Iran Warns of Preemptive Strike on American Forces

[Rene Descartes]

Earlier today, the Iranians decided to get beligerent and threaten an attack on U.S. forces in the Middle East. (http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=3131)

In recent years, Iran has been building nuclear reactor facilities all over its country for the purpose of generating waste materials. These waste materials are an essential ingredient for the enrichment of weapons grade nuclear stockpiles. (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1092884509970&p=1006688055060)

Iran, understanding that its days as a nuclear threat are numbered, since they have seen an increase in U.S. pressure on groups like the IAEA to put a stop to the potential threat, is making a bold move to buy themselves the extra time necessary to advance as a nuclear power.

In the midst of this, lies Israel, a possible nuclear power that says it will act alone to insure its survival in an already hostile region. (http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story.asp?StoryId=CqsqLWeidAxjHBI1PC3jHzwW Tyw5HBhLZAxm) Iran doubting the political position of the Israelis to take such a bold move are calling the bluff.

Looks like the United States better gear up for round two in the Middle East. This is merely a continuation of the Iraqi war, and seen by many in the Department of Defnese as a necessary step to winning the peace in the region. Many of the recent insurgencies have been funded if not operated by Iranian elements hell-bent on stopping the rise of a viable democratic nation in the region. The Iranians openly and honestly admit to actions taken inside Afghanistan and Iraq to thwart U.S. missions. Buckle your seat belts, things could get ugly real quick.

[Guerrilla22]

<_< al-Jazeera is the Arab world equivalent of Fox News, I wouldn&#39;t take anything they report too seriously. Anyways, say the US was thinking about invading Iran, what would they invade with, all the extra troops they have avaible right now?

And what would Iran launch a pre-emptive strike on American forces with, all their F-15s and F-14s that don&#39;t work? Or maybe with all those great MiG 29s they bought from Russia, cause you know, those planes did real well for Iraq against American air power in the first gulf war.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 03:05 AM
<_< al-Jazeera is the Arab world equivalent of Fox News, I wouldn&#39;t take anything they report too seriously.
:huh:

I don&#39;t get why this assertion has suddenly become so popular on the left recently. Personally I pin it on subconscious xenophobia. Fear of the unknown, cause you know what? There&#39;s no way you know enough about Al-Jazeera to make that statement&#33; Listen to Al-Jazeera&#39;s news broadcasts, in Arabic, then come talk about it. <_<

In terms of the shit that&#39;s made for consumption in the Middle East, and not the English website where they stick their deskboys, it is the fairest news source in the Middle East.

Does Fox News carry live debates between government ministers and wanted underground Communist party leaders? Didn&#39;t think so.

Fucking pisses me off to hear leftists talk this bullshit.

[Rene Descartes]

You&#39;re pissed off because Guerrilla22 belongs to the class of leftists known as the petty bourgeois. Just ask him.

[Capitalist Imperial]

I simply don&#39;t think that the US would be worried anyway. Being that our troops are spread a little thin for the moment anyway, any attempt of aggression by Iran on American interests will likely be met with plentiful and relatively indiscriminate airstrikes and carpet bombing, not a conventional land invasion.

The US won&#39;t even concern itself with occupation in Iran, there is not enough interest in it, and, any attempt at preemtion on their part would render them worthy of nothing but complete and utter eradacation of those pitiful undesirables.

[Exploited Class]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 20 2004, 09:30 AM
I simply don&#39;t think that the US would be worried anyway. Being that our troops are spread a little thin for the moment anyway, any attempt of aggression by Iran on American interests will likely be met with plentiful and relatively indiscriminate airstrikes and carpet bombing, not a conventional land invasion.

The US won&#39;t even concern itself with occupation in Iran, there is not enough interest in it, and, any attempt at preemtion on their part would render them worthy of nothing but complete and utter eradacation of those pitiful undesirables.
Yeah because I am sure that the rest of the arab world is going to sit back and do nothing at that point.

If Iran attacks America, which I seriously doubt they will that isn&#39;t even close to the point of the news article, I doubt that the arab world would let thinly spread America attack a 3rd arab country. It would be an utter shit storm.

The whole point of this article is this. America has opened a pandoras box by claiming its right to do a pre-emptive attack on Iraq. The world community said, as well as many of us on this board, "Do that and other countries are going to be able to make the same claim for their intentions".

Well Iran is using the term pre-emptive now, and they have every right, now that, that pandora&#39;s box has been opened. They have a legit argument that they think America is going to attack them in the future; especially with all the hostile diplomacy with the unilateral acting America.

