Would America attack Iran ?

[Azi Tohak]

Well when you go to war like it always has been you can take resources on the territory and force the occupating population to pay a debt to you, or replace the government allied to your policies. Also you can just sell your weapons to both sides of the conflict. And more important you can justify expenditures and size of the army. Even so I think that i really don't need to explain what that means.

I'm curious. What is the nation that has participated the most in armed conflicts (if not the non-armed too) since the begining of contemporary age? (it's not sarcastic i really don't know). This will clearify some of my views.

A. I do not go to war. Blaming me for the actions of the US government is as accurate as me blaming you for Leopoldo Galtieri and his Falklands war and his dirty war.

B. Yes, you do need to explain. Living and breeding from war? Do you understand what that means in English? The US is not Sparta, not the Mongols. I do not live for war. Nor does my family or anyone else in this country. Most soldiers hate warfare as much as the rest of us, because they know what it can mean to them. But they do their job. The defense industry is only a small part of our economy. But, it is a private industry. The government does have a little say in who the industry can not sell to, and what is up for sale, but beyond that, it is capitalism at work. Has your anti-US bent so warped your perception that you actually believe the US government promotes wars?

The goal of wars should be to have a more perfect peace. Is that goal always the actual objective of those in charge? Of course not. I don't know if that has happened with Iraq (too early to tell).

After WWII, did the US take resources from Germany? Japan? Italy? Did we actually force Britain, France, the USSR to pay for all the goods and equipment that had been given? If you think the answers to those questions are yes, I daresay someone should do at least a modicum of research before claiming the US is no different than Rome, Sparta, the Mongols, the USSR.

Yes, the US did replace the government of Germany. According to your logic Goebbels should have been left, correct? Can't mess with another nations government can you? No matter how evil it is? Or were the Nazis just misunderstood? Afterall, how many emigrated to Argentina after WWII?

C. What in the hell is the 'contemporary age'? Since 1453? 1066? 1789? 1865? 1918? 1945? 1AD?

Since its inception, the US has been involved in ~25 wars, of which the Quasi war, First Barbary war, War of 1812, Mexican-American war, Philipine-American war, WWI & WW II, Korea, Iraq I, and the War on Terrorism were all started 'by the other guys'. Eight more were peace-keeping missions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar..._United_States

Azi

[Soulforged]

A. I do not go to war. Blaming me for the actions of the US government is as accurate as me blaming you for Leopoldo Galtieri and his Falklands war and his dirty war.

B. Yes, you do need to explain. Living and breeding from war? Do you understand what that means in English? The US is not Sparta, not the Mongols. I do not live for war. Nor does my family or anyone else in this country. Most soldiers hate warfare as much as the rest of us, because they know what it can mean to them. But they do their job. The defense industry is only a small part of our economy. But, it is a private industry. The government does have a little say in who the industry can not sell to, and what is up for sale, but beyond that, it is capitalism at work. Has your anti-US bent so warped your perception that you actually believe the US government promotes wars?

The goal of wars should be to have a more perfect peace. Is that goal always the actual objective of those in charge? Of course not. I don't know if that has happened with Iraq (too early to tell).

After WWII, did the US take resources from Germany? Japan? Italy? Did we actually force Britain, France, the USSR to pay for all the goods and equipment that had been given? If you think the answers to those questions are yes, I daresay someone should do at least a modicum of research before claiming the US is no different than Rome, Sparta, the Mongols, the USSR.

C. What in the hell is the 'contemporary age'? Since 1453? 1066? 1789? 1865? 1918? 1945? 1AD?

Since its inception, the US has been involved in ~25 wars, of which the Quasi war, First Barbary war, War of 1812, Mexican-American war, Philipine-American war, WWI & WW II, Korea, Iraq I, and the War on Terrorism were all started 'by the other guys'. Eight more were peace-keeping missions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar..._United_States

Azi

First i said that that's what i think. I've my reasons but you'll never understand them. Second when i talked about you i was refering to the state of USA, is obvious that i'm not talking about the people habitating it. Third, i really think that one of your industries is armament, nuclear industrie too, if that's what you meant in the part "private industries", but you need to make war to put that in activity.
So for you the war is to make peace (is an old paradox) but i'll tell you this, those damaged by the war will never live in peace, so at least it will never be perfect, and second it doesn't matter if there's peace before the war i simply don't like the idea of that nation that goes through the world bringing "peace and democracy" like fanatics of this, changing government heads like they've the right too, and this is in my opinion the most important justification to attack Irak. So you also think that USA just helped Europe and take nothing in return: (i'm not saying that the following is wrong but you're too romantic about your country, vision that luckly we don't have here) USA took one part of Germany, USA helped the others reconstruct, this way making a debt that all this countries keep paying (so yes USA created a profit by going to war, anyway i'll not say that in this war they sold weapons to both sides, but from then on i say yes), but most important of all everytime that the French or Germans act against that "eternal debt" you always say after all we did for them, i don't know about you but it seems that non of this countries can go against your policies.

