation to me, no matter how much I read into it.



What? If several of the world's countries make "those" deals, I will be personaly responsible for the intense level of American paranoia? You give me too much credit... And I guess the sarcasm of my statement was wasted on you... Honestly, the comments such as yours (quoted above) raise tentions much more than a healthy dose of sarcasm that answers them...

Look, I'm not going to play this verbal joust with you, man. I don't like what this government is doing any more than you are. All I want is peace for myself and my family. If you want to go and fight the war and take a stand against something, go ahead. I just don't think it is a good idea to start drawing lines and pitting the two sides against each other. That is what George Bush has been trying to do and what the world seems to be against. I don't see accepting these kinds of deals from Iran as doing anything, but furthering that.

Now, you can go ahead with your presumptions and stake your claim to righteousness, but all that you are doing is playing their game. In the end, the outcome is the same.

 

[klopolov]

I don't presume to be fighting for any right cause, hell, I don't even presume to be fighting at all!!!
The last thing I want is to go and fight someone else's stupid and pointless war. My parents brought me to US because they did not want me to be drafted and sent to Chechnya...
I guess the only thing we dissagree on is that I believe that if the rest of the world comes together, knocks on Bush's thick scull and tells him that enough is enough and there are other means of solving problems, it just might work, or would at least be worth trying... Perhaps it is a bit naive, but I would rather believe in that then lie down and accept that it is possible even after WW2 for one country to do whatever they want with the rest of the world standing by and not doing anything about it.

And in the end, I hope the outcome will surprise you...

 

[BasketCase]

possible even after WW2 for one country to do whatever they want with the rest of the world standing by and not doing anything about it.

A whole lot of countries have been doing this. From tiny little countries like Rwanda to great big ones like China and India (with Yugoslavia and Sudan in between), many nations do what they please, with no retaliation from the world community.

 

[JohnRM]

I don't presume to be fighting for any right cause, hell, I don't even presume to be fighting at all!!!
The last thing I want is to go and fight someone else's stupid and pointless war. My parents brought me to US because they did not want me to be drafted and sent to Chechnya...
I guess the only thing we dissagree on is that I believe that if the rest of the world comes together, knocks on Bush's thick scull and tells him that enough is enough and there are other means of solving problems, it just might work, or would at least be worth trying... Perhaps it is a bit naive, but I would rather believe in that then lie down and accept that it is possible even after WW2 for one country to do whatever they want with the rest of the world standing by and not doing anything about it.

And in the end, I hope the outcome will surprise you...

You see, the problem with that is, most other countries have governments that are just as corrupt or moreso than that of the United States. What makes the United States so bad is that it has more money to throw around.

 

[Jawz II]

Those posters are wrong. Most of them predicted a massacre in Iraq--it didn't happen.

ans you know this how?

you werent here back in 2003, before iraq hit the fan

i wasnt here then, and i didnt predict a thing about iraq

plus, most people here are talking about if an invasion happened it would be bla bla, were not saying it will happen

cgannon should realize that, amongst many other things
but based on his comments, i dont think that will happen anytime soon

 

[Vladyc]

Those posters are wrong.

Oh. Thanks for letting me know.

Most of them predicted a massacre in Iraq--it didn't happen. The solidly united Sunni faction....well....failed to unite against us. There is merely a very small hardcore group that's doing the bombings and shootings, to the tune of a dozen or so dead people a day. Tops. I don't see piles of Sunni corpses littering the streets--and believe me, if any such piles existed, they WOULD get onto the front page of the newspaper. Most Sunnis simply boycotted the recent election, heaved a sigh of resignation, and went on with their lives.
There's a large difference between a 20% Sunni population and the majority of Iran united against an invasion. The Sunnis could not unite since most of Iraq opposed them. And I wouldn't say the death toll is particularly small anyway, numbering in the tens of thousands by anyone's count.

Religious zealotry didn't help the Taliban, it hasn't helped the Arabs destroy Israel after fifty years of trying (a case where the Arabs have decent technology AND vastly superior numbers, as well as religion!), and religious zealotry didn't turn the medieval Crusades into a smashing success, either.

