Son of a Bitch.

[Kazeofwinds]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/12/hannah-iran/

Damnit, not another one. They fuck up one war and just start planning the next way to make the rest of the planet hate us.

/Mutters profanities...

Can we have a civil uprising and unseat the fuckwits running the country....please?

[Pisces]

Iraq is small compared to Iran so the Bush administration would be absolutely stupid to do a invasion, targetted attacks are much more likely because they know what to attack in Iran (they didn't in Iraq). I don't think attacking Iran is anywhere high on the list of possibilities, if it were they would be advertising Iran as selling weapons to terrorists and supporting extremists, which they do like many other countries do so its not hard to build a justification for an attack.

[DragonPaladin]

I don't believe the American people will stand for another war, the way the current one is going now.

[Black.Ice]

I've been keeping up on the issue, but not as much as I should have. I really don't think an all out invasion or anything occur, and I really hope, and pray, that another conflict doesn't start.

[B.A.Baracus]

Hello warboards, welcome to real life. We have been fighting Iran for over three years now. They are supplying men and weapons to Iraq "freedom fighters". They instigated a war against Israel, and wont rest until they succeed with a major attack on Israel. The attack they are aiming for is a nuclear one. War with them is inevitable, I only hope I can finish my training in time to serve in Iran.
And you know what, I used to hate bush too. But that was when I was too stupid to stop listening to main stream media, the man is a great president. Has he made mistakes in Iraq? Of course, but he doesn't care about his image, he is thinking 20-30 years in advanced. Hes not trying to have a polished Hollywood image so you tartar heads will worship him. uhhh

[Frattimonde]

So fimbulwinter begins...Perhaps

[Modred]

What's the best way to remind the US public that we aren't just in Iraq, but also Afghanistan? Unite the two forces in one amazing, overwhelming conflict. What stands in the way? A few hundred miles of Iran. It isn't just possible that we might invade Iran; it's absolutely necessary if we want to win in Afghanistan or Iraq. Why divide our forces up among two or three small wars, when we can just throw the whole shebang at one big lump of enemy? Not invading Iran practically gives Iraq and Afghanistan to the terrorists. Is that what we really want? Of course not! So bend over, Mr. Ahmadinejad, and take one for the team.

If you couldn't see the sarcasm dripping from this post, please save yourself the embarrassment of a hasty, ill-prepared response that I probably won't read.

[Zenox]

Hello warboards, welcome to real life. We have been fighting Iran for over three years now. They are supplying men and weapons to Iraq "freedom fighters". They instigated a war against Israel, and wont rest until they succeed with a major attack on Israel. The attack they are aiming for is a nuclear one. War with them is inevitable, I only hope I can finish my training in time to serve in Iran.
And you know what, I used to hate bush too. But that was when I was too stupid to stop listening to main stream media, the man is a great president. Has he made mistakes in Iraq? Of course, but he doesn't care about his image, he is thinking 20-30 years in advanced. Hes not trying to have a polished Hollywood image so you tartar heads will worship him. uhhh

I think your absolutely right. It's countries like Iran and Iraq that keep unsetelling the middle-east, they are countries of war as in they feel the need to fight away at everything they believe is wrong and they don't care how many people die in the process not to mention Irans funding of the majority of radicall muslim factions that use terror as a weapon and it's Bushe's strategy that can slow or even halt the terrortis attacks in Iraq and i think he can really improve the conditions here and stop the "Bulliying" of heavy weapon based countries over the rest and stop their un-direct control over the politics in the Arabe countries.

[Pisces]

I think your absolutely right. It's countries like Iran and Iraq that keep unsetelling the middle-east, they are countries of war as in they feel the need to fight away at everything they believe is wrong and they don't care how many people die in the process not to mention Irans funding of the majority of radicall muslim factions that use terror as a weapon and it's Bushe's strategy that can slow or even halt the terrortis attacks in Iraq and i think he can really improve the conditions here and stop the "Bulliying" of heavy weapon based countries over the rest and stop their un-direct control over the politics in the Arabe countries.

