Yes, and more likely to hate the country that sent in the 2 carriers... and more likely to hate the nearby country even more for having these outsiders interfere where they don't belong.

Seriously, if they are intimidated enough not to act... then 1 carrier is all that is needed. If they're not intimidated enough, than 2 carriers won't change anything except to raise tensions.

Holy jebus. Can someone else explain things to him as I'm eating right now.

That's the whole point. Tension is good - tension always leads to resolution. Resolution can take many forms, it might be violent or not. There will be no resolution however without tension.

Tension and conflict is the basis of every great moment in life, personal or global. A prolonged gobal conflict (ie world war), The last minute of overtime in hockey, when your wife/girlfriend says "we need to talk", an impending sneeze, proposing to the woman of your dreams, the sustained diminished chord at the end of a beautiful hymn.. all are tension and/or conflict and all have resolution - and mostly beautiful in these cases.

If life is going to be interesting at all, tension and conflict must be embraced so one can experience the resolution (good or bad).

All you keyboard warriors are willing to spend as many american soldiers lives as it takes to get the job done arnt you?

your arguements wrongly assume that if the US did nothing, relations with Iran would improve. the simple fact of the matter is that Iran has told the entire western world to fuck off, made endless threats, continues to pursue a nuclear program in spite of strong international condemnation.

its not like they are just reaching out for a hug. the problem is there.. the problem is real.. no one is doing anything about it. even if you dislike the US, their actions, Bush or anything else, that doesn't make Iran, their policies, their open defiance and thier threats go away.

If ya want tension, chat to occupying forces in Iraq. Some folks there think tension is good too - and they are obviously intending that it remain that way.

And you wrongly assume the terrorists attacked the US just for fun.... that the US didn't provoke it somehow.


You guys seem to think that it doesn't matter what anyone thinks of the US moving in more troops into a conflict it doesn't belong in and that nothing will come of it. And then get all shocked when these guys turn around and fly a plane into a building.


If you seriously think that these actions won't raise tensions and make people hate the US even more than they might already do.... then you're just deluding yourself. Yes, sometimes you have to do something that will make people hate you... but sometimes you can do that without having to push it even further for no good reason.

If you push, people push back. I'd think the war eager bunch of you would realize that.

pussy alcohol and drugs will always sell, no matter what.

Yep, it's a two way street - applies to both sides. Is it good for the US soldiers who die? Nope, it sucks balls.

]

Sure people attack the US just for fun - what other reason could there be?? :1orglaugh

The US relationship with Iran over decades was so close - it was almost incestuous and oozing a level of goodwill yet unsurpassed :)

Considering the US fucked Iran time and time again and messed in that nations internal affairs, assassinated members of it's (democratically elected) government - then whined and moaned when more extreme elements surfaced in opposition to the US. Fuck with people and they will fuck you back.

The level of naivety on this is awesome.

Why would the United States, as a rational national actor 'care' about the 'feelings' of a group of people who already 'hate' them. It makes no difference if people in the middle east hate the US 'more'. If you think that Iran or some terrorist is sitting around going "Man I really hate the US.. but i wont do anything yet, but lemme tell you if they send another aircraft carrier make me MORE MAD then Im really gonna fuck them up" then you are deluding yourself.

Anyone who wants to harm the US/west doesnt need a tipping point - save it be for political reasons. Unlike the US however, domestic politics in the middle east is a farce. Crazy totalitarian leaders dont worry about the latest approval ratings or re-election.

This is all about securing oil for the future. The USA isnt in Iraq because they are concerned about selling the oil or terrorists or wmds or spreading democracy. They are concerned that we are going to hit Peak Oil in around 2010 and they wont have a reliable source of oil at all. This was the role Iraq was going to play for the USA and the reason for the incasion. If you dont beleive Peak Oil is coming soon, read this report by Deutsche Bank http://www.dbresearch.de/PROD/DBR_IN...0000181487.PDF

If you want to read the scariest page on the internet check this out- http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

When WW3 comes, it will be because of this......................

You've never read up on Operation Ajax, have you?