Iran is just the first to use the term "pre-emptive" back against America, except N. Korea to use it as well. And they have every right at this point, since America said, "there is a future possibility of danger to the US from Iraq we must act pre-emptively to remove this future danger."

Whatch ya gonna do?

As far as that last statement.

complete and utter eradacation of those pitiful undesirables.
That is pretty much nuclear bomb talk there. We will see how many countries will trade with America after it completely and utterly eradicates opposing forces.

Oh and don&#39;t forget, America is on the back door step of Russia and China at this point, two countries who just very recently signed a friendship pact (something they didn&#39;t do through 50 years of cold war). Iran has decent warm ties to both, I&#39;d like to see how that played out.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Exploited [email protected] 20 2004, 07:31 PM
Yeah because I am sure that the rest of the arab world is going to sit back and do nothing at that point.

If Iran attacks America, which I seriously doubt they will that isn&#39;t even close to the point of the news article, I doubt that the arab world would let thinly spread America attack a 3rd arab country. It would be an utter shit storm.

The whole point of this article is this. America has opened a pandoras box by claiming its right to do a pre-emptive attack on Iraq. The world community said, as well as many of us on this board, "Do that and other countries are going to be able to make the same claim for their intentions".

Well Iran is using the term pre-emptive now, and they have every right, now that, that pandora&#39;s box has been opened. They have a legit argument that they think America is going to attack them in the future; especially with all the hostile diplomacy with the unilateral acting America.

Iran is just the first to use the term "pre-emptive" back against America, except N. Korea to use it as well. And they have every right at this point, since America said, "there is a future possibility of danger to the US from Iraq we must act pre-emptively to remove this future danger."

Whatch ya gonna do?

As far as that last statement.

That is pretty much nuclear bomb talk there. We will see how many countries will trade with America after it completely and utterly eradicates opposing forces.

Oh and don&#39;t forget, America is on the back door step of Russia and China at this point, two countries who just very recently signed a friendship pact (something they didn&#39;t do through 50 years of cold war). Iran has decent warm ties to both, I&#39;d like to see how that played out.

Yeah because I am sure that the rest of the arab world is going to sit back and do nothing at that point.

Probably not, but neither will US allies (including Israel) if America is simply defending itself from an Iranian attack, which will be, politically, a much different and less controversial military operation than the liberation of Iraq. So, what we could end up having is a conventional (hopefuly) WWIII, where most of the middle east is pitted against the US and western allies in conventional open-battlefield combat. Where would your betting money go in that contest? Not to mention that the US can draft, build, and mobilize very quickly, essentially growing to meet demand if it has to, which it can easily do with the support of the US populace, which it will easily have if it is attacked by Iran.



If Iran attacks America, which I seriously doubt they will that isn&#39;t even close to the point of the news article, I doubt that the arab world would let thinly spread America attack a 3rd arab country. It would be an utter shit storm.

Wouldn&#39;t Iran be just the 2nd country attacked, or am I missing something? But yes, I agree, things would get hotter than they already are.


The whole point of this article is this. America has opened a pandoras box by claiming its right to do a pre-emptive attack on Iraq. The world community said, as well as many of us on this board, "Do that and other countries are going to be able to make the same claim for their intentions".

Hey, I can&#39;t say that concept is not fair, I&#39;m just saying that if you want to enact a policy of preemption, your mouth better write checks that your ass can cash. I just don&#39;t think Iran fits this bill. America never stated that it had a monopoly on preemption, notr did I think it assumed so.


Well Iran is using the term pre-emptive now, and they have every right, now that, that pandora&#39;s box has been opened. They have a legit argument that they think America is going to attack them in the future; especially with all the hostile diplomacy with the unilateral acting America.

Again, thats fine, if they make their choice to act on it, they should be ready to face the consequences.


Iran is just the first to use the term "pre-emptive" back against America, except N. Korea to use it as well. And they have every right at this point, since America said, "there is a future possibility of danger to the US from Iraq we must act pre-emptively to remove this future danger."

Again, I agree, no one has a monopoly on preemption, just be ready to back your play and face the heat.


Whatch ya gonna do?

Likely turn Iran into a parking lot if they wish to engage the US offensively.

As far as that last statement.


That is pretty much nuclear bomb talk there. We will see how many countries will trade with America after it completely and utterly eradicates opposing forces.

I didn&#39;t mean for it to sound like nuclear bomb talk, more like getting rid of surplus conventional ordnance inventory en masse, targeting military and vital infrastructure only, of course.



