The Middle Eastern Conflicts

What are your opinions on the Allied occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq?

How do you feel about Iranian nuclear power?

What are your feelings about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rejection of Isreal?

Feel free to rant about one or the other but it will be interesting to see a general opinion from everyone, so if you like number some sentences 1,2,3 and give us your valued opinion.

1. I think it's stupid. A number of things. Why are we still there? Why does America's involvement = Australia becoming involved?

Because Howard is Bonsai

All nuclear capabilities should be removed from all countries. If we have Nuclear war, we all die.

Afghanistan should still be occupied, but iraq is a different matter. If the people say it was better under Saddam then let them have saddam (or someone similar)

I can't believe you just suggested that we leave them with another murderer.
We shouldn't have been there, but we should at least try and fix up what we stuffed up.

DevilBoY wrote:

Because Howard is Bonsai

All nuclear capabilities should be removed from all countries. If we have Nuclear war, we all die.

Afghanistan should still be occupied, but iraq is a different matter. If the people say it was better under Saddam then let them have saddam (or someone similar)

I agree with the first statement, nuclear as in weapons, not necessarily power. Why should we have invaded Afghanistan?

Why shouldn't we leave right away, Dave?

This war should've been over long ago. But having nuclear weapons is a sign of power, with the soviet union crumbled, the U.S. is now the largest world power in the world. We should pull out and end this, but Bush wants to make the country a democracy, because he beieves if it's a demacracy, buying oil will be easier down there.

Skuu wrote:

Why shouldn't we leave right away, Dave?

We never should have gone in the first place. But how's it going to look to the rest of the world if we go to a country completely destroy it then leave. We should at least equip Iraqis with the tools necessary to start rebuilding their country. That's what we're currently doing in Afghanistan.

Dave wrote:

Skuu wrote:

Why shouldn't we leave right away, Dave?

We never should have gone in the first place. But how's it going to look to the rest of the world if we go to a country completely destroy it then leave. We should at least equip Iraqis with the tools necessary to start rebuilding their country. That's what we're currently doing in Afghanistan.

I think any realistic, accurate look at the current situation in Iraq will show you that even another two years won't bring a relaxed country. Allied presence there IS the catalyst, not the soother, of tensions. Yes, if we left there would be a significant security vacuum and it could be seen by many as unresponsible, but not in context. As you quite rightly say we have no right to be there, all the people calling the shots in Iraq now are international aggressors. I have absolutely no interest in giving these people a mandate to control the lives of the Iraqi people anymore.

There's another side to the 'security vacuum' view.

Skuu wrote:

DevilBoY wrote:

Because Howard is Bonsai

All nuclear capabilities should be removed from all countries. If we have Nuclear war, we all die.

Afghanistan should still be occupied, but iraq is a different matter. If the people say it was better under Saddam then let them have saddam (or someone similar)

I agree with the first statement, nuclear as in weapons, not necessarily power. Why should we have invaded Afghanistan?

Why shouldn't we leave right away, Dave?

Because in afghanistan, we did not knock off their leader and it is a super haven for terrorists.

And the US will never leave Iraq, they want oil. Do you really think that they went in to establish democracy? They just want to secure an oil line, even though they have tons of it in the US itself.

And i mean power aswell, where are you going to put all the nuclear waste? Dump it into the ocean? Kill off thousands of marine anmals just so we can have power? What we need are solar power plants in the maiin deserts of the world, Sahara, the US ones and even the Simpson he in OZ. In fact we could possibly have soloar hot water/heating systems in our homes, this would mean one whole factory can be closed down, reducing the greenhouse effect. And China is the biggest worry right now. They will soon overtake the US as largest greenhouse gas emitter and keep on going. They don't realise it because they think that "if the US has been doing for 50 years now, why can't we". Bu they are doing it much less efficient than the US did.

World leaders have no common sense

Quote :

Because in afghanistan, we did not knock off their leader and it is a super haven for terrorists.
And the US will never leave Iraq, they want oil. Do you really think that they went in to establish democracy? They just want to secure an oil line, even though they have tons of it in the US itself.

What I was saying.
And they've already dumped all the nukes--right here in nevada, only about 250-300 miles from las vegas.

I see what you're saying about solar plants, but it's not the world's desert, it's various countries in africa. And if you thought the US was greedy, look at the african leaders, no way are they going to spend that kinda of money for power that wouldn't even go to them, but the US and about 15% of china (solar enegy isn't much, even if the whole desert was covered with plants).

DevilBoY wrote:

What we need are solar power plants

You're right, the Sun is as renewable as we are.

DevilBoY wrote:

Because in afghanistan, we did not knock off their leader and it is a super haven for terrorists.

The US was the aggressor in that situation as well though. They bombed Afghanistan before giving them any evidence of any link between 9/11 or any terrorists.

The CIA before and after the invasion admits that it increased the threat of terrorism and encouraged terrorists as it was a training station.

One debate per thread please, no more energy blabble.

Then create a new topic and move all related posts

Yes i'm very sure. if i was admin or super mod, this forum would run much more smoothly

Ill think on it. Sushi may allow it.

he wont but h wont do anything about it either

FINE, you are super moderator for a bit. Unless you can prove you're the right person

well i can't do the things admin can so it was pointless

I dont have power to make you admin unfortunately. Wait till next time sushi is online.

Skuu wrote:

DevilBoY wrote:

Because in afghanistan, we did not knock off their leader and it is a super haven for terrorists.

The US was the aggressor in that situation as well though. They bombed Afghanistan before giving them any evidence of any link between 9/11 or any terrorists.

The CIA before and after the invasion admits that it increased the threat of terrorism and encouraged terrorists as it was a training station.

Did you know that the US/CIA/FBI (whoever they are) gave al Quada their name. There was no such thing as Al Quada until after the 9/11 "attacks"

Skuu wrote:

DevilBoY wrote:

Because in afghanistan, we did not knock off their leader and it is a super haven for terrorists.

The US was the aggressor in that situation as well though. They bombed Afghanistan before giving them any evidence of any link between 9/11 or any terrorists.

The CIA before and after the invasion admits that it increased the threat of terrorism and encouraged terrorists as it was a training station.

Did you know that the US/CIA/FBI (whoever they are) gave al Quada their name. There was no such thing as Al Quada until after the 9/11 "attacks"

Skuu wrote:

DevilBoY wrote:

Because in afghanistan, we did not knock off their leader and it is a super haven for terrorists.

The US was the aggressor in that situation as well though. They bombed Afghanistan before giving them any evidence of any link between 9/11 or any terrorists.

The CIA before and after the invasion admits that it increased the threat of terrorism and encouraged terrorists as it was a training station.

Did you know that the US/CIA/FBI (whoever they are) gave al Quada their name. There was no such thing as Al Quada until after the 9/11 "attacks"

Skuu wrote:

DevilBoY wrote:

Because in afghanistan, we did not knock off their leader and it is a super haven for terrorists.

The US was the aggressor in that situation as well though. They bombed Afghanistan before giving them any evidence of any link between 9/11 or any terrorists.

The CIA before and after the invasion admits that it increased the threat of terrorism and encouraged terrorists as it was a training station.

Did you know that the US gave Al Quada their name?. There was no such thing as Al Quada until after the 9/11 "attacks"

ok devilboy, 5 posts is definately enough