You know its scary how much this has in similar to what Putin said about the US.

[Zenox]

You know its scary how much this has in similar to what Putin said about the US.
Are you indicating that i quoted from someone? Sorry to tell you but i only watch Local news.:confused:

[kongurous]

Yay! A reason for me to stay in the Navy!

[U-238]

The only reason they haven't attacked Iran, Saudi Arabia, and every other radical supporting country is because of the enconomic effect that it would have here at home. As most of you (should) know the US depends heavily on Saudi and Iranian Oil. if they were to attack the countries that supply this oil then that's oil lost for this country. Lost oil means less gas which means gas prices are over $6.00/gal. The only real way to counter that effect is to lose the tree hugger's and open up oil refineries here in the US. There's tons of oil right here on our soil. (Alaska, Texas, out west, even in Virginia) The only reason we don't use it is because of the eviromentalist parties that bitch and complain that we use too much now. (The are, btw, the same people that are heavily promoting global warming)

So, the bottom line, find more alternative sources for oil to reduce or eliminate our dependency on Arab oil refineries and war in those countries is immanent.


@ Babs/Kong: Please tell me you're actually serious this time.

[IrishDutchman]

Are you indicating that i quoted from someone? Sorry to tell you but i only watch Local news.

I think Pisces was indicating that if you take a second to reflect, US has many of the same traits that you accused Iran and Iraq of.

[own3d0406]

I think Pisces was indicating that if you take a second to reflect, US has many of the same traits that you accused Iran and Iraq of.

No no no! He watches the news. :rolleyes:

[U-238]

However the one thing you're missing is that these Arab countries are funding terrorists that are activly attacking our troops. And if we weren't over there they'd be over here. The US wouldn't go about attacking France, England, Italy, Germany, Russia, etc whereas terrorists (who are funded by these countries) will. And you also must think in retrospect that the US is fighting, not because they must war with everything that they think is wrong but because they're trying to protect their people at home. I like to think of it this way: The same people who think this war over there in the middle east is a waste of time, and a mistake, may think differently if we suffered another 9-11 or two.

[B.A.Baracus]

@ Babs/Kong: Please tell me you're actually serious this time.

Yes, for those of you who don't know I'm in the DEP program. This happened on the 18th of last month.

[Zenox]

No no no! He watches the news. :rolleyes:

No no no! I watch local news ;)

[GenocideAlive]

I am also vaguely offended by this possibility of something happening in the undisclosed future.

If I really wanted to get pissed off, I'd be annoyed that ol' G.W. refused to "rule out nuclear response to Iran's uranium enrichment". A war is one thing, threatening to fucking outright nuke someone in this modern age is stupid. Yes, they're developing nuclear weapons, no it's not a good idea for us to just let them make atom bombs. However, why would it even be remotely necessary to make such an obnoxious statement? We don't have to go quid pro quo on Moushaarreef's blustering threats of nuclear attack. Please, please, let them look like the nuke-happy maniacs.

But another war? Meh, who cares. War is competition, competition is nature's way.

[U-238]

I think what he meant by that statment was that, if it came to a nuclear standoff with Iran, we wouldn't back down. If it took a nuclear strike then that's what it'd have to be. I don't think he meant it in the way that "If you don't stop with your nuclear research we're going to nuke you off the face of the godforsaken map."

[Pisces]

However the one thing you're missing is that these Arab countries are funding terrorists that are activly attacking our troops. And if we weren't over there they'd be over here. The US wouldn't go about attacking France, England, Italy, Germany, Russia, etc whereas terrorists (who are funded by these countries) will. And you also must think in retrospect that the US is fighting, not because they must war with everything that they think is wrong but because they're trying to protect their people at home. I like to think of it this way: The same people who think this war over there in the middle east is a waste of time, and a mistake, may think differently if we suffered another 9-11 or two.