Oh and don&#39;t forget, America is on the back door step of Russia and China at this point, two countries who just very recently signed a friendship pact (something they didn&#39;t do through 50 years of cold war). Iran has decent warm ties to both, I&#39;d like to see how that played out.

America actually has decent warm ties to both nowadays as well, and we both know that it is ostensible that China and Russia each knowt it is more important to, and have more investment and interest in, maintaining and building a relationship with the USA than with Iran.

[Rene Descartes]

With the decline in Iran&#39;s economy, Iran had to curb conventional military spending. However, it has looked to nonconvention NBC weapons programs to provide it with the military might to intimidate its immediate neighbors and become a viable military power in the region, with prospects of one day being able to threaten the U.S. directly. The fact they they have begun threatening U.S. forces may mark a change in their position. Perhaps Tehran views an unconventional attack on U.S. forces, or god forbid, U.S. cities as a form of preemption. I wouldn&#39;t underestimate Iran as an enemy. Remember, they have been rather successful with assymetric warfare tactics employed inside of Iraq. Perhaps they have become a little brazen. The possibility that they would be willing to use terrorists to hit soft targets in America, disrupt our economy, and deter our government from involvement in the region is not so far fetched. Keep an eye on Iran. I think we will be at war with them shortly after the November election.

[Guerrilla22]

I don&#39;t get why this assertion has suddenly become so popular on the left recently. Personally I pin it on subconscious xenophobia. Fear of the unknown, cause you know what? There&#39;s no way you know enough about Al-Jazeera to make that statement&#33; Listen to Al-Jazeera&#39;s news broadcasts, in Arabic, then come talk about it.

<_< I probaly have watched more al-Jazeera than anyone on this site, unless there&#39;s someone on here from the mid-east, which there might be. We had a satellite at my parents house and we got al-Jazeera, I had been, untill I moved out this year, watching it for almost 3 years&#33;

True, I had to read the english translations, and I&#39;m not sure who was providing those translations, but the conclusion I&#39;ve came to is that the station is nothing more than Fox news, with an Arab twist. True, there is a bit more substance to it than Fox News, but its one sided, biased and often reports things that turn out not to be true. For example, early last year they reported that Saddam had sucessfully made it across the Syrian boarder and had been granted amnesty by the syrian government.

:angry: It pisses me off, when people come to conclusions about me, without having a clue as to where I&#39;m coming from&#33;


u&#39;re pissed off because Guerrilla22 belongs to the class of leftists known as the petty bourgeois. Just ask him.

:lol: Newbie&#33; And you know me that well, right? I&#39;m not sure how you know me that well, since you&#39;ve been at this site for only five minutes&#33; You&#39;re just mad because I&#39;m telling you what you are saying is shit, which it is. You may think you know international politics, but you are either oblivious to, or are overlooking several key facts:
1. US forces are overstretched, and those few forces that are avaible are in the middle of being re-aligned.

2. The DoD has been way over budget every year since Bush took office, to go to war with Iran would require a special supplement to the defense budget, which I assure you, won&#39;t happen.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 03:06 AM
<_< I probaly have watched more al-Jazeera than anyone on this site, unless there&#39;s someone on here from the mid-east, which there might be.
Me.

Anyways, I won&#39;t go as far as calling you a bougie, cause Al-Jazeera is not some leftist news station. However, despite the fact that it does have biases and makes mistakes, I think it&#39;s rediculous to call it Fox news. You&#39;re forgetting that news has to be targetted to the right audience. For Arabs, Al-Jazeera is the fairest news source they have, the only one daring enough to criticize Arab governments and not just Israel and the US.

And once again, they&#39;re also the only one that gives Communists any attention :lol:

Anyways, don&#39;t think I believe it&#39;s perfect or anything.

[Comrade Zeke]

why does everyone always talk about Iran when it comes to being powerful, I mean is it really the most powerful Country in the middle east? I always thought Saudi Arabia or Turkey had the biggest armies and the most money. Iran has a huge army don&#39;t get me wrong but they are armed with odated Soveit wheapons and MIGs. Though......I have always thought that Soveit wheapons are vasily suppior to American Capitalist Crap :D
Sorry about spelling
Zeke

[Rene Descartes]

It&#39;s not the Soviet tanks and MIGs that I am worried about. It&#39;s the Soviet provided smallpox strain from Corpus 1, or the missile technology that escaped Russia when their economy collapsed due to communism, and they were too broke to feed their nuclear scientist&#39;s families. It&#39;s the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the trickle down effect it has had in largely third world countries, that I would dare say lack the sophistication to use them in a responsible manner.

