What will happen after Israel bombs Iran?

[ChefWide]

Isreal's permanent place on the scapegoat wall of shame in every Arab/Persian/SouthAsian/Muslim boardroom and governmental office is among the only reasons that these uber-banana...er... date-republics have any hold on their teeming seething masses in the first place: someone EXTERNAL to blame with the whooping added bonus of being JEWS!! that any and all Muslim and pseudo-muslim based government can use as a double whammy to distract their masses from the fact that they DEFINE the very basest and most striking forms of have vs. have nots on this planet.


You take israel out of the picture? BOOM! Muslim governments will topple from within faster than you can say 'Allah Ahkbar'.

You are suggesting Hozne and the boys will fight against israel in reference to that lunatic assembly in iran that WILL nuke the regions oilfields just out of spite of the west?

i think NOT.


Do not be surprised when it comes out that most of israels 'enemies' on its borders actually help the Isrealis do as they please, when they please, as often as they please to Iran.

 

[GoldenDelicious]

One thing is almost for certain, no matter what happens, we can count on you to piss and moan about US involvement in it

parrallel to the certainty that the US will justify plainly self-serving immoral behaviour with empty mouthings of "helping people", yes.

 

[BrothaBill]

parrallel to the certainty that the US will justify plainly self-serving immoral behaviour with empty mouthings of "helping people", yes.

Yknow the majority of Australians hate Greeks and Lebanese, better not move to Sydney

 

[GoldenDelicious]

Yknow the majority of Australians hate Greeks and Lebanese, better not move to Sydney

yeah i know. they hate the lebs because theyre violent, wannabe gangster pussies, and the greeks because we get all the chicks.

sucks to be white, i guess

unless youre a chick...then you might get some greek lovin

 

[AristotleBC]

parrallel to the certainty that the US will justify plainly self-serving immoral behaviour with empty mouthings of "helping people", yes.

Is it your contention then that the US only engages in behavior solely on the condition that it is beneficial to us?


The US has never been that realpolitick you pestering prick, and even in the times that we have, (Iraq), the often end-result is good for the people/country involved.

I'm sure you consider yourself hip and fashionable with your endless stream of anti-US hyperbole (as it is such for most medium-grade intellectuals in Europe/Australia these days), any person who makes absolutist statements about the motivations of a country over 50 years of foreign policy has a stark reasoning deficit.

For instance:

Do you think we called in ~30,000 marines to Somalia and left some of our people dead there to steal their peanut brittle?

And if you acknowledge that indeed, we did spend millions to billions in an operation to stop the genocidal wars in that country out of altruistic reasons, than your original comment is necessarily incorrect, and an exaggeration against America, which IMO, applies to virtually all of your posts...


By the way, how are the race riots in Australia going? Have you killed any muslims yet?

 

[Subzeero]

The US has never been that realpolitick you pestering prick, and even in the times that we have, (Iraq), the often end-result is good for the people/country involved.

You are hinting as if a democratic, capitalist constitution is somehow divinely infallible and is strangely always suitable for the psyche of a nation quite evidently ill prepared for such reforms. As a matter of fact it is outrageous as enlightened as you may seem, would make a comment the likes of this.

 

[GoldenDelicious]

Is it your contention then that the US only engages in behavior solely on the condition that it is beneficial to us?

mostly, yes.

The US has never been that realpolitick you pestering prick, and even in the times that we have, (Iraq), the often end-result is good for the people/country involved.

in regards to your "pestering prick" comment, im tempted to tell you to get to your knees and pay homage to my cock with your lips, but not only would that be crass and a tad out of line with the otherwise playful, bantering nature of CnC, i would probably get all of your various boyfriends' diseases...so ill politely ignore you, instead. nice guy, hey

in regards to the rest of that paragraph, that "the end result is good for the people/country involved", well, i suppose tahts a matter of perspective, isnt it. if youre a fat american on his laptop observing the conflict on CNN and being righteous on EF, then i suppose yes, it IS good for the country/people involved. if, on the other hand, youre an iraqi with a couple of tonnes of concrete piled on your decaying body, then its probably not. there are, after all, only about a hundred thousand of those over there. its all a matter of perspective, you see and if youre lucky enough to be alive and not missing any family members, well then, i suppose youre much, MUCH better off that a foreign government has taken control of your country's natural resources, and is funnelling them out. i mean, selling those commodities on the open market and actually spending the money on YOURSELF would no doubt lead to you getting into all sorts of trouble. its much better that you remain in poverty. after all, what rich man has gone to paradise?

