«

[Nick]

Heard the news? Bush said, that he could invade Iran, if government of this country won't prove their cleanity in weapons of mass destruction. I think (and there are lot of such people), that war in Muslim countries (like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia etc.) is suicide. You probably know about Chechnya in our country.
Muslims have their own viewing and comprehension of the world based on their religion, and if you declared war on such fanatic country (and in Middle East there are all like that), you will be destroyed. Here's an example: Americans will probably stay in Iraq just like we in Afghanistan. The terrorists with their attacks will finally force US to take measures. Our measure in Afghanistan was withdrawing forces from this country. What will do Americans?
I don't think, that they will act in more or less democratic way, which means withdrawing. Invade in Iraq costed money and had secondary target - oil. So the only way to deal with terrorists, when they finally ruin you, is to introduce shooting all without exception. Muslims is a nation of potential terrorists. Their religion preaching terror, which is well known in word "gazavat" (well, at least we, Russians, pronounce it like that, though more popular is synonim "dzhihad"). Actually, I heard speech of Muslim priest, and he told, that this "gazavat" don't intend violence or war actions. Muslim "holy war against wrongs (peolpe of not Muslim faith)" intends preach against all that (wrong) religions. He meant, that this war have only one weapon - word.
But some damn extremists perverted the truly words of their prophet and use the religion as a shield in their terroristic acts against the Jews (in Israel) and other nations (you are remember 11.09.2001). Had to be said, that this meaning of "holy war" appeared long ago, couple of years after Magomed death. Thus, nowadays that "holy war" means only terror, even in eyes of respectable Muslim priests in our country (I heard such speech on TV just when US invaded Iraq). So I think Americans should take care of Iraq and then think about other plans. But, like I said, it is improbable to take control in Iraq. If country had less area, than maybe, but Iraq is not very small. So, to make a conclusion, Americans have a BIG problem and I don't think that they'll deal with it.

[Unknown Hero]

I really hate that sdfljsdlfčh salkgjlksadgj sagj isgj BUSH!!! :ranting: :ranting: :ranting: :ranting: :ranting:
And I tell you this - he wont stop just like that on Iran, I think he will go further (maybe China?)!

About gazavat or dzhihad or jihad, I would say it WAS somekind of a holy war, BUT for that time (7th century)! And there were different circumstances.

[Stroggy]

I think the US isn't planning a full-scale invasion like in Iraq since the new generation of Iranians isn't at all fanatic (the middle and upperclass mostly, the lowerclass is still fanatic)
I think they are simply planning on destroying some of the above-ground nuclear installations like Israel did with Osirak.
This would be a severe setback to their nuclear program and would send a clear message to the government. And then the US could go back to trying to topple the Ayatollah through diplomatical means.

[Havell]

If they did try somewhere like China then they would get their fingers pretty badly burnt, more so than they did in Iraq.

[ultranewbie]

:blink:

Bush wouldn't go into Iran - it would be economic suicide. And China? Not a chance.

Even forgetting the religious/political backlash (which will be massive, I agree) caused by invading a third arab islamic country, three wars would just cost too much.

Now I know the Republican party loves guns, but it loves money too.

[Maikel]

I doubt they could overrun china

It's almost a superpower on it's own.

Wtf does this Bush think what he is? What (excuse me) damn right does he have to declare a war on any country? Iran simply saw the need to get some nuclear weapons, because USA has any. As with that thing where Russia and USA agreed to destroy their mass destruction weapons, Russia did it. USA didn't. Now they claim to have the right to attack someone who has them? I really didn't want to say that, but I hope that sometime later a brutal blow will be dealt to USA which will destroy their economy power at all. That would teach them to not to put their nose in things that aren't of their concern. :not_ok:
Tell me what you want, I think the terrorists are on the right side there. They at least dare to do something against USA, while other countries simply hold their heads back and don't dare to say anything against.

[Stroggy]

Originally posted by FreeFreddy@Jan 19 2005, 11:46 AM

Tell me what you want, I think the terrorists are on the right side there. They at least dare to do something against USA, while other countries simply hold their heads back and don't dare to say anything against.

Nevermind the fact innocent people died in those heroic attacks, atleast the Bush administration got hurt, right?
I mean because of those attacks the US grew weak, eh?

sarcasm off

I don't mean people that "just do their job" and that are against the actions of the USA. But there're many people who are on Bush's side, and such ones I meant. Though if people don't do anything against, even if they're against that in their minds, they're supporting it, too.
And "innocent" people always die, that's life, pal. I didn't mean that it's ok that "innocent" people die. It's sad that people have to die in our "civilized" world at all. But it's not something that can be prevented, right?

[Havell]

I don't agree with the terrorist attacks but I do believe that America needs it's ego popping, I am tired of it thinking that it can do whatever it wants and invade any country and then not have to answer to anybody.