Iran&#39;s intelligence service is horribly intertwined with terrorist networks around the world, which would provide them the means to hit our nation without a directly tracable path back to the true origin o the attack. Give me a break, if they are getting brazen enough to threaten our troops in that region, then we must operate under the assumption that they have a pretty big ace up their sleeve. They are a direct threat to the United States and ought to be dealt with in the same manner as Iraq. Time for a third regime change in that region.

If you doubt our intentions to nuetralize this threat then I suggest you look at a map sometime, and answer the question of why we attacked the first two countries in the Middle East in the order that we did. My assumption from the beginning was that we were going to eventually launch a multi-pronged attack on the Iranians.


1. US forces are overstretched, and those few forces that are avaible are in the middle of being re-aligned.

Hardly&#33; We have more than enough forces in the region to deal with this threat directly. Furthermore, our forces have been adapting to this new age we live in. Those forces that are not directly in the region can be deployed with relative ease in a matter of days or even hours. I&#39;m sure the U.S. Marines are more than capable of holding down the fort until reinforcements have arrived.


2. The DoD has been way over budget every year since Bush took office, to go to war with Iran would require a special supplement to the defense budget, which I assure you, won&#39;t happen.

Really? I&#39;m sure you would have made the same assurance that Bush wouldn&#39;t get the 87 billion dollars that Congress granted him. Even your hero, John (inflicts his own wounds to obtain medals) Kerry, voted for that measure, before he voted against it. When the U.S. is in danger we make sacrifices and find the resources needed to obliterate our enemies.


Newbie&#33; And you know me that well, right?

I assume that you were raised by hypocritical ex-hippies who have sense made it into the upper-middle class. They felt guilty about their successes and how they sold out to the capitalist machine. Therefore, they indocrinated you with their failed political thinking and then sent you to their alma madre, the University of Colorado, home to a disproportionately large number of potheads, deadites, bums, and hippies. You probably drive around in your car, complete with your redefeat Bush bumber stickers, smoke the "dank", and generally contribute nothing to society but your hot air. Being sheltered from any real hard work or tribulations in your life has afforded you the luxury of thinking that you&#39;re somehow better than everyone else, and this somehow makes you more politically enlightened than the rest of us. You are the epitome of American liberalism in the middle class, which by definition, makes you part of what Marx dubbed the petit-bourgeoisie. Perhaps the only thing I can agree with Marx on is his disgust for your type. Go ahead, tell me I&#39;m wrong. I know better.

[Rene Descartes]

Yeah because I am sure that the rest of the arab world is going to sit back and do nothing at that point.

I know the Saudis would applaud. They are extremely worried about Iran&#39;s prospects for nuclear weapons, and what it will mean to their survival in the region. Iraq claimed it was building what was then the 4th largest army in the world for much the same reasons Iran states it wants nuclear weapons, which is to battle the Israelis. What did Saddam do when his army was complete? He attacked his Arab neighbors. If I were the Sauds, I would side with the Americans. We saved their asses the first time, and by taking this stance we are probably unintentionally saving their asses a second time. How do they thank us? By sending 20 terrorists to our soil to inflict mass casualties. Fucking ingrates&#33;

[Vinny Rafarino]

Even your hero, John (inflicts his own wounds to obtain medals) Kerry

:lol:

What would make this pig "our hero"?

You are one confused imperialist; get used to the OI son.

[Micah EL Layl]

peace......
the USA has never done a good thing for IRaq or the middle east....
i RESPECT Al Sadr 100 percent for bringing it to those devils......
the USA puts a ruthless dictator in power named SADDAM....
then the USA romances Saddam while he rains poison gass
on Iranians....then the USA tricks Saddam telling him its okay
to invade Kuwait because Kuwait is slant drilling......then
Papa Bush the Drug Dealing Devil invades Iraq killing innocent
men women and children and destroying the water purifaction
plant.....then they put sanctions on Iraq so that they cannot get
the parts to repair the water plants...so hundreds of thousands
of people die as a result of that......of course now IRaq is polluted
from the depleted Uranium bombs which were used which also
make US soldiers sick......then W BUsh and his puppeteers
mastermind 911.....and eventually go back to Iraq....to kill
more innocent civilians.......and Saddam was put in power
by the CIA in the first place&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;.......IRaqi&#39;s should kill
every US imperialist that steps foot in that country and
Allah knows this man&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;.......word...........
and now you devils wanna get Iran???????......remember
the CIA put the Shah in power....the SHah was known by
AMNESTY INTERNATION as the bigggest human rights violator......
let the truth be known......Iran has always been the good guy
in the holy land................so Bush and all you devils....go ahead
and try to get Iran.....but personally i think yaw should quit
while you are ahead........Allah is dangling a carrot on a fishing
pole right in front of your face......