I'm sure you consider yourself hip and fashionable with your endless stream of anti-US hyperbole (as it is such for most medium-grade intellectuals in Europe/Australia these days), any person who makes absolutist statements about the motivations of a country over 50 years of foreign policy has a stark reasoning deficit.

i dont think im hip or fashionable. irressistably handsome, maybe, but niether of those two i just say things as i see them, so youll have to excuse me if i dont jump on your "all the way with the USA!" bandwagon, while we go to war with iraq because al quaida...no, WMD...no because saddam was just a bad guy...no, to install DEMOCRACY! yeah, thats it. sorry, i got a bit confused, for a second.

anyway anyone would be foolish to treat a nation, governed by many minds over the course of generations as a single entity when it comes to deciphering its motives. after all, the very pieces of that nation responsible for making decisions (the leaders) are in flux. it follows on, then, that so too will the motives themselves. it is fair, however, to look at how they have acted in the short to medium term and make generalisations about the mindset that various leaderships have had. if YOU, on the other hand, cant make that distinction, well, what can i say...perhaps the name "aristotle", particularly the connotations of a historically notable man, is somewhat less than appropriate for you to go by

For instance:

Do you think we called in ~30,000 marines to Somalia and left some of our people dead there to steal their peanut brittle?

no, you did that because you needed that area stable at the time. its interesting that the US picks and chooses when and where to help, and that everytime it does, there seem to be convenient 'benefits' of doing so.

And if you acknowledge that indeed, we did spend millions to billions in an operation to stop the genocidal wars in that country out of altruistic reasons, than your original comment is necessarily incorrect, and an exaggeration against America, which IMO, applies to virtually all of your posts...

well, i dont acknowledge it.

By the way, how are the race riots in Australia going? Have you killed any muslims yet?

a couple of things:

first, no, no muslims have been killed. or any whites, for that matter.

secondly, i happen to be one of those men "of middle eastern or meditterranean appearance" and hence, am a member of one of the minorities targetted by those people involved in the past days rioting - and thirdly, your attempt to smear me with the actions of a highly publicised event orchestrated by very few of my fellow citizens is not only a cheap shot, but fatally obtuse...but then, YOU did say it, so it makes sense i suppose. you dont look for poetry in a pigpen, after all

 

[75th]

in regards to the rest of that paragraph, that "the end result is good for the people/country involved", well, i suppose tahts a matter of perspective, isnt it. if youre a fat american on his laptop observing the conflict on CNN and being righteous on EF, then i suppose yes, it IS good for the country/people involved. if, on the other hand, youre an iraqi with a couple of tonnes of concrete piled on your decaying body, then its probably not. there are, after all, only about a hundred thousand of those over there. its all a matter of perspective, you see and if youre lucky enough to be alive and not missing any family members, well then, i suppose youre much, MUCH better off that a foreign government has taken control of your country's natural resources, and is funnelling them out. i mean, selling those commodities on the open market and actually spending the money on YOURSELF would no doubt lead to you getting into all sorts of trouble. its much better that you remain in poverty. after all, what rich man has gone to paradise?

3/4 of Iraqis are happy with life at the moment. Less than 1/5 actually fear any sort of violence. Most see absolutely none in their neighborhood. The average Iraqi salary has risen almost 60% since Saddam was in charge. 65% of Iraqis how have cell phones, compared to 6% when Saddam was in charge. Ownership of satellite dishes, washing machines, dishwashers, etc has jumped 58%. Most of all, 80% of Iraqis believe the situation will only improve over the coming years.

These, my friends, are facts, compared to the emotional drivel you feel content to post.

You can bitch all you want, but apparently the Iraqi people disagree with you.

