[J m HofMarN]

Hmmm you're right the numbers don't match up, I had the wrong bombing. I believe the bombing that involved the Iranians and Al Qaida occured in the late nineties.

[Ham Salad]

This whole argument is moot. There will not be a war with Iran. Iran has clearly stated, rather shrewdly, that they are capable, and will not hesitate to destroy all (not only their) oil infrastructure on the Caspian and the Gulf, even if that means infrastructure of their allies and neighbors. They would cause economic and social chaos. Think about it: all the oil from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Iran, Russia all sitting on the Gulf and the Caspian. All the tankers, storage and processing facilities sitting right there.
That is the plan they outlined. They would rather turn the world upside down than let the us upright their's.

[J m HofMarN]

Upright them? HA! If you call imperialist tyranny and murder upright than I call you a brainwashed neo conservative.

[Ham Salad]

Upright them? HA! If you call imperialist tyranny and murder upright than I call you a brainwashed neo conservative.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was a tongue in cheek comment. I suppose it's difficult to spell out sarcasm. I'm neither a brainwashed neocon or a counterculture head-in-the-sand idealist. Religious nuts be it Bush, Sharon or Ayatollah should not have nukes at their disposal. The point is Iran is safe because Iran would fight a nonconventional war against oil.

[Renegade]

There not safe cause of oil, they are safe cause they america doesn't have the troops and iran has a decently potent mlitary force. end of story.

[Renegade]

Upright them? HA! If you call imperialist tyranny and murder upright than I call you a brainwashed neo conservative.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not imperialism. None of the places we've gone have ever been imperialistic goals. In fact, most of america's "imperialism" abroad is via economic means (ie. forcing countries into having so much labor that is based on American corporations, that they must do what we want). The military things we do though have generally always been to just achieve a specific national interest goal, not to control the country. From WWII to Korea to Vietnam to every other cold war small war to the first gulf war and to this now. None of them have included us occupying a country in the sense of imperialism.. in fact most people that we have helped benefited. South Korea/Taiwan have flourished under our support in contrast to N. Korea/China. Israel has been a decent country in the middle east vs the others. Europe along our side instead of Russia's was able to flourish. Japan with our support after WWII flourished. Generally speaking, allying with our interests has benefited those countries as well. Hell, even Iran under the shah (despite some weak tyranny) was doing quiet well economically vs when the revolution and anti americans came in.

[Ham Salad]

There not safe cause of oil, they are safe cause they america doesn't have the troops and iran has a decently potent mlitary force. end of story.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, but you are incorrect. Even if the US had optimum troop strength, a war with Iran would be infeasable without the result of energy, social and economic upheaval. They do have a potent millitary force, I'll grant you that. The problem arises when Iran uses its weapons to destroy oil infrastructures of its own and others in the Persian Gulf, the Arabian penninsula, and the Caspian Sea. There is no protection from this, and in fact it is a recognized inevitability. They have already declared that their weapon systems are readied to do just that. The Ace is in their hand, not the US's. As soon a a bomber, missile, or troops positioned itself with the intent of targeting Iran, the whole oil producing network in the mideast goes up in smoke. That's the end of the true story.

[Renegade]

The same argument could of been made with Iraq

[J m HofMarN]

Except Iraq had hardly any long range and complex targeting capabilities whereas the Iranians do with the, forgive me if I spell incorrectly, Shahab 3 rocket.

[Slade]

Yes, it is imperialism, and when it's not, it's keeping the country in a perpetual state of alert to allow the government to ignore the voice of the people in favor of "national security". Wait, why am I trying to debate here? You just admitted that it was. Economic imperialism isn't any more justified than political, though both are required to properly enslave a nation. And achieving a specific national interest goal is also imperialism.

Where's Civ2 when you need him? He's much more articulate than I am.

[Renegade]

Except Iraq had hardly any long range and complex targeting capabilities whereas the Iranians do with the, forgive me if I spell incorrectly, Shahab 3 rocket.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Meh, if they really wanted to they coulda reaked some havoc. Iran prolly could too but it wouldn't happen ... neway the point is war with iran won't happen for MANY reasons

[Renegade]

Yes, it is imperialism, and when it's not, it's keeping the country in a perpetual state of alert to allow the government to ignore the voice of the people in favor of "national security". Wait, why am I trying to debate here? You just admitted that it was. Economic imperialism isn't any more justified than political, though both are required to properly enslave a nation. And achieving a specific national interest goal is also imperialism.

Where's Civ2 when you need him? He's much more articulate than I am.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The point is that none of our military ventures are imperialistic, which is what's being stated here. Our economic "imperialism" can be considered I guess though its as much the other countries govt as ours. Not much you can do in a capatalistic society, if we see a country is willing to give cheap labor, we'll use it.

[J m HofMarN]

But that economic imeprialism cannot exist without the threat of a big stick behind it. Either through a blockade (Cuba was blockaded because His Excellency The President of Cuba dared to free his people from slavery to American corporations) or through assassinations or military intervention (Panama, Venezuela) The U.S. enslaves other countries with the threat of force.

Do you really think foreign governments enjoy having their people work slave labor to support the U.S. government. The first step literally is bribes, and this is largely military funding, and thus war through proxy. For instance, the Nicaragua contras, the Columbian paramilitaries, the entire bloody Egyptian, Saudi and Pakistani governments.

We don't have to go in to oppress their people, we just pay for it. War waged on our orders, with our funding is still a war waged by our government. We gave Saddam permission to go to war with Iran if not out right ordered him to. This was NOT Saddam's war, it was an American war and aught to be viewed as such. The pigs in Washington order everything that their apostate regimes do, and when they go to far without jeopardizing our interests ( the massacre of pro democracy protesters in Kyrgyzstan, the Nicaragua Contra mass murders, the gassing of the kurds) we either aid in covering it up or wash our hands and feign ignorance.

The U.S. government is commiting violence even when our troops are not directly involved in any violence because we fund it. You want to try to tell me that if I buy someone a gun, tell them who to kill, and then help them cover up the body that I'm not a murderer? Bullshit!

[Renegade]

We did not order Saddam to go to war with Iran...

[J m HofMarN]

We didn't exactly stop him either. And if you're going to try to discount my statement by making one counterclaim than you're going to fail.