[Guerrilla22]

assume that you were raised by hypocritical ex-hippies who have sense made it into the upper-middle class. They felt guilty about their successes and how they sold out to the capitalist machine. Therefore, they indocrinated you with their failed political thinking and then sent you to their alma madre, the University of Colorado, home to a disproportionately large number of potheads, deadites, bums, and hippies. You probably drive around in your car, complete with your redefeat Bush bumber stickers, smoke the "dank", and generally contribute nothing to society but your hot air. Being sheltered from any real hard work or tribulations in your life has afforded you the luxury of thinking that you&#39;re somehow better than everyone else, and this somehow makes you more politically enlightened than the rest of us. You are the epitome of American liberalism in the middle class, which by definition, makes you part of what Marx dubbed the petit-bourgeoisie. Perhaps the only thing I can agree with Marx on is his disgust for your type. Go ahead, tell me I&#39;m wrong. I know better.


:lol: You know about as much about me, as you do international politics. My parents aren&#39;t Unv. of Colorado Alumni, I got into the school on a full scholarship, I don&#39;t own a car, and I work at Subway part time to pay the rent. I don&#39;t sit around and smoke weed, I study political science at one of the nation&#39;s very best public universities. I worked my ass off to get into the school and I&#39;m there because I had a 3.8 GPA in community college and because I&#39;m intelligent, not because I&#39;m the benafactor of rich parents like quite a few CU students.

I&#39;m not sure how you know what the Unv.of Colorado is like because judging by your assnine remarks, you are far too uneducated to be able to get into a school like that. You&#39;re not a Marxist, you&#39;re an imperialist, with all your remarks about the US needing to attack Iran. Why? Because you buy into the bullshit rhetoric that Iran is building weapons of mass destruction and is out to attack the US, just as GWB told you.


Personally I pin it on subconscious xenophobia. Fear of the unknown

I&#39;m sorry CyM, but I&#39;m going to have to laugh at you here, I&#39;m from Dearborn, Michigan, home to North America&#39;s largest Arab population. I was one of three white people at my high school, the rest were all Arab. All my friends and neighbors growing up were Arab too. They also think that al-Jazeera is extremely biased.

[Guest1]

Read my post above.

[Rene Descartes]

I don&#39;t own a car, and I work at Subway part time to pay the rent.

Those are sure signs of intelligence. I sweep floors for a living, but happen to be a prodigy when it comes to discrete mathematics.

[Rene Descartes]

Micah EL Layl,

I sure hope you are not on American soil, or ever plan on visiting America.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 11:11 PM
Because you buy into the bullshit rhetoric that Iran is building weapons of mass destruction and is out to attack the US, just as GWB told you.
Indeed, the IAEA is a tool of KKKapitalist propaganda&#33;

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Rene [email protected] 22 2004, 12:40 AM

Those are sure signs of intelligence. I sweep floors for a living, but happen to be a prodigy when it comes to discrete mathematics.
No a sign of intelligence is that I maintain a 3.8 GPA, have a full scholarship to and study political science at one of the nation&#39;s best public universities. Where did&#39;do you go to school?

[Rene Descartes]

My GPA in community college was a 4.0, now I go to a public university that is ranked among the top 25 engineering schools in the nation. What is your point? If you mean that CU is one of the best public party schools in the nation, then I will buy that. As far as its undergraduate political science program goes, big deal. I too could have picked the easy way out of college and chosen political science or psychology like every other moron, but for some reason (call me crazy) I decided to choose a challenging field of study. My degree choice, on average, yields the top pay among all bachelors degree programs for applicants straight out of college. More than likely, I will not have too difficult of a time finding a job when I graduate. Where will your political science degree take you? You should have skipped ahead in life and gone straight to work for McDonalds. I hear they are highing the handicapped these days.

All kidding aside, CU is a good school. They have excellent post graduate studies, and their research is top notch. If I was wrong about your upringing, then I must apologize. I happen to hate the kind of people that are attracted to CU for its undergraduate program. Many of them are morons, hippies, and generally lazy fucks. If you don&#39;t fit into that category, then good for you. I feel sorry for you because of the overwhelming bullshit that you are subjected to in the People&#39;s Repulic of Boulder. However, you are a nonsensical liberal, and seem to enjoy the company you keep in that town. That is why I judge you harshly.

