War on Iran

Is the War Justified?


  • Total voters
    21
Level 25
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
4,881
China and Japan are still Empires, pretty much. USA is a wannabe Empire because:

A) It's the world power. With the power it has, it becomes somewhat greedy and wants to expand its power even more.

B) As an example of it wanting to expand its power, it has attacked Iraq and possibly soon Iran (Persia) and after the USA attacks, its plans are to convert the countries/nations it conquers to be 'free' countries run by a democracy. This is also motivated by religious bullshit which I don't really want to get into.

C) It (the USA) is one of the richest countries in the world and is another reason why it is such a powerful country. It also has a large amount of highly developed weapons including nuclear weapons and missles.

Those are just three examples of how USA wants to be an Empire. But China is definitely an Empire still because it is a large country, a huge army, developed weaponry, and its family dynasties still live on today in modern society. China is also a communist country, meaning that the ruler/emperor of the country can do pretty much anything he wants, but he of course would need just cause, otherwise there would be riots and so on for abusive power.

~Craka_J
 
Level 24
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
3,406
Japan isn't an empire, and the US is close to becoming one (admittedly, the pussiest empire you ever have heard of and ever will).

My opinion is that the US expanding military operations outside of what it is already doing is a horrible idea. Politicians, at least, profess to how stretched the US is militarily, which is the first reason not to invade any other countries. The second is something called the 2008 presidential election. Executing any sort of large-scale operation, be it military or economic, on the verge of a complete replacement of upper-level administration is effective suicide for a large number of things: the economy, the US's foreign reputation, IMPORTANT THINGS LIKE IMPROVING AID TO :THE UNDERPRIVILEGED; VETERANS THAT SERVED THE WHOLE WORLD AND NOT JUST ONE COUNTRY; VETERANS THAT GOT TOTALLY SHAFTED BY SERVING THE ONE COUNTRY AND NOT THE WORLD, weaning the population off of the English Standard system and oil, reducing federal debt, important things like that.

So, the US should at least delay the invasion of Iran until after the 2008 presidential election. Which, IMO, will kill any chances of the US actually invading Iran.
 
Level 34
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
5,367
We should'nt invade at all even after the elections.

We should only invade when:

A: We are no longer addicted to oil.
B: The nation is stable, and has a growing surplus, economy, and all around power.
C: When we have enough men and women to do so.
D: When we have rebuilt our reputation.
E: When we have UN/Nato backing.
 
Level 24
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
3,406
Hell, invading even directly after a new administration was stabilized would hurt everything I mentioned.
 
Level 36
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
7,947
Well we can all pray and hope that the liberals (pleae not Hilary, please not Hilary) win, and then you can guarantee that the US will pull out.

And to really be an empire, you must control territory all over the world. For example, the British empire not only had the UK, but Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand, etc. What else does the Us control besides the States and maybe Guam(?)
 
Level 9
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
680
I agree with you. War seems so... rediculous these days, doesn't it? At least the ones continued by the USA. (Arabic countries started it!)

~Craka_J

I defenitly do not agree, We westerns started it a long long time ago, when we kolonized parts of the Middle East. or probably as far back as the crusades, it is there were the Western hate came from, wich is the primair cause of the terrorist attacks wich were (atleast officially) the reason why US attacked Iraq
 
Level 24
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
3,406
When the hell did Europe try to colonize the Middle-East? And if they did, why wouldn't I know about as spectacular a failure as a technologically inferior region trying to colonize a superior region?

At any rate, Craka_J was talking about wars in this century, not as far back as the freaking crusades.
 
Level 34
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
8,869
Little tidbit: The US had never lost a war until Vietnam (I think, don't quote me). Which is pretty good. But how many have they won since? Any? I can't think of any.
 
Level 25
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
4,881
Believe it or not, because of the Crusades, the Muslims and Christians and maybe the Catholics too, are all pissed at each other still for that event, which is why 9/11 happened and a bunch of other shit; but 9/11 is the biggest and latest highlight.

~Craka_J
 
Level 24
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
3,406
Yes it was. Afghanistan was invaded/occupied/whatever because there were known Al Qaeda cells there, and Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the WTC attacks, as well as the others that occurred on the same day.

The invasion of Iraq, although questionable, was because of how uncooperative Saddam Hussein was with UN weapons inspectors. God knows why the US stayed for so long after it was confirmed that there were no WMDs, though. I'll concede that it probably is for oil that the US is still in Iraq.
 
Level 24
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
3,406
Haha, China put pressure on Korea to stop their nuclear testing, because China didn't want to get into some sort of arms race with the US, or see an arms race in their region.
 