The Taliban was horribly outclassed, and didn't really have the suport of any significant amount of its population. In the other two cases, both sides were fighting for religion (although Israel was mostly fighting for survival). Religious unity is especially successful when fighting an invader.

 

[Verbose]

Religious unity is especially successful when fighting an invader.

Why do so many seem so sure the US will only be fighting religious zealots in Iran?

If given the choice between the US prez and the mullahs most Iranians will likely choose the one that speaks Farsi.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Verbose's got a point. Iran is a nation in a way Iraq has never been.

 

[Vladyc]

Verbose's got a point. Iran is a nation in a way Iraq has never been.

Ok, I'll ammend my point to both religious and national unity. Iran has more of both than Iraq. Khatami's speech is an example of this--the average Iranian is much more likely to accept it than a Shiite Iraqi would accept something that Saddam said, even though I don't think Khatami is much of a religious leader.

 

[BasketCase]

Religious unity is especially successful when fighting an invader.

What I've seen of history says pretty much the opposite. On the other hand, there are many examples of nations successfully fighting off invaders withOUT religion. I should know--I live in one such nation.

Edit: Whoops! I take that back--I forgot that the French intervened.

 

[The Last Conformist]

The opposite? You'd argue that religious unity is a disadvantage when it comes to oppose foreign invasion?

Some examples to back that one up?

 

[BasketCase]

How about Arab nations that forbid women to have jobs or be in the military? Such nations get their effective military and economic strength cut in half. Their armies are half the size they could be, and they have half as many workers contributing to the economy.

There. Don't need any more examples (actually one example that consists of several nations). That one alone will do it.

 

[Azadre]

Wow, Azadre, I see you've found more than one kook to claim that he is ready for a US invasion. But I'm sure you can find more than just two.

I bet Castro 'is ready' too.

 

[Vladyc]

How about Arab nations that forbid women to have jobs or be in the military? Such nations get their effective military and economic strength cut in half. Their armies are half the size they could be, and they have half as many workers contributing to the economy.

There. Don't need any more examples (actually one example that consists of several nations). That one alone will do it.

That's not a disadvantage of religious unity, its a disadvantage of oppresive theocratic governments. Not to say that this doesn't apply to Iran, but it is irrelevant to the question.

Also, do you really think that not allowing women into the U.S. military would cut our strength in half? Sure extreme sexism hurts the economy and nation as a whole, but how many women do you actually think would be in the military anyway?

 

[BasketCase]

That's not a disadvantage of religious unity, its a disadvantage of oppresive theocratic governments.

If an entire nation is united under a single religion that forbids women to be in the military, that is a disadvantage caused directly by religious unity. Whereas a dissident faction that DOES allow women to be in the military will be a lot stronger.

As to your second part: yes. The relative lack of women in the U.S. military cuts our pool of available troops in half. It's American culture, instead of religion specifically, that turns a lot of American women away from a military career; however, women in the military are accepted a lot more readily in the U.S. than they are in most Arab nations. That gives us an edge.

 

[Jawz II]

How about Arab nations that forbid women to have jobs or be in the military? Such nations get their effective military and economic strength cut in half. Their armies are half the size they could be, and they have half as many workers contributing to the economy.

There. Don't need any more examples (actually one example that consists of several nations). That one alone will do it.

i understand what youre trying to say, but generally what youre saying dosent apply

arab countries dont have factories to make tank and planes, only small arms at best (i know lately theyve started their production of that stuff in pakistan, saudi and iran, but not in huge quantities that would require many workers)

so youre thinking about ww2, when women were allowed to work in factories and build stuff for the boys at the front, but you forgot, in the middle east, they dont have factories for the women to work in

they have oil, and they buy their military equipment with it

next to all available men go to war anyway

other jobs like teachers and doctors, women are allowed to do, in iran and iraq for example (theyre probably allowed to work in industry too i think, but again, no industry!)

ps.women arent allowed to fight in wars in any nation, but im pretty sure, they were allowed to work for the military in iraq during saddam regime, and now in iran