Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Its been two months since anyone looked at this... strange.

Well, the situation has evolved since this topic was commented upon. The EU has decided to set a deadline for Iran to guarentee that its nuclear programs are peaceful-- in November. The Iranians are believed to be enriching Uranium-- a process that be lead to nuclear power or nuclear weapons.

It bears repeating that Iran has the missile range to target Israel, and I believe that Israel is considering an airstrike against Iran, in much the same fashion that it launched an airstrike against Iraq's nuclear program.

Is this the right course of action? Why is it that the USA doesn't seem to be doing a whole lot on an issue that seems far more important than Iraq?

I AM REALLY WORRIED ABOUT YOUR OPINIONS! IF A COUNTRY POSES ANOTHER COUNTRY A GREAT DANGER, SHOULD A WAR BEGIN?AS FAR AS I KNOW,CHINA SOLD THE NUCLEAR AND MISSILE TECHNIQUES TO IRAN AND NORTH KOREA, AND THE AIM IS TO GET THE RIGHTS OF EXPLOITING OIL IN IRAN AND COMFORT NORTH KOREA.(BAKISTAN INCLUDED!)!! I WARN YOU THAT DO NOT IRRITATE THE ARAB COUNTRYS! IF IRAN WERE ANNOYED, THEY WOULD DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY DO HAVE NUCLEAR BOMBERS, BUT YOU CAN SEE IT ON YOUR OWN LAND!

didn't iran get 70% of the country flattened by a huge earthquake a few months ago? how are they a threat?

At 9/15/04 11:12 PM, Sparky1687 wrote: didn't iran get 70% of the country flattened by a huge earthquake a few months ago? how are they a threat?

--They lost a city, made out of brick (ouch).

while the loss of a city is a tradegy, it is literally a drop in the bucket against the military power of this country. Iran fought Iraq to a stalemate, while the USA was supporting Iraq with then modern equipment.

Iran probably has Soviet stuff, lots of it. It is a larger nation than any other in the middle east, and has been interfering with operations in Iraq, and is also harboring Al-Qaeda (Iran shares a border with Afghanistan).

Iran has missiles of considerable range, and nuclear programs that may yield nuclear weapons. A threat to the USA? The only way it could threaten the USA is either to invade Iraq and make moves to annex the middle east, or to create an Atomic Bomb.

In either of those cases, the world would support action against Iran, and I believe that it is to Iran's best interests to play by the rules. In any event, Iran is at a crossroads that could lead to becoming a serious threat.

Bush would probably not invade Iran, unless he really thinks that they are building nukes. Then again, that is not a judgement I feel particularly safe in making.

At 9/15/04 04:03 PM, Tal-con wrote:

Do you know how many countries hate us? GUESS just guess how many.

--every country, even the USA itself, has elements that hate America.

--As a meaningful answer, consider the following:
--The USA is reluctant to attack another country of strong economic power (like France or China) because it will hurt.
--The USA will only fight a democratic country if badly provoked-- thus the USA will never fight Israel or Switzerland.
--The USA is content to ignore countries that are impoverished and ignoring it (most of Africa)

--The USA really only considers war against small dictatorships with something of value: This is, maybe, 10-20 countries or so.

Does that mean we must invade every single country that has a negative thought about us? Hey, we hate France, what's stopping France from invading us? I'm sick of it, just because we're the most pwerful country in the world, we think we can do anything we want, but we can't.

--If we were immoral and willing to pay high taxes for it, we could be doing a lot more than we are now. The first check of American Expansionism is the people themselves. Go Democracy!

And our president is so damn persuasive with his "walking right up to the edge of a lie but never really crossing it" that i guarentee if he got re-elected, we'd go after Iran next.

--who knows? It could be Georgia, Chechnya, N. Korea, Jordan, Syria, Yemen... there are a lot of countries that Bush could make ludicrous claims against-- and a lot of christo-fascists would believe it (someone has to believe in commericals).

At 9/16/04 06:15 PM, Tal-con wrote: I read all of the last paragraph but i'm only interested in this. What, may i ask, is a christo-fascist?

When I think of that word, I think of people like Pat Robertson, etc. You know, the Christian Fundamentalists.

At 9/16/04 06:15 PM, Tal-con wrote:

At 9/16/04 04:10 AM, BlueMax wrote:

At 9/15/04 04:03 PM, Tal-con wrote:

.

--The USA really only considers war against small dictatorships with something of value

You mean oil?

--Oil is one thing. Other resources, such as coal, precious metals, convient location as well. N. Korea lacks oil, but it is still a target anyway.

This is, maybe, 10-20 countries or so.

Alright, but do you want to go to war with 20 countries? I sure don't, so just ignore them. Not saying you would want to go to war with that many countries, but the point still stands, there's plenty of countries out there like Iraq and Iran, we can't fix all of them.

--Agreed. The USA can not save the world from itself, so it might as well be happy.

christo-fascists

I read all of the last paragraph but i'm only interested in this. What, may i ask, is a christo-fascist?

--Word I invented, am surprised that no one else picked up on it. Christo-fascists believe that the bible should set the ethics in an authoritarian or semi-authoritarian country. They operate by making the government represent their religion and vice versa. Accordingly, they want a Christain state that claims that it can do no wrong, but of course, gross wrongdoing is commited. This spurs new laws, which don't end corruption but erode civil liberities, which results in a death spiral and and a fascist nation based on christainity.

Bush is, and is staunchly supported by Christo-fascists