US is actively funding their own military which is attacking them, and has been known to destroy civilian targets, not on purpose but tell the differance to someone who lost their children in an air strike and their parents in a car bomb. And the US is also funding Israel's attack on Lebanon (which is/was pro-West btw) including civilian targets without confirmed hostiles. Historically US funded Al Qaeda amongst many many other terrorist organisations and has launched attacks against its allies, including countries not to far from my own. Also you haven't seperated liberation fighters from Jihadists, both use terror tactics but one won't attack the West directly and they usually fight each other.

Iran is asking for it, but US can hardly act high and mighty.

Are you indicating that i quoted from someone? Sorry to tell you but i only watch Local news.

Well yes, like most things, you do have to watch more than the local news to know whats happening beyond your borders;)

[DragonPaladin]

The only real way to counter that effect is to lose the tree hugger's and open up oil refineries here in the US.

Or we can use something called alternative fuels.

[U-238]

US is actively funding their own military which is attacking them, and has been known to destroy civilian targets, not on purpose but tell the differance to someone who lost their children in an air strike and their parents in a car bomb. And the US is also funding Israel's attack on Lebanon (which is/was pro-West btw) including civilian targets without confirmed hostiles. Historically US funded Al Qaeda amongst many many other terrorist organisations and has launched attacks against its allies, including countries not to far from my own. Also you haven't seperated liberation fighters from Jihadists, both use terror tactics but one won't attack the West directly and they usually fight each other.

I know about the US's past. however you must also look at the people sitting in government at the time. You can't blame the people here for things that happened in the 90s.

The US has supported Israel since the time they were founded (figure of speech) they're not going to back out on them now and gain another enemy. That, my friend, would be a stupid move.

And I don't really think I need to define which group of terrorists i'm talking about here. And even if I was talking about both groups:

a) They're both attacking US troops.

b) if they're so called "liberation fighters" what are the fighting to liberate?


Or we can use something called alternative fuels.

You could but alternative fules are actually worse for the envoroment than creating oil refineries, making the fuel, and burning it in our cars believe it or not.

[Ubergopher]

US is actively funding their own military which is attacking them, and has been known to destroy civilian targets, not on purpose
Oh fuck no. You did NOT just say that. You did NOT just compare my brothers and sisters serving in Iraq to the terrorists who do not give two shits about who they kill. How fucking dare you. You want to know something. I know Airman who are serving over there. I know those who have serve. I know ones in every single job you can imagine, combat or otherwise. The main thing about all of them is they DO give two shits about who they hurt. You might be right, that doesn't mean that much to the families, but what you don't know or hear on the news is that when they find out about that (After making sure the US military actually caused the death in question) the family is compensated.
Take a look at the attachment and tell me there is no difference. I dare you.

[kongurous]

Uber, that attachment brings tears to my eyes.

[Zenox]

Ubergopher that is a wonderfull picture, my respects to every americaine soldier who is fighting serving or died there.

[IrishDutchman]

US is actively funding their own military which is attacking them, and has been known to destroy civilian targets, not on purpose

Oh fuck no. You did NOT just say that. You did NOT just compare my brothers and sisters serving in Iraq to the terrorists who do not give two shits about who they kill. How fucking dare you

Dude, he didn't. He didn't say they do it on purpose. Matter of fact, he specifically stated they don't. So, that would not imply they didn't give a fuck who they killed.

[Calibur]

You could but alternative fules are actually worse for the envoroment than creating oil refineries, making the fuel, and burning it in our cars believe it or not.

Well actually most alternative fuels do not directly produce pollution rather it's the materials and processes that go into making them. New scientific advances in the production of alternative fuels strive to reduce these effects as well as increase the fuels overall performance.

It's really only a relatively small matter of time before "Alternative fuels" become more efficient than oil.

[U-238]

That may be true but you must also look at it this way.

What goes into the alternative fuels? Corn and Soybeans. If alternative fuels get big then there's going to be a shortage of corn and soybeans. Of course you won't notice this and it won't last for long (maybe a year) because farmers will start producing corn and soybeans more and more. However farmers only have a limited amount of land so that forces them to use the same plot year after year. And when they do, this will cause land erosion like you've never seen. Corn is the worst but soybeans arn't much better. Eventually it'll earase all the nutrients out of the soil and all that will be left is a mass of hard clay dirt that has enough chemicals in it to fill a sponge the size of jupiter.