[Guerrilla22]

Maybe you should post in a forum about engineering, because you obviously don&#39;t know politics. Typical engineering student, or law student, who isn&#39;t capable of thinking beyond pre-established logic. That;s why people who major in politics run the nations of the world and people like you design arm rest for cars and office chairs.

[Rene Descartes]

Hey, you&#39;re the communist here, thus proving your lack of a political mind, and your economic incompetence. I have had a few political science classes in my time, and I would be willing to bet that I know more politics than you, the professed political science major. More economics, for that matter. Hell, more everything. To put it into perspective, I have forgotten more information than you will ever know.

Maybe our current state of political affairs in the world can attest to the "ability" of political science majors to run governments. Besides your assertion that political science majors are the ones who naturally end up in leadership positions is wrong. Most politicians have their degrees in law, business, and economics. Jimmy Carter, as much of a communist sympathizer as he was, was a nuclear engineer for the Navy. Ronald Reagan was an actor.

Why should someone who lacks scientific sophistication be making decisions that impact water, land, medical, environmental, and energy resources? Do you honestly think you are smart enough to recognize the language, evaluate the evidence, draw reasonable conclusions, and then make an educated decision that will affect the lives of millions of people? I highly doubt it. Most politicians aren&#39;t. When politicians get involved in science and the economy it has a stiffeling effect for a reason; because they are very poor at making important decisions. On the other hand, engineers are quite adept at designing systems that benefit mankind. In doing so, they are constantly making important decisions where people&#39;s lives are at stake. The creations they develop better humanities quality of life. I ask you who the real philathropist is, the political science major or the engineer?

It is easy for an engineer to venture into the realm of political science, since they can read, recognize patterns, evaluate logical results, and draw necessary conclusions. I would elect an engineer to be my congressman, before I would hire a politician to design, build, and operate a bioreactor. Wouldn&#39;t you?

[Rene Descartes]

I bet you predicted that Afghanistan would be a quagmire, and our army would have as much luck at the Soviet Union had in that region. You probably said it would result in another Vietnam. I predicted overwhelming successes. Doesn&#39;t political science have something to do with predicting outcomes? If you are constantly making poor predictions, doesn&#39;t that say something about your competence as a political scientist? I have another prediction for you. Bush will easily be re-elected as commander in chief. Not quite a landslide, but an overwhelming majority. After his re-election he will no longer have to worry about appeasing the wimps within our country that wish to capitulate to terrorists, and we will probably take the Iranian government out of the picture. As far as the next terrorist attack goes, Al Qaeda will most likely wait to see how the election plays out. Bush = bad for terrorist scum. Kerry = pushover. They know that an attack will galvanize the nation to elect Bush, so they will wait in hopes that Kerry gets elected. Let&#39;s hear some of your predictions, wise one.

[Guerrilla22]

First off all, presidents and other like entitys are not the ones who run governmnets, which again proves how little you know about politics. Its the advisors and ministers, who run governments, like Karl Rove (I doubt you&#39;ve ever heard that name) and most advisors are poly sci majors.


Here&#39;s some predictions: al-Qaeda won&#39;t attack, the only reason you&#39;re hearing that they are planning to attack is to frighten you and take your mind of the fact that the economy is still terrible, gas prices are rising again and to top it off, the operation in Iraq is still a diaster.

Your earlier theory that we will go to war with Iran shortly after the November election is just absolutely laughable. Even if the reasons I gave you previously as to why this won&#39;t happen, weren&#39;t true, after the November elections, the government is its least active. Many politicians will be on there way out and will do nothing more than lounge around for the remainder of their terms, and at this point it looks like Bush is probaly going to be on his way out as well. Do you really think lame duck politicians are going to send the country into a war?

Again, you heard it from me as to what is going to happen: al-Qaeda won&#39;t attack, the November election will happen as scheduled, with out a hitch and the US won&#39;t attack Iran within the next 4 years.

[Rene Descartes]

al-Qaeda won&#39;t attack, the only reason you&#39;re hearing that they are planning to attack is to frighten you and take your mind of the fact that the economy is still terrible, gas prices are rising again and to top it off, the operation in Iraq is still a diaster.


See, this is exactly why you are a political science major. You lack the ability to think, but happen to be excellent at regurgitating the liberal clap trap put out by DNC talking heads.

As for the majority of advisors and ministers being political scientists, prove your assertion with facts. Let&#39;s see the statistics on that. The burden of proof lies on the shoulder of the one making the claim. I hope proof is not too much of a burden for your small mind.