I'm thinking of writing to my local Member of Parliament, asking him to disband the police. You see, if the criminals do not feel threatened then they will not commit any crime.

Also, if anyone were to threaten the life of my family, I would not do anything about it, because I wouldn't want to infame any tensions.

You see, everyone and everything is good and there is no evil in the world (except the Joooos, NeoCons, Bush, SUV drivers, etc).

When the Iranians say "Death to America", "death to Israel", "death to all infidels", "etc", "etc", "etc", and when they simutaneously develop nukes, what they are really saying is "we love you and there is no need to worry." So let's bring the carriers home. History shows that when some madman makes threats to annihilate people, it is always no more than hot air. Just ask the 60 million people killed in World War 2.

People forget the past way to easily and way to quickly.

Everyone knows this, the strategic importance of the middle east isnt a mystery to anyone with half a brain or any knowledge of history/economics/global politics. And as a citizen of the (rich) west you probably want to be on the side of the group of countries that has strategic advantage in the middle east for the sake of your current way of life and your future generations.

As a side note, the 'oil crash fear mongers', as like any group of extremists, have the thing way over done. Anyone with an incentive to adopt and pormote extremist views on any topic lack credibility and conservatism, meaning that it is in their best and personal interest to adopt irrational and extreme assumptions.

I am very familiar with the history of American/Iranian relations - how does that fit into the argument you are trying to present? Subtlety will do nothing to keep the conversation going.

i dont assume anything. get over yourself. you act as if the world is perfect... with simple problems and easy solutions. hate to break it to you, but the world is a much more complicated place and driven by and shaped into a clusterfuck of the political, economic and security interests of each nation.

its easy to criticise taking action... i submit however, that you are definately less informed and less qualified to determine a proper course of action, than anyone actually making the decisions.

again... the problem is there. just like with N Korea. whats teh world doing about it? uhmm...nothing. meanwhile, their own sabre rattling continues to grow louder and louder and louder as do their threats. thats a fact. its also a fact that the UN and world at large, has a horrible track record of dealing with threats early on before it becomes a major catastrophe.

the whole "you push and they push back" argument is weak. they have been pushing and pushing and pushing and pushing and pushing against the entire world, against the UN, against the IAEA etc. at some point, you have to push back or become the victem.

Well, do you seriously think that Iran felt the same way about the US before Operation Ajax as they do now, or do you think that the US's meddling may have created a little bit of tension?
Do you really think that if the US had used Operation Ajax with the best intentions of the Iranian people, instead of their own best intentions, that maybe things might be a tad different now?

Or are they just evil and would want hate Americans just the same?

And yet I knew there were no WMD's... funny that huh?

Again, I wonder why that is... hmm... maybe because the Iranian's primary source of income in the 1940's and 50's was carpets and not oil? That could be because they've never held ownership of something within their own country.
Or are they just bitter because they have a lot of sand?

Anyway, you guys keep going on and on about how you should do more, and then gripe that they get upset about it and retaliate, forcing you to do yet more than you did last time.

Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it.

Keep on believing what you will. Go kill the bad guys who hate you just because they're the bad guys.

Good luck with all that. I'm outta this pointless thread.

All irrelevant. Governments must act in the rationaly in the presentl to protect their national interest with the future in mind. Decisions made by past administrations in different geo-political times should not cloud the judgement of the present and the future. In fact, it would be a grave error. Do not misconstrue my statement to mean that administrations should not learn from history,

If the US were to follow your way of thinking:

a) Japan would still be a third world country desperately trying to fire some nukes at the US for screwing them over in WWII
b) Germany would be PISSED
c) The US would allow a crazy idiot to run around the middle east with nukes blowing up jews at will cause they 'feel bad' about 'messing with them' oh so many times in the past.
d) Russia would still be bitter
e) Central america? dont even go there!

It's the same as the Isreali/Palistinian situation. We can sit here and talk about how Britain was 'wrong' and the UN was 'wrong' and that the land that is now Israel never should have been split up the way it was and blah blah blah.

But that's just a gigantic waste of time and it disounts the present reality and solutiuons that will lead to a better future in favour of a distorted 'hind-sight-is-20/20 "I told you so"' past.

