War with Iran and its consequences

[kingjoshi]

Crazy americans fighting over if George bush is catholic enough to become pope, or if the UAE is sneaking terrorists in on there cargo ships. When the thread about possible war with Iran.

You've got to admit, there's a lot of humor there

 

[Perfection]

Crazy americans fighting over if George bush is catholic enough to become pope, or if the UAE is sneaking terrorists in on there cargo ships. When the thread about possible war with Iran.

Bushy doesn't have the political capital to even dream of doing something in Iran. I'm not surprised few Americans give it much consideration.

 

[Xenocrates]

The posters that state that the actions of Iran are opposed by the UN should consider:

a) Has their own country disobeyed the UN at any time?
b) Do they submit to UN authority?
c) Does the UN uphold the principles of democracy?
d) Is it the security council or the UN as a whole that you are refering to?

Does anyone have a good link to a site on the occasions when the USA has acted contrary to UN rules?

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

If they dont comply with the current UN call to end enrichment, I highly doubt the USA and Britain will have to go it alone to stop their nuclear capability.

Indeed we wouldn't. They would have their backs against a wall, though North Korea might support them for a few of those trade secrets.

 

[Xshayathiya]

1) 2007 - US airforce makes a surprise strike against Iranian nuclear facilities and military forces

2) Iran closes Persian Gulf and several US ships are sinked. Closed Persian Gulf = 1/4 of daily oil production is out.

3) Massive Shia uprising in southern Iraq, insurgents are supplied with heavy weapons from Iran.

4) Iranian missiles hit US bases in the region and, of course, Israel. Israeli government threatens retaliation.

5) China and Russia demand cease-fire, China is hardly hit by the oil price surge. Chinese government, dependant on good results of Chinese economy, is becoming wary.

6) US starts a military campaign in Hormuz straits in order to re-open Persian Gulf for oil tankers. Despite some success, traveling through the Straits is still too dangerous and oil prices continue to rise.

7) US gov. is under heavy pressure to end the war. Western allies and China need oil, US public is fed up with heavy casaulties. Russia is happy, because it can now sell oil for three times as much as it used to before the war. Of course, both China and Russia continue to supply Iran with weapons.

8) Cease-fire.

Results:

- Iranian nuclear program seriously damaged.
- Iranian military undefeated.
- Iranian influence in the region higher.
- US influence in the region lower.
- US popularity in the world - destroyed.
- Iranian control over the Hormuz Straits - unchallenged.
- Iraq in civil war.
- Russian power bigger.
- Chinese power bigger.
- Western power lower.
- Casaulties very high.
...

List goes on. The war would be a marginal military victory, but decisive political defeat for the United States. Iran would suffer heavy casaulties, but its power and influence in the region would rise.

Recommendations: don't start war with Iran, focus on anti-missile defense instead.

This gets my "post of the thread" sticker. That's pretty much the most accurate account of what would happen. Well done.

 

[GenMarshall]

Iran is most definently enriching uranium. That is empirically obvious to everyone from the UN to George Bush; if you won't admit that they you are an idiot who is clearly denying reality, period, end of discussion. How can you deny that Iran is enriching uranium? I can find you articles from 2003 that have that confirmed.

Just more Bush propaganda to make justification for another "searching the WMD in a hay stack". Iraq did not have any WMDs and thus Iran does not have any WMDs nor any enriching refineries to make weapon grade uranium/plutonium.

For crying out loud, have you been living in a cave with your only link to civilization being the Democratic Underground website? (With "link to civilization" being used in it's broadest possible sense) Just because you don't like Bush doesn't mean you have to say he's wrong about every single thing. So why do you?

I only trust and believe in the liberal media. I dont believe in what junk the Bush administration spews out because they are not credible. Bush lost his credibility when he told us that we are going to Iraq to find there WMDs. Well Mr. Bush, where are they? There are none and we have not found any.

I dispise that man and I do want to see him impeached, choke on a pretzle, or assassinated. But I dont hope that happens otherwise Dick Cheney the Puppet Master would become president and further drive this nation to the ground.

Oh, ok. So, when President Bush says Jesus is the Son of God, he's wrong? I thought you were a Christian and a Catholic; I guess I was wrong. So what does that make you, some sort of heretic?