Yes, the US did replace the government of Germany. According to your logic Goebbels should have been left, correct? Can't mess with another nations government can you? No matter how evil it is? Or were the Nazis just misunderstood? Afterall, how many emigrated to Argentina after WWII?

Oh this is so tipical. Man you just can't say that the other countries have "evil" government and go like a fanatic to throw them down, please, just think in what you're saying, i believed that most of the people in USA understood that, but i think i missed you. And Argentina did accept some Nazis here because all people deserve to be treated like innocents until they are proved guilty, and here we've a law of prescription of crimes no matter how bad they look to you. But this is really funny, because if i'm right your government helped the state of Israel (Well when not, right?) to "steal" those persons from here an judge them by their laws. USA always can kept their "criminals" there and judge them by their laws, it doesn't respect the International Court, though it makes others respect it, and it doesn't respect the soberanity of other countries. There's a recent case. An argentinian was mistaked by a criminal there and a cop killed him, did USA let us judge him not, there was no room for discussion. Even so we're not proud of keeping Nazis here, i'm indiferent, but i asure you that the people here will never believe that they've the right to impose democracy and constitutions through the world. You really don't know what is contemporary age? Well it's the one after the French Revolution (after 1789).
And 25 wars that's interesting, is there another country in the world with so much participation?

But what i liked the most of your post is: Falkland (Malvinas really) war is dirty. LOL. Do you know that this territory was always part of our maritime plataform that's considered our territory. First the english didn't discover the Malvinas it was a guy called Obispo de Plasencia (an spanish i think). Second when England made plans to occupied the Malvinas it was for right ours. Period. They invaded first, we were just too weak to attack them, and even more if USA united them, and the traitor state of Chile. So there you have your answer, we had no terrorist, we didn't attacked England, they attacked first just because the place was in their interests. They were just occupating it without the right to do so. They never had the right to do so, then where's the dirty war.

[Duke Malcolm]

The Falklands were discovered by an Englishman in 1502. The British settled on the island when the Spanish were also there, but the Spanish eventually yielded them. Buenos Aires claimed them because there were no British colonies, but was still a British possession. Buenos Aires eventually withdrew, leaving it in control of British settlers.

[Soulforged]

The Falklands were discovered by an Englishman in 1502. The British settled on the island when the Spanish were also there, but the Spanish eventually yielded them. Buenos Aires claimed them because there were no British colonies, but was still a British possession. Buenos Aires eventually withdrew, leaving it in control of British settlers.

All is right, except the begging. Noboy agrees with the discovery of the island, and all the problem surges from there. Though the Malvinas still are in the maritime plataform of our country. And who will be the english adventurer who disvover the island? John Davis, 1592; 5. Richard Hawkins, 1594; 6. Sebald de Weert, 1600 . The discoverer wich history is the most probable is, like i said, Obispo de Plasencia by one of his commandants, Francisco Camargo who sailed in August of 1539. So...where's the misterious english man? In the date that you provide there's a posible (though much less probable) discoverer, but he's Américo Vespucci, the one who gave the name to our continent.

[Duke Malcolm]

It is doubtful that Vespucci discovered the islands. Sorry, my year was a little typo...

Most records, including the islands' website, state that Davis discovered the islands.

[Soulforged]

It is doubtful that Vespucci discovered the islands. Sorry, my year was a little typo...

I never said that. I'm more of the side of Camargo, as almost everyone else.

Most records, including the islands' website, state that Davis discovered the islands.[/

Yes, well... you look at english web sites. It's doubtful that they'll say the contrary.

[Duke Malcolm]

Sorry, upon further reading, who actually discovered the island is an unclear subject.
The sides which people take are usually based on which country they are from, or their view on the islands.

Anyhoo, Spain and Argentina invaded the islands when Britain had sovereignty over them in the first place in 1820.

[King Henry V]

Yes, well... you look at english web sites. It's doubtful that they'll say the contrary.

And by the same assumption you are looking at Argentinian sites, which are of course completely unbiased. Man, the hypocracy of some people. The xplorer largely credited with finding the Islands is the Dutch exporer, de Weert. Not Camargo.

[Adrian II]

No doubt the U.S. could hammer or outright destroy Iran, but it would be political suicide for the administration and a total disaster for the American treasury, American prestige and American alliances around the world. Not likely, therefore.

However, the U.S. could do an 'Osirak' on key Iranian nuclear installations and get away with it relatively easily. The downside is that American precision bombardments are hardly as precise as the U.S. military wants us to believe, as the example of Iraq has shown. And the bombs on Osirak did not change the Iraqi regime's determination to acquire atomic weapons either. The key installations were built or moved underground from then on.