Level 34
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
5,367
When the hell did Europe try to colonize the Middle-East? And if they did, why wouldn't I know about as spectacular a failure as a technologically inferior region trying to colonize a superior region?

Shalt I direct thee, to the Treaty of Versailles, and the Sykes-Picot agreement? The Balfour Declaration?

It was definately Europe! That caused most of the strife in the middle east, and Not the United States...we are simply the Far Enemy, because we prop up the Scocialist regimes (Near Enemy) in the middle east.
 
Level 9
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
680
Aye but in the eyes of the islam extremist both america and europe are the same stupid dogs and both must be exterminated.

There wont be war with china for a while, if there is war the multi nationals will leave china and china will economicly fail.
 
Level 24
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
3,406
Not that extremists of any affiliation will ever have the manpower to actually exterminate anything that can powerfully influence other parts of the world.
 
Level 34
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
8,869
Believe it or not, because of the Crusades, the Muslims and Christians and maybe the Catholics too, are all pissed at each other still for that event, which is why 9/11 happened and a bunch of other shit; but 9/11 is the biggest and latest highlight.

~Craka_J

Yeah I suppose. Although you can't blame the crusades. It's not as if the Muslims were peaceful good people. The first Crusade was needed for sure. The Muslims were pushing into Europe, the Pope decided to take action. The other Crusades were... maybe not necessary. The Children's Crusade was sickening.

Anyways, all I'm saying is you can't blame the Crusades for Muslim violence/hate towards Christians. It was just a waring time back then.

Are you fucking nuts? China can NUKE THE SHIT out of the States, they're like the USSR of today, without Stalin of course, which makes things a hell of a lot better.

Pretty sure a bunch of countries could "nuke the shit" out of each other. China wouldn't... yet. They are dependent on the US. A lot of their exports go to the US, and American companies own all the factories in China.
 
Level 24
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
3,406
No. The Ottoman Empire asked for help in defending their territory from invading Arabs, and the corrupt Pope turned that into "reclaim the Holy Land from the infidels."

Agreed with what you say about China.
 
Level 27
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
2,872
If America weren't able to get oil, do you think everyone would just give up then?
I know that the demand for alternative energy would create many more new businesses. The profit to be made would be too great for anyone able to pass up.
 
Level 9
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
680
Business would be down and destroyed LONG long before they invented a new power source. Inventing such a thing takes atleast 10 years, let alone building new powerplants and such. By that time america will be as rich as a third world country, it will be total chaos.
 
Level 27
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
2,872
Business would be down and destroyed LONG long before they invented a new power source.
We have other power sources now. Do you think the only way we get all of our power is by burning oil? We have many hydroelectric dams right now. And businesses don't run on power. They run on money. As long as people can buy stuff, there is business, and hence, jobs to give people more money to buy stuff.
Inventing such a thing takes atleast 10 years, let alone building new powerplants and such.
We have many alternatives right now.
 
Level 24
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
3,406
Business would be down and destroyed LONG long before they invented a new power source. Inventing such a thing takes atleast 10 years, let alone building new powerplants and such. By that time america will be as rich as a third world country, it will be total chaos.

I would die of a laughter-induced hernia right now if you weren't actually serious. If there were an energy crisis right this fucking second you can bet your ass it would be fixed within a time frame of perhaps 5 years at the most. The reason no one does anything is because there's no real incentive to switch over, and there won't be until the world is simply out of oil. And for the record, there are plenty of alternative power sources. Most (if not all) of the research money going into alternative fuel sources is for their improvement, not discovery of new ones. One example (from Discover Magazine) is that scientists are working on creating a texture based on a species of butterfly's wings, that absorb even more light than current solar panels.
 
Level 9
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
680
The time to replace all oil power plants with other power plants takes alot of time, meanwhile people can't go to work, or workers can't do theirs because of no oil. Actually i dont think other power plants could even be constructed, because you need to get parts to the construction site, wich requires oil to move the trucks. Offcourse america would have a reserve but that wouldn't last 5 years for sure. And hydrogene or other power sources for cars arent far enough to be used by the crowd. Pretty much whole americas infrastructure would crash wich has huge influences on the economie resulting most likely into a crisis.
 
Level 21
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
3,516
well there are other implementable alternative energies, and considering the budget some of these oil companies have im surprised they arent starting to invest in alternate energy to make money when the day that oil becomes obsolete arrives. my main concern for oil is not oil as a fuel but oil as a raw material for polyalkanes, pharmasuiticals and other useful products.
 
Top