No, I only follow what the Catholic teaching says, not Bush. President Bush cannot clam that Jesus is the Son of God because the Christianity and the Church already made that clam in the Nicene and The Apostles' Creed. I am most certanly a Christian and a Catholic. If I say that whomever wrote The Nicene and The Apostles' Creed was wrong, then that would not make me a Christian nor a Catholic. Did President Bush wrote The Nicene Creed? No. Did President Bush wrote The Apostles's Creed? No. I believe in The Nicene and The Apostle's Creed and believe that the early Church fathers are right and thus makes me a Christian and a Catholic (plus reconition of the Pope would make me Catholic, otherwise if I did not reconise the pope's authority, then that would make me an Orthodox Christian). The bottom line is that President Bush did not wrote the creeds that are the foundations of Christianity, Bush was never even a thought back in the Ancent times. Saying that I am not a Christian and a Catholic because what you said "when Bush says Jesus is the Son of God, he is wrong and thus does not make you a Christian but a heretic" is an insult to me. I would suggest that you look further into what the early Christian Church fathers did in the ecumenical councils in the past. I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, not because Bush said so, but because what the early Church fathers have stated.

When he says the earth orbits the sun, is he wrong? Because he says that, does the physical order of the universe magically rearrange itself bcause Bush said it? Stop acting pedantic CG, no one is ever wrong about everything, just as no one is ever right about everything. Get a grip, it's embarassing to Americans, Christians, and the human race.

Just as I expect from a Bush-supporter. Putting down a Democrat who feels that Bush is wrong and cannot tell the truth . Did Bush clamed that the Earth orbits the sun? No!. It was Copernicus who made the theory on a Heliocentric universe and proven by Galileo. Did Bush wrote theories about a heliocentric universe? No!. Did Bush proved that we are in a heliocentric universe? No!. When Bush says that "The Earth orbits the sun", it does not make him wrong because Copernicus and Galileo have already stated that and became common knowlage.
To me, I see whatever he says is wrong because he constantly lies about the "information" that was supplied for the Iraq War.

The last time I checked, despising someone and hating them were pretty much the same thing. Nice of you to put your hypocrisy is such an easy to quote format though. You're almost as good as Pasi for providing bite-sized bits of absurdity. (See my sig)

Whatever

 

[Inqvisitor]

Tell me....do you have proof that the man has ever murdered anyone in his life? Answer: Nope.

 

[Fox Mccloud]

Ok, CivGeneral, I will try to simplify this for you:

1, Early Christians write about Christianity.

2, CivGeneral Says that George W. Bush is always wrong.

3, George W. Bush agrees with Christianity.

4, That must mean, in CivGeneral's logic, the Early Christians were wrong.

5, CivGeneral also agrees with Christianity.

6, This must mean CivGeneral is also wrong.

Now do you see what's wrong with your logic????

 

[Aegis]

For me, I want them out, regardless if the job is done or not. Let them fend for themselves, its clear that the Iraqis dont want us there, so its best just to abandon them and let them fend for themselves.

There's more at stake here than what you think. If the US pulls out now, before Iraq is stable, the region will degrade into chaos, oil production would seriously drop and as a result of that, several nations' economies would plummet and the entire world would fall into a recession/depression. It doesn't matter what the reasons were for going to war, the ramifications of pulling out too soon are too severe to seriously contemplate before having a western-friendly Iraqi government in place.


As for Iran's supposed nuclear program, the Nuclear-Watchdog IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) has stated in the past that Iran already has facilities capable of enriching uranium and has had them taped off and sealed up, which Iran has since broken the seals and restarted the enrichment process.

To suggest that Iran is full of bluster and such claims are Bush's propaganda is foolishness.

All of this is moot, though, since Israel will be the ones to take out Iran's nuclear program, just like they did with Iraq in the early 80's.

And as for the Dubai port deal going south, that was an extremely big slap to the face of one of the US's biggest allies in the region. And while international firms may operate the ports, the USA still controls the security there, so it's really irrelevant who operates the port. ;o)

Originally Posted by kingjoshi
Isn't assissation still illegal for Americans to commit? Well, Bush does think his administration is above the law...

Before you get on your high horse...yes, assassination is illegal. Has been for almost 40 years.

We havent tried to assassinate anyone in decades.

Well, wiretapping without a court-order is supposed to be illegal, but that hasn't stopped Bush, lol.

When Bush says that "The Earth orbits the sun", it does not make him wrong because Copernicus and Galileo have already stated that and became common knowlage.

By that rationale, then it's true that Iran has the capability, becuase the UN and (more importantly) the IAEA say it is so, just like Copernicus and Galileo.

 

[Elrohir]

Just more Bush propaganda to make justification for another "searching the WMD in a hay stack". Iraq did not have any WMDs and thus Iran does not have any WMDs nor any enriching refineries to make weapon grade uranium/plutonium.

What is wrong with you? The BBC and Time Magazine are "Bush propaganda"? What exactly would you consider a credible source then? If the BBC and Time are part of the "Bush propaganda" machine, what isn't? In any other discussion on this site, a link from both the BBC and Time agreeing on the same thing would be considered authoritative.

I only trust and believe in the liberal media. I dont believe in what junk the Bush administration spews out because they are not credible. Bush lost his credibility when he told us that we are going to Iraq to find there WMDs. Well Mr. Bush, where are they? There are none and we have not found any.