That's the long-term effects that this will have on the enviroment. And ecomomy wise it's just going to be more governemt subsidies going to farmers. :/

[Tech]

Not quite sure how the topic went from war in Iran to alternative fuels. But what most people aren't told about some of the alternative fuels like E-85 ethanol, is that it doesn't work nearly as good. Not only will it cost more per gallon, but it will also give you fewer miles to the gallon. So I just find it ironic that gas getting to more than $3 a gallon is what sparked peoples interest in alternative fuels that will be far more expensive. Just think of how bad gas prices get when a refinery shuts down for a day. Now think of what would happen when the Midwest gets a dry season and crops are bad for the WHOLE YEAR. Gas is really the best option we have right now, whether people like it or not.

Now there have been great advances in electric car technology that will probably make it the best choice for a replacement, but that takes a lot of power to charge all of those cars. Guess where that comes from, power plants that add to the pollution. Sure we could use nuclear power, but as a lot of people would have you believe; those aren't safe and if something went wrong it would destroy half the country, not to mention that in 50 years when you have to replace the core it's just going to contaminate everything in the state because there's no way to safely store radioactive waste.

Now to tie all of this in with the original topic, I think it's safe to say that we can blame the war in Iraq and the possible (although highly unlikely) future war in Iran on environmentalists. If they didn't put up such a fuss about nuclear power then we would be able to drive electric cars. Then we wouldn't need oil, so we wouldn't care what happens in the Middle East. Hence we would have never intervened in matters over there (we all know we're just there for oil right?), and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. So there you have it, all the worlds problems are the fault of crazy environmentalists.

Now I guess if you can cut through the sarcasm and some minor ranting there's probably at least one good point in all of that.

[Calibur]

It is a common misconception that "Alternative Fuels" are limited to grown crops such as corn and soybeans when in reality they involve a wide variety of sources:
-solar power
-wind farms
-Ethanol: (Corn, soybean, switch-grass)
-hydrogen
-Nuclear
-Geothermal
-Hydrolic (Dams)
-and many more(too many to list)

All of these sources have been developing over the years but the beauty of it all is that no single one will the replacement. Instead they will work in unison to satisfy our energy needs. Obviously you can see the advantages from having more than one mayor source of energy; if one fails energy needs can easily fall back on the others and so on.

As for cars, well the main reason they run better on gasoline is because the majority of cars today are designed for internal combustion fuels. Although there are some interesting new designs that hope to change all that. Off course they're still in their prototype stages but we should be seeing more of them pretty soon.

Oil I think, will remain in use as long as it exists but the need for it will diminish drastically as time passes.

[Protogod]

they are countries of war as in they feel the need to fight away at everything they believe is wrong and they don't care how many people die in the process not to mention Irans funding of the majority of radicall muslim factions that use terror as a weapon

Allow me to point out a few hypocracies in your belief system.

1) We are one of the "countries of war" ever since the cold war, we've been policing the world based on our own morals.

2) we funded Iran in the first place

3) we fund alot of unpopular governments worldwide, primarily because of the economic strength it gives us.

[Zenox]

Allow me to point out a few hypocracies in your belief system.

1) We are one of the "countries of war" ever since the cold war, we've been policing the world based on our own morals.

2) we funded Iran in the first place

3) we fund alot of unpopular governments worldwide, primarily because of the economic strength it gives us.

1)Your not as "Nuke missile launching HAPPY" as these countries are,and your not trying to muslimise the world.

2)You funded a "country" not terrorist factions.

3)And not to mention these governments are even more unpopular in the eyes of ANTI Democratic people.
Are you telling me that for example the US is aiding or backing up the current Lebanese government because Democracy is bad for the Arab world? even though the real reason behind this is to give comfort to the Israeli government, and even though many Lebanese people are against the current government. it's not a negative side is my eyes.

[Anoiktos]

Update supporting Baracus' perspicacious comment from our friends in Britain:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6546555.stm

[GrassDragon]

This thread is old and finished.