By the way, isn&#39;t it past your bedtime. Doesn&#39;t school start for you tomorrow? When is your first class? At noon probably. During finals week, it&#39;s always the political science majors that I see playing frisbee golf. Dipshits.

Just so you know, I am thinking about getting my Ph.D. in political science. Most of the advisors and ministers who happen to be political science majors went well beyond their undergraduate studies. A large percentage of them have their Ph.D. or Masters. You, you&#39;ll end up waiting tables, teaching high school, or shuffling pencils for some pointless bureaucracy. I am suppose to be impressed with the fact that you aspire to be a bureaucrat? I still wouldn&#39;t hire you for wafer manufacture, or rocket science.

[wet blanket]

Hey, you&#39;re the communist here, thus proving your lack of a political mind, and your economic incompetence. I have had a few political science classes in my time, and I would be willing to bet that I know more politics than you, the professed political science major. More economics, for that matter. Hell, more everything. To put it into perspective, I have forgotten more information than you will ever know.
You&#39;re not fooling anyone... just chill with the whole "my academic penis is bigger than yours" schtick. Not to be a rude or anything, but posting comments like the one I quoted above on the internet does not make you look intelligent at all.

It should also be noted that many modern economists are beginning to give Marxist analysis another look. Marx had a very relevant contribution to economics and should be taken very seriously. To shrug it off as a "lack of a political mind" and "economic incompetence" is ridiculous... do you honestly expect to come off as a smart guy saying crap like that?

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 08:35 AM
like Karl Rove (I doubt you&#39;ve ever heard that name)
Knowing who Karl Rove is does not make you a political genius. As a matter of fact, if you don&#39;t know who Karl Rove is, you are a fucking moron.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 21 2004, 08:21 AM
why does everyone always talk about Iran when it comes to being powerful, I mean is it really the most powerful Country in the middle east? I always thought Saudi Arabia or Turkey had the biggest armies and the most money. Iran has a huge army don&#39;t get me wrong but they are armed with odated Soveit wheapons and MIGs. Though......I have always thought that Soveit wheapons are vasily suppior to American Capitalist Crap :D
Sorry about spelling
Zeke
Oh, please, Soviet equipment is good, but superior to US equipment? Maybe their SAMS, but that&#39;s about it. In almost every other area, America makes much better stuff, and more importantly, has much better training.

Check hstorical kill ratios between US and Soviet jet fighters. The facts speak for themselves.

[Rene Descartes]

just chill with the whole "my academic penis is bigger than yours" schtick.

Academic penis nothing. Hell, my actual penis is bigger than his.

[Rene Descartes]

just chill with the whole "my academic penis is bigger than yours" schtick.

Academic penis nothing. Hell, my actual penis is bigger than his.

If you guys weren&#39;t worried about your "academic penises" you wouldn&#39;t keep me from posting in the science forum.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I seem to recall another racist prick whining about the science forum lately.

You&#39;re gone Normie.

[Capitalist Imperial]

You&#39;re gone Normie.


You can&#39;t stop him. You can only hope to contain him.

[Guest1]

Remember when cappies used yo have the ability to post in the chit chat forum?

Remember how it was taken away cause a few idiot cappies annoyed the fuck out of us?

:ph34r:

[Capitalist Imperial]

chit chat was being politicized by everyone here, that&#39;s why it was restricted, not just because of cappies

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 02:41 AM

I&#39;m not sure how you know what the Unv.of Colorado is like because judging by your assnine remarks, you are far too uneducated to be able to get into a school like that. You&#39;re not a Marxist, you&#39;re an imperialist, with all your remarks about the US needing to attack Iran. Why? Because you buy into the bullshit rhetoric that Iran is building weapons of mass destruction and is out to attack the US, just as GWB told you.



I&#39;m sorry CyM, but I&#39;m going to have to laugh at you here, I&#39;m from Dearborn, Michigan, home to North America&#39;s largest Arab population. I was one of three white people at my high school, the rest were all Arab.
First, there are many different ethnic branches in the Middle East, being part of one myself I can also say most are of Indo-Aryan descent, and until quite recently in U.S./ Euro history with current events and after the second world war most Middle Eastern people were usually considered White on most forms as an attempt to hodgepodge culture into the mixing pot. The reality being that there is really only one race, the human race biologically and seperation of culture, at least scientifically; as a genius I would think you would know this. Also many Iranians who live here were disposed by the Revolution and involved with the Shah, so your comment that many was it Arab or Persian, very confusing, you do know Iranians are predominatly Persian, eh? anyhoo, those who came to the states were of the wealthy class and angry against the leftists for causing their loss of prop as they saw it under the Ayatollah, never mind that many were just as screwed under the Shah.