I dispise that man and I do want to see him impeached, choke on a pretzle, or assassinated. But I dont hope that happens otherwise Dick Cheney the Puppet Master would become president and further drive this nation to the ground.

Why can't you see that just as the Bush administration has an agenda, so does the media that you yourself admit is liberal? No one is impartial, especially the liberal media.

I thought Karl Rove was the Puppet Master. No, really, if Dick Cheney is the one really making the decisions, why do you hate Bush? He's just a puppet, according to you, why hate the messenger? And how would the country be in any more trouble if the guy who is really making the decisions became the official maker of decisions? That, along with pretty much your entire post, doesn't make sense.

No, I only follow what the Catholic teaching says, not Bush. President Bush cannot clam that Jesus is the Son of God because the Christianity and the Church already made that clam in the Nicene and The Apostles' Creed. I am most certanly a Christian and a Catholic. If I say that whomever wrote The Nicene and The Apostles' Creed was wrong, then that would not make me a Christian nor a Catholic. Did President Bush wrote The Nicene Creed? No. Did President Bush wrote The Apostles's Creed? No. I believe in The Nicene and The Apostle's Creed and believe that the early Church fathers are right and thus makes me a Christian and a Catholic (plus reconition of the Pope would make me Catholic, otherwise if I did not reconise the pope's authority, then that would make me an Orthodox Christian). The bottom line is that President Bush did not wrote the creeds that are the foundations of Christianity, Bush was never even a thought back in the Ancent times. Saying that I am not a Christian and a Catholic because what you said "when Bush says Jesus is the Son of God, he is wrong and thus does not make you a Christian but a heretic" is an insult to me. I would suggest that you look further into what the early Christian Church fathers did in the ecumenical councils in the past. I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, not because Bush said so, but because what the early Church fathers have stated.

That's a very bad dodge. Bush doesn't have to think something up for himself to say it, and for it to be true or false. He has said that Jesus is the Son of God, and for you to say that Bush is always wrong means that Jesus must not be the Son of God. Look, I'll state it in a easy, logical premise that even you can follow:

Bush says Jesus is the Son of God.
Bush is wrong about everything.
Therefore, Jesus is not the Son of God.
QED.

Thus, if you are going to be consistent with your "Bush is wrong about everything" argument, you cannot be a Christian, as Bush has said many times that Jesus is the Son of God, and belief of that is crucial in following Christ.

Whatever

Nice intelligent response.

 

[kingjoshi]

I thought Karl Rove was the Puppet Master. No, really, if Dick Cheney is the one really making the decisions, why do you hate Bush? He's just a puppet, according to you, why hate the messenger? And how would the country be in any more trouble if the guy who is really making the decisions became the official maker of decisions? That, along with pretty much your entire post, doesn't make sense.

Well, both Karl Rove and Dick Cheney are puppeteers. Whoever feels more passionate (can make more money) on a certain issue takes over the President. But pulling strings is tiresome so it's more efficient to just take over. So when Bush thinks God is talking to him, it's actually these two.

One can hate all three and still find the two to be the real men in charge. It's not inconsistent reasoning.

Not that I'm defending CivGeneral in his argument, but I'm just pointing out that this portion is not self contradictory.

 

[Elrohir]

It sounds contradictory to me. Why would you hate someone if he is being controlled? Why not just hate the person controlling him, the person responsible for his actions, instead?

Whatever. Arguing over whether it's logical to hate President Bush because of his "puppet masters" is pretty stupid anyway.

 

[kingjoshi]

It sounds contradictory to me. Why would you hate someone if he is being controlled? Why not just hate the person controlling him, the person responsible for his actions, instead?

Whatever. Arguing over whether it's logical to hate President Bush because of his "puppet masters" is pretty stupid anyway.

I actually find this interesting. I dislike all three and still haven't sorted out how much influence each has. As time has passed, I have given Bush more credit (blame). Ugh, still can't stand any of them though.

 

[GenMarshall]

What is wrong with you? The BBC and Time Magazine are "Bush propaganda"? What exactly would you consider a credible source then? If the BBC and Time are part of the "Bush propaganda" machine, what isn't? In any other discussion on this site, a link from both the BBC and Time agreeing on the same thing would be considered authoritative.

What I consider credible sources are ones that discredits Bush and his cronies from the liberal media.

Why can't you see that just as the Bush administration has an agenda, so does the media that you yourself admit is liberal? No one is impartial, especially the liberal media.

The only agenda I see in the Bush Administration is lying about the War, creating a big-brother state with the Patriot Acts, illegaly wiretapping the telephones without a warrant, neglecting the lower and middle classes and only paying attention to the fat cats in the upper class, and trying to elminate the Social Security.