Hahahah! I was thinking the same thing. Where the hell are the Terminators? Where's Sarah Connor when you need her?

your solution so far seems to be "do nothing and all will be ok" - good luck with that hippy!

its easy to criticise whats being done. but the funny reality about the situation is that you can't offer any other solution.

Think we prob have been down this avenue before which other areas designated "terrorist". It happens all the time on varying scales - ie the IRA activity in the UK et al... Stuff people under pressure or oppression and they will react and prob result can be what is simplfied into a category known as "terrorism". People don't wake up on a Monday morning and decide to blow stuff up :pimp

On a global scale... often the oppression or aggression is over greed - the desire to possess land, oil or establish a sphere of influence to further abuse/rape natural resources. The old British Empire among others, was the same - now it's the new kid on the block who wants to be the predator and, sadly, has not got wiser thru history.

The US has over time fucked so many countries now - from Latin/South America, Asia and now the Middle East. The Latin America area has seen "quiet wars" with some very shitty conduct (killings, torture, assassination of democratically elected leaders, drugs trading - while kids in the US got locked up for trading drugs).

The "modern way" is now attempting to establish trading treaties (kinda like the Mafia having accountants and establishing banks from laundered money) - but there is a caution in dealing with predators in a fair number of countries who experienced the worse side of the "values" of the US. Their familes were wiped out by killers and torturers trained by the US - It will take many decades to get that trust back. It's surprising there were never more attacks on the US long before 9/11.


PS Suppose further evidence of a predator is in the size/security of their embassies - do a quick survey of US embassies in other nations and these will be bunkers with max security - while in other embassies, ya can have a drink with the Ambassador at the poolside - without guards.

people have been saying that ever since the end of WWII.

well, but they (Muslims, Iran etc - you name it) say the same about America, some things are just relative

A kid is getting bad grades at school so parents force him to study instead of playing some sport. In their mind they are doing the right thing, but if the child really loves that sport, it will definitely get him mad/frustrated/angry/disappointed.

Perhaps not the best analogy but it shows that everything depends on the point of view. Often there's no right or wrong, and remember, history is written by those who win wars and currently rule the world.

Sure, since we are a part of the western Civilisation and not the Arab World, we should rather take the position of the US and not Iran in this case. But still, if America always acts superior, as the only world power, which knows everything best, and in eyes of other nations - they act very selfish and often in a hypocritical way - it is obvious that some part of the world gets frustrated with it and they show some resistance.

Surely if America suddenly changes their politics/attitude 180%, they will still have many enemies and will still be a target for an attack for many years to come. But unlike DollarManSteve said, personally I think that each action / decision of the US can surely add to the fuel. Each war will kill tens of thousands of innocent people, but at the same time it will create thousands more terrorists than we already have.

So to sum up, there are really no easy answers and solutions when it comes to international policits, power, culture and religion.... and definitely there's no "black and white" as George Bush wants to portrait it. Yes, the Muslims also see it as "black and white" but if you assume that you're better or smarter than them, then you should also act more wisely. You obviously can't nuke all of them even if you wanted, and at the same time, enforcing democracy is also not an option as the Iraq case recently proved.

We can safely assume that the Muslims will change and become more "civilized" in future, but it will definitely be a slow process, taking decades or centuries. How many wars do you want to start until then?

USA Foreign policy is ... foreign to themselves :2 cents:

USA is going to start it!!!

According to Al Gore, we're all fucked anyway.

of course.

again... that has nothing to do with the reality on the ground...today. its today that is the issue. not "what might be" in 30 years or 100 years.

i am not for war or beating the war drums or anything like that. i was simply pointing out that the problem is real... its there. its been there. there has been massive efforts to engage them politically with them simply telling the world to fuck off.

either someone has to propose a better solution than "ignore them and maybe they will go away", or get them to engage in diplomacy and work towards a solution... or accept whatever happens as the result of innaction or failure to keep things on a better course. hating the USA or making disparaging remarks about the USA, pointing out no WMD's were found or whatever, does not address the reality in Iran and the threat they present.

i think that the general pattern of blaming the USA 100% for anything and everything is just a short sighted and easy answer and a distraction from the complicated truths that exist that have no easy answers.

great posts dollarmansteve

and Khadafi would still be a bad person ( now he is a good one ..).