Second why are you constantly showing off about where you go to school, there are many here who have or are attending decent universities, but even if someone has never attended school they may have something worth while to say, I&#39;m a 4.0 in grad school, this means nothing, a homeless man can teach me something today.

Third, the Iranian government has tended to be a bit irratic in it&#39;s current regime, it&#39;s attack on it&#39;s left population, women, continuing the war with Iraq after it had really lost for all intents and purposes, giving poor males keys to heaven and literally throwing them on the battlefield to create martyrs, etc...

But it is the job of sensible governments, and I question whether that comment pertains to the Bush adminstration or the Sharon adminstration, who is also acting in a threatening manner towards Iran, part of the axis of evil don&#39;t forget, can be called sensible.

In fact Iran has held her tongue to a large degree, and as a female I see the feminanization of Iran as a possitive transformation, against a lot of outlandish statements by the Bush and Sharon adminstrations.

That Iran is finally making statements to protect her national interests in only natural.
Is no other country allowed to protect it&#39;s borders anymore but only the U.S. and the axis of the belligerent? :rolleyes: :P

[Guerrilla22]

you do know Iranians are predominatly Persian, eh?

No shit. What&#39;s your point?


Second why are you constantly showing off about where you go to school, there are many here who have or are attending decent universities

How am I showing off where I go to school? I just use my school&#39;s logo as an avatar, big deal. If someone else wants to use their school&#39;s logo for an avatar, by all means they should. If you are proud that you worked hard to get into a good university, then by all means you should show it. If you don&#39;t like the fact that I&#39;m proud of the school I go to, then you can kiss my ass&#33;

[Capitalist Imperial]

That Iran is finally making statements to protect her national interests in only natural.
Is no other country allowed to protect it&#39;s borders anymore but only the U.S. and the axis of the belligerent?

Absolutely, they can. As I stated earlier, no one has a monopoly on preemption. I just find the whole notion of Iran launching a pre-emptive strike comedic at best, and very unfortunate for young Iranian soldiers.

[Guerrilla22]

I just find the whole notion of Iran launching a pre-emptive strike comedic at best, and very unfortunate for young Iranian soldiers.

Agreed. Try telling that to the dumbass, who posted this ridiulous notion. Oh wait, you cann&#39;t cause he got banned. I&#39;d be willing to buy that Israel will launch a pre-emptive strike on the Iranian nuclear facility (they did it to Iraq in &#39;89) but Iran launch a pre-emptive strike against the US? That&#39;s so absurd that its laughable.

[Renaissance Man]

Actually, I think Israel launched it&#39;s strike on Osirak in 1981. (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Osirak.html) Did you know it was the French who were collaborating with Saddam Hussien on that project? It kind of begs the question. What nations are helping Iran, present day? Could larger nations, like China, Russia, and North Korea, also be funding terrorists cells?

Sometimes Americans play poker when it comes to international affairs, while the rest of the world seems to be playing chess. I tend to favor chess over poker. America needs to start looking at the board, otherwise we might not be a key player in world markets of the future.

Speaking of which, does anyone here play chess? I am looking for a good game.

[dotcommie]

I just hope blair takes his head out of bush&#39;s ass and doesn&#39;t help, we are in danger of terrorists attacks enough as it is becuase of the war in iraq.

[Sabocat]

Did you know it was the French who were collaborating with Saddam Hussien on that project?

Collaborating.... :lol:

Do you realize that 75% of France&#39;s electricity is produced by nuclear powerplants? Perhaps that&#39;s the reason that they were "collaborating" with Iraq on the construction. Because they have a lot of experience building them.

Or maybe.....it was France&#39;s intention to help Iraq build a nuclear powerplant, and then make nuclear material for weapons.....and then......TAKE OVER THE WORLD&#33; :lol:

If France was "collaborating" with Iraq with the purpose of them aiding them to build a facility to produce weapons grade material, why wouldn&#39;t they just sell them the material or for that matter missiles? They have plenty of both.

[dotcommie]

the french build the best nuclear power plants but not the safest the PWR power plants used iun france have to be shut down in extreme heat for safety reasons and for that reason alone they shouldn&#39;t give any help to iraq, iraq should use the UK&#39;s AGR power plants.

[Guerrilla22]

Well tanks for the correction, Rene :) Both the French and the Russians also continued to do business with Saddam, after the UN mandate. French construction companies helped build some of Saddam&#39;s palaces, truly shameless pursuit of business if you ask me.