I thought Karl Rove was the Puppet Master. No, really, if Dick Cheney is the one really making the decisions, why do you hate Bush? He's just a puppet, according to you, why hate the messenger? And how would the country be in any more trouble if the guy who is really making the decisions became the official maker of decisions? That, along with pretty much your entire post, doesn't make sense.

I hate Bush's guts because he is an idiot, a lier, and a mass murderer.

That's a very bad dodge. Bush doesn't have to think something up for himself to say it, and for it to be true or false. He has said that Jesus is the Son of God, and for you to say that Bush is always wrong means that Jesus must not be the Son of God. Look, I'll state it in a easy, logical premise that even you can follow:

Bush says Jesus is the Son of God.
Bush is wrong about everything.
Therefore, Jesus is not the Son of God.
QED.

Its certanly NOT a bad dodge. I can look at other people to see that Jesus is the Son of God from deacons, parish priests, bishops, cardinals, and as well as the holy father himself; the pope.

The Priesthood of the Catholic Church says Jesus is the Son of God.
What the Priesthood is true and infalible
Whatever the Priesthood of the Catholic Church is above and holds more priority than Bush's statements
Therefore, Jesus is the Son of God

What Bush said about Jesus being the Son of God is actualy true (Unless youre from another faith such as Judaism or Islam) and agrees with what the Presthood teaches. But that still does not make Bush right or truthfull. Bush is still wrong and is still a liar

Thus, if you are going to be consistent with your "Bush is wrong about everything" argument, you cannot be a Christian, as Bush has said many times that Jesus is the Son of God, and belief of that is crucial in following Christ.

As I said before, I do not need to look to Bush for the truth about Christ. I simply follow what the Priesthood of the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus is the Son of God and thus makes me a Christian regardless if I see Bush wrong about everything.

Nice intelligent response.

Why, thank you. Bush Supporter

 

[Elrohir]

What I consider credible sources are ones that discredits Bush and his cronies from the liberal media.

All right, that's it. I refuse to debate with you any longer. It's clear that you don't wish to know the truth, don't want to listen to logic or reason, all you care about is bashing Bush. You won't even look at the facts disproving your position, and they are plentiful and easily seen. (Iran is enriching uranium, that's a fact, deal with it) I'm done; you can go on and keep living your sad little life with it's hatred, I really couldn't care less.

 

[GenMarshall]

All right, that's it. I refuse to debate with you any longer. It's clear that you don't wish to know the truth, don't want to listen to logic or reason, all you care about is bashing Bush. You won't even look at the facts disproving your position, and they are plentiful and easily seen. (Iran is enriching uranium, that's a fact, deal with it)

I confess that I only care about bashing Bush. I have never bothered to actualy look at the facts because all I cared about is just bashing Bush and discrediting him. Its just now that I have realised that I am in the wrong and blinded by the hatred against Bush, I have especaily alienated the posters who used to be anti-Bush but moved on .

If Bush says that Jesus is the Son of God, then he may be right on somethings.
Therefore, Jesus is the Son of God.

I just dont agree with the things Bush has done in the past and I have felt betrayed that he had lied to me about the WMDs being in Iraq when there are none.

I'm done; you can go on and keep living your sad little life with it's hatred, I really couldn't care less.

Actualy, in realization from MobBoss, Fox McCloud, and now you. I dont want to keep living in my sad little life with it's hatred. I dont want to hate, I became a Christian so that I can become a better person. Apperently I have failed on that one .

I guess this means that I cant be a Christian, even if I still have the hatred which I dont want. .

 

[kingjoshi]

baby steps.

You live you learn. Not hating Bush is not easy, so I don't think many would fault you for that. Hate begets hate. Violence begets violence.

Learning not to hate and not wanting ill will towards others is how we break from that chain. baby steps.

You won't achieve nirvana. And according to Christianity, we'll always sin. So don't expect the world. But recognize your improvments and keep working on it.

 

[GenMarshall]

@kingjoshi -

You may want to post it in my latest thread .

 

[Odin2006]

The West needs to use some common sense. Iran getting nukes is a bad thing, but war would be even worse. You will end up with a guerrila war that will make Iraq look like a cakewalk and the rest of the Muslim world might go into outright revolt. What is more dangerous, a Nuclear Iran that only wants nukes for deterence, or an Islamist Saudi Arabia that will cut of our oil supply and a Taliban-clone takeover in Pakistan resulting in a nuclear exchange with India?

 

[Xshayathiya]

What is more dangerous, a Nuclear Iran that only wants nukes for deterence, or an Islamist Saudi Arabia that will cut of our oil supply and a Taliban-clone takeover in Pakistan resulting in a nuclear exchange with India?

I dont think the US would object if the Saudi's were developing nuclear power.