Sad analysis but quite valid.

So maybe if this administration would open up to talk to Iran ( instead of the cowboy approach), maybe something could come out of it, like for the above examples. :2 cents:

Last I saw from that report they had other reasons but it was also a 'threat' to Iran, for whatever that is worth.

Well said Matt :thumbsup

thank you - its nice to know people notice (and that im not just talk to myself :helpme)

BEWARE of teh mad cows...

http://www.slibe.com/fullimage/d0ca2...lena_krava.jpg

ADG Webmaster

Blame Bush for eliminating the buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and aiding in the creation of another radical Islamic nation in the Middle East.

ADG Webmaster

that's why they build these bad boys! http://www.csp.navy.mil/usshawaii/va72-1.jpg

Like in the World of warcraft

Sweet. I can't help thinking that it would be better in the long run to just outlaw belief in such ideologies against which we'll need to use these weapon systems anyway.

If only someone would have the balls to decree that anyone who believes in the jihad ideology can be shot on sight.

no one has EVER said Khadafi was a "good person" or a friend of any western country. he is a known terrorist and known supporter of terrorism who made significant strides after a couple decades of sanctions to reverse his policies, admit to what he did as well as other concesions. what was a better solution? overthrow him?

if Iran wanted to talk to ANYONE... they would be talking to the UN and every country that has tried to talk to them rather than telling them to fuck off.

Iran isn't a problem of the US or the Bush administration. The UN and most of the countries weren't condemning their behavior because the world cares about the relationship between two ignorant lunatics. There is a problem in Iran and short of condemning their behavior... no one wants to take action. Just like Rwanda. It was never called what it was (genocide) by the UN because it would have required them to take action. Meanwhile 2 million people died. How many more times does that shit have to repeat itself before the rest of the world starts taking a proactive stance in either bringing people to the table or shutting them down?

The funny thing about this discussion is this... your choices are;

1) bash the USA and ignore the history and facts
2) enjoy a world with an unstable, radical islamic state with Nuclear weapons
3) get in the game and do something about it either through diplomacy or any other means.

Everyone likes "1" because its easy, its fun and it draws attention away from a very difficult issue with no good solutions. its simply popular and the easy way out.

meanwhile... Iran is still on course. Threatening world war 3 and trying to get the bomb. But yeah... blame the US... because ONLY the US can get involved and bring them to the table and talk. No other country on the planet has that power i guess. I mean thats what everyone is basically saying right? The US is the problem, Iran... known supporters of terrorism, ran by radical fundamentalists and determined to wipe Isreal off the map.... can't possibly be accountable for their own behavior. Someone "makes them" do those things.

Wouldn't it have made more sense for the Bush Administration to have focused the war on terror on capturing/killing Bin Laden and destroying al Qaeda, which was mostly holed up in Afghanistan, instead of attacking Iraq, creating a new haven for al Qaeda, and turning the country into a new ally for Iran?

Had Bush done so, instead of piling lie, upon blunder, upon lie, then he would have had an easier time rallying U.S. and world public opinion on stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, which is a much greater threat than Saddam's non-existent/weak WMD program.

Bush has helped Iran take control of Iraq through surrogates, something they couldn't do as a result of the Iran-Iraq war, and he has made the region and the would less safe as a result.

Now that the President's party has lost control of the House and Senate, largely due to widespread dissatisfaction for their handling of issues in the Middle East, he will be hard pressed to build a consensus for attacking Iran.

Should the Democrats succeed in retaking the White House in 2008, while strengthing their thin hold on Congress, that would be the best hope for the U.S. to try a fresh approach with the Middle East and the world.

It might still end with us confronting Iran, but I believe it would have a better chance for success, with greater domestic and international support (especially if sufficient effort is made to resolve issues diplomatically), than creating some cooked up artificial trigger, which seems to be Bush's only option at this time.

ADG Webmaster