 

[GoldenDelicious]

3/4 of Iraqis are happy with life at the moment. Less than 1/5 actually fear any sort of violence. Most see absolutely none in their neighborhood. The average Iraqi salary has risen almost 60% since Saddam was in charge. 65% of Iraqis how have cell phones, compared to 6% when Saddam was in charge. Ownership of satellite dishes, washing machines, dishwashers, etc has jumped 58%. Most of all, 80% of Iraqis believe the situation will only improve over the coming years.

These, my friends, are facts, compared to the emotional drivel you feel content to post.

You can bitch all you want, but apparently the Iraqi people disagree with you.

would you like to post the study procedure and methodology that produced the statistics youre quoting. without it, your stats have the credibility and clout of DJ_UFO.

cheerios

 

[AristotleBC]

You are hinting as if a democratic, capitalist constitution is somehow divinely infallible and is strangely always suitable for the psyche of a nation quite evidently ill prepared for such reforms. As a matter of fact it is outrageous as enlightened as you may seem, would make a comment the likes of this.
<what??>

(This response is for both you and Golden Delicious' last post.)



If you Subzeero are referring to Iraq, time will tell, but if our plan works and they become an independent democracy the way Japan and Germany have, then I am sure the majority will prefer that way of life to life under Saddam. ~98% of the Kurds already have a favorable opinion of the US and the results its presence because of the protectorate we and Britain have maintained there.

===


It seems to me that if the results of your actions help you, and also help those which are the recipients of those actions, you have found a solution in which most everyone wins, and is "good."


One could compare it to the "teach a man to fish" parable.

If Bob does not know how to fish, and I give him 20 fish, I have helped him, but I have suffered from the loss.

If I teach Bob to fish, and in return he agrees to give me 20 fish because the time I spend teaching him will take away from my own fishing, then Bob now eats for life and I might have some more fish as well.


Which is the "better" solution? I suspect Bob will be happier with the second solution, as will I, because not only have I helped Bob, but I may have come out with a few more fish as well.


(Note that people with leftist points of view will often theoretically favor the first option of hand-out fish... as the analogy can also be applied fairly accurately (IMO) to foreign affairs, perhaps some parallels in the way those with a leftist mindset think can be observed. They seem to think that an action is only valid if the the person who takes it does not benefit themselves, regardless of how it affects those they are helping. This is what I would call a "stupid" way of thinking.)


===


Compare to Germany in World War II for instance.

After WWII, we did a couple things. We helped West Germany become a relatively free democratic state. We (at the very real risk of war) stood against the Soviet Union at Berlin. Then, when the USSR collapsed, East and West Germany were reunited and they are now an autonomous democracy with a better standard of living for their citizens then ever in history.


Did we help Germany become a democratic state purely out of alturism? Did we risk nuclear war with the USSR soley for the principle of it?

No.

By doing what we did in Germany (and Japan, and France, and South Korea), we defended our way of life, (free, democratic capitalism) against a force whom wished to change that way of life to Unfree totalitarianism incorrectly termed communism.

Working this way to ensure our security helped us. Working this way to allow Japan, Germany and South Korea to become the free, prosperous nations they are today also helped them.

No one of any sense is going to attempt to claim that these nations would have been better off had we:

- Left all of Germany to Soviet rule
- Left Japan in tatters to become whatever it might
- Have South Korea be just like North Korea


===



The same thing is happening now in Afghanistan and Iraq. That some of the dunces around here cannot recognize that this methodology has been the policy of the US for 60 years is merely another example of the fact that statistically you'll find many types of opinion, no matter how stupid.


One can argue about Iraq fitting this profile to some extent because it was obviously an elective war. However, if the end result is that Iraq becomes a stable, prosperous democracy, which helps provides an example to the region, than in all likelyhood, a result similar to that which you've seen above will be reality.


Of course, people like Golden Delicious, who is apparently so confident of his handsomeness that he has to remind us a couple times in each post he makes, can, will and did say stuff like:

- Oh well I doubt the French citizens killed at D-Day think THEY'RE better off.

- Oh I doubt the South Koreans killed during the Korean war think THEY'RE better off.

and so forth.

But overall, taken as a country, the majority of the people and the world ARE better off for what took place.

If Iraq goes to plan, the same thing will apply.


And uh, so far the US as a country has not benefited too much from the war in Iraq.