A hypothetical war between the US, UK and the Iran

That is quite a contradiction. First you type no one, and then you mention two prominent Western nations and some others... Denmark, Norway, The Netherlands, etc. I doubt there is a country that has had as much international wartime cooperation as the US has had through the 20th century.

I doubt Europe as a continent would participate in an invasion of Iran. Remember that Europe is not a single country.

 

Well sorry should've redone that i mean a MAJORITY of Europe was behind us and America cant fight every ones wars now can we?

 

TD no wukking furries mate , the U.S. are good , the politicians are a
bit of a worrie though , I have a theory than george W. Bush is a very
smart operator who play dumb to suck in the honest red necks .
my drikikng buddies said than dubbya is as dumb as me !

Jeaguer

 

I do not think America should fight "every ones wars", either.

I think using "Europe" in the way you are doing now is wrong. The times that a large number of European countries supported the USA in war (Afghanistan, Kosovo, Kuwait) it was in NATO context, which does not equate to Europe at all.

Also remember that Europe is a diverse continent and that a lot of its countries have different and varied interests.

 

I know europe is diverse but theres countries in there with power french/russians/germans that could help show the Terrorist that its not just every country for themselves on the field.

 

this terrorism thing is I believe the wrong way of looking at it , a war on
terrorism is like a war on drug or a war against bad breath , is a spin
thing , europe had plenty of " direct action " on their territory ETA
IRA ,red army faction ..etc.. etc .. and it's a slow police thing like good
house keeping .

the problem of cohabitation of muslims with non muslims is something else
it has a record of failure long like my arm from the phillipines in the east ,
to europe and west africa in the west , either the whole world is wrong or
islam is a disease of the mind , the term is a "Meme"
like an intellectual gene it reproduce itself by propagation , all
ideas ,concepts , belief , religion , pop song one wistle in the bathroom
are Meme who thrive in our head , most are innoculous and don't matter
much ,many are useful , some and I believe islam to be one ,are noxious
to intelligent life on this planet . some foot and mouth disease of the mind


MMMMMM Roel will not like that one ! :smok:

 

When I try to correct you it is not always because I disagree with you but generally because I think what you're writing is not acceptable in light of the forum guidelines, as in this case. Your words almost inevitably will insult people unless you create a more solid foundation for your claim which may make them change their own beliefs. Simply stating that a certain religion is a disease of the mind, without any proper arguments for it, does no one any good.

In most Islamic countries religious and political power are one and the same; therefore, political agendas overflow with religiously inspired policies. It is simply commonplace that what has religious authority, also has nominal authority. The West has long shed this form of moral control but that doesn't mean the whole world has. This, now, is a much more comprehensive way to explain why Muslims have trouble living together with people who hold other beliefs than to claim their religion is a "disease of the mind".

 

Well I didnt say all musloms this time just the Terrorist's thank you again roel

 

O nvm its not me in trouble lol

 

The United States sold Iran F-14 Tomcats shortly before the hardline fundamentalists took power. When the Shaq (spelling?) of Iran was deposed, On-site Grumman technicians removed lots of sensitive components that prevented these planes from being flyable/fightable.
Looks good on paper though.

Tim

 

Usually written as 'Shah', IIRC

 

You're right, Ricky, it is "Shah". I've never shed any tears for the man, nor will I, but it has always seemed to me that what replaced the Shah in Iran was a lot worse than he was.

 

the usa is not going to have the stomach for another invasion in the middle east anytime soon .question is will the west sit on their hands while iran builds its bomb.jeugures disease of the mind,while not p.c. is not off the mark, i think.its hard to find a muslim in the world that agrees that israel has a right to exist.within minutes of the 9/11 ac strikes in manhaten,palastinians were literally dancing in the streets.when western civillians were beheaded on video,not one muslim cleric,to my knowlege condemed this behavior... this sort of smacks of intolerance and bigotry does it not.?iranian leaders have stated that they fully intend to attack israel with this weapon asap...am i all mixed up and xenophobic?please advise...

 

yep ! while some middle eastern intelectuals might differ and some
corrupt sheiks dissemble

the level of .... hatred .. is the only word suitable ..for the west
run deep , israel and the west are not seen as separate but as the
two face of the same coin .
the secularist Baath movement stopped islamist since the fifties it is
now gone with nothing else in place .

 

it would seem ,we my have screwed the pootch,as it were .Saddam ,evil as he is at least held that part of the world together{the devil that we did know..lol}...i remember when the us army took the bagdad airport and Kokee aman,the u.n. guy offered to take over the job..i jumped up and started yellin at my t.v. .LET HIM HAVE IT !
LET HIM HAVE IT!

 

HO yeeh! On the good side , casualties are down and if the U.S.
commanders have some senses , they will sit tight and let the irakis
establish the pecking order amongst themselves ,messy but probably
a nescessity , the least the irakis se U.S. forces , the better !!

 

I wouldn't trust Kofi Anan with a public toilet, let alone the Baghdad airport. I firmly believe that he was in on that illegal skimming of oil for food money his son got caught doing.

 

probably not smart enough ,

the worst secretary ever , no guts , no skills , just a bleating sheep !
he got gang-banged by anyone with a purpose and could only turn
the other cheek

then again the U.N. is nothing more than what the permanent members
wants it to be , :-? :-?

 

[/quote]



Yet another post that is in t e wrong section.
This should be in the "Best conspiracy theory" topic....

Is there any evidence you base that belief on??
You may be aware that he was absolutely cleared of all accusations by an independent inquiry comission.

And of course is son was never caught on any illegal skimming of oil for food money.

The company he worked for was swiss company Cotecna.This company has been cleared from all accusations .There merely were some people who believed that the very fact that Cotecna got the Iraq contract in the first place was due to the fact that one of their employees was the son of the UN secretary.
However all inquiries have concluded that Cotecna got the contract because their offer was the best.
Annan made a mistake by not inquiring deeply enough about the relation of his son with Cotecna(actually he wasn't working for them anymore at the moment they got the contract, but they still paid him a salary)....but that is it.

I really wonder how you can accuse them of any illicit trades with Saddam.There is not the sligthest evidence for that.
You know that there are people who accuse G.W Bush for having planned the 9/11 attacks.
They don't have evidence too....but they don't care.

 

The League of Nations failed because it didn't count among its members the countries that were truly powerful, such as the United States; it was little more than a private club for the French and British. It could have done a lot more for its noble cause had the US actively partaken in it.

Now there's the UN. On the one hand many people in the US think it shouldn't be given any support, on the other hand they complain that it is an inefficient organization that doesn't live up to its promises. Does anyone see a pattern here?