France: Prepare for war over Iran

[Chancellor]

Quote by: butterbut If everybody thought like you, Chancellor, we would have our throats cut already. Thank God for people like Goerge Bush who actually understand the war on terror and what's at stake.

Oh, yes, of course! A so-called "war" (like the "war on poverty" or the "war on drugs") that we entered into after a bunch of Muslims got sick of the United States butting its nose into Middle Eastern affairs and decided to do something about it.

So, here's the progression:

1. America spends more than 50 years butting into the internal affairs of Middle Eastern nations.

2. A group of Muslims choose to retaliate first by the attempted WTC bombing in 1993, then the attack on USS Cole, among other similar events (like the military barracks in Saudi Arabia) and, finally, 9/11.

3. The United States declares a "war on terror" and uses that as an excuse to topple the regimes of Afghanistan and Iraq - regimes the United States either put into place or helped in other ways (like selling them weapons of mass destruction).

4. Butterbut and others like him think this is perfectly acceptable and that the United States is innocent.

[another day]

Yep... it's sad that the majority of the population is so willfully ignorant of what their own gov't has been doing in the middle east for the past 50 years.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: GHook93 France: Prepare for war over Iran France: Prepare for war over Iran - CNN.com Even the Frogs are talking war with an Atomic Iran. This will be a different war than Iraq. Think Desert Storm or Bosnia. Death from above and Death from the sea. Cripple the regime and let it implode. There is not the Sunni/Shia problems of Iraq. It will have a clear objective and occuping Iran and forced regime change won't be it.

We do have some years ahead, still.
Maybe some intellectually impaired guys within Iranian governing body will die in that period of time, and some normality-inspired ones take over the reigns of power.
Otherwise, it does not look so prosmissing what Iran is about to develop.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Rainbow We do have some years ahead, still. Maybe some intellectually impaired guys within Iranian governing body will die in that period of time, and some normality-inspired ones take over the reigns of power.

Ha. As Albert Einstein put it:
"Great spirits have always encountered violent
opposition from mediocre minds."

People who "take over the reigns of power" tend to be abnormal.

Grandpa h.

[butterbut]

Quote by: Chancellor Oh, yes, of course! A so-called "war" (like the "war on poverty" or the "war on drugs") that we entered into after a bunch of Muslims got sick of the United States butting its nose into Middle Eastern affairs and decided to do something about it. So, here's the progression: 1. America spends more than 50 years butting into the internal affairs of Middle Eastern nations. 2. A group of Muslims choose to retaliate first by the attempted WTC bombing in 1993, then the attack on USS Cole, among other similar events (like the military barracks in Saudi Arabia) and, finally, 9/11. 3. The United States declares a "war on terror" and uses that as an excuse to topple the regimes of Afghanistan and Iraq - regimes the United States either put into place or helped in other ways (like selling them weapons of mass destruction). 4. Butterbut and others like him think this is perfectly acceptable and that the United States is innocent.

The terrorists are not retaliating. The war a terror has nothing to do with the war on drugs or the war on crime. We are fighting an organized fanatical Jhad group called AlQuida that wants to create a global Jhad govenment. It wouldn't matter what we did. Its in thier Bible.

[rmnunez]

The enemy are fanatics in pursuit of a prophetic caliphate to establish a fundamentalist government. Al Qaeda is the best known among a variety of Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups. There are many of these, but this group features targeting united statians and their property more than the others, and on 911 they crossed a threshhold by attacking the US domestically.

This is why this war on terrorism isn't so abstract to analogize with those wars on poverty and drugs. The enemy is specific enough, its not about seccesionists, separatists, revolutionaries, freedom-fighters, rebels, guerrillas, insurgents, dissidents or sectarianists. The enemy the US, and its remarkably steadfast fellow Coalitioneers are confronting are international terrorists who have been attacking US and other Coalitioneer citizens and property.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: butterbut The terrorists are not retaliating. The war a terror has nothing to do with the war on drugs or the war on crime. We are fighting an organized fanatical Jhad group called AlQuida that wants to create a global Jhad govenment. It wouldn't matter what we did. Its in thier Bible.

They did retaliate and 9/11 was the result. The war on terror (or, more accurately, terrorism) is just as vague and never-ending as the war on drugs and the war on poverty - and that's the connection among the three.

And if a bunch of jihadists want to create Islamic theocracies in their respective Middle Eastern countries, they're free to do so. We have no right to butt into the internal affairs of other nations!

[rmnunez]

if a bunch of jihadists want to create Islamic theocracies in their respective Middle Eastern countries, they're free to do so. We have no right to butt into the internal affairs of other nations!

Not quite. As we know what Islamic theocracies mean in terms of human rights, we may have an obligation to intervene to prevent this.

Within the context of the global war against international terrorism those seeking to establish theocracies are often not the citizens of the countries where they'd like to see this happen.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: rmnunez Not quite. As we know what Islamic theocracies mean in terms of human rights, we may have an obligation to intervene to prevent this.

Well, no, the United States of America does not have an obligation to intervene. Read the quote in my signature line and you'll understand the basis for my saying that. Now, if you folks down there in Mexico are so fired up in favor of human rights (though it's clear that you aren't given the corruption in your police force) then why don't you guys go and intervene?

Within the context of the global war against international terrorism those seeking to establish theocracies are often not the citizens of the countries where they'd like to see this happen.

You mean like the vast majority of the "insurgents" in Iraq who entered the country illegally from Jordan, Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia?

[rmnunez]

Apparently you aren't reading carefully, I said "we may have an obligation", and by "we" I mean humanity, not just united statians. Whenever there is a catastrophe, governments contribute relief to try and help, this happens often enough we can say its customary for governments to help others when a humanitarian crisis emerges. Until recently this appeared to be strictly voluntary, but scholars in international relations have reached different conclusions since Yugoslavia. That intervention was premised on a humanitarian catastrophe and took place without UN endorsement, but intervention was not specifically condemned and subsequently the UN has been contributing to the effort in Yugoslavia. Some have concluded the Yugoslavian intervention suggests an obligation to intervene to avert humanitarian disasters.

Again the lack of care in reading made you miss my reference to that "context" in the second paragraph. The "insurgents" in Iraq are not the targets of this global war against international terrorism. I realize insurgents and terrorists in Iraq look alike, but they are not the same. The insurgents likely are Iraqis, the terrorists often are not. It was suggested "jihadists" (terrorists or insurgents?) had a right to establish a theocracy in their country, all I'm noting is that jihadists who are terrorists often seek this sort of government in places where they are not from. Do you know whether any of the insurgents in Iraq seeks the establishment of a theocratic regime there?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: grandpa People who "take over the reigns of power" tend to be abnormal.

:-)))
You can not blame me for that.