New war soon to come?

sure. we're dragging people in, THAT must be why we're doing all this diplomatic talk, plausible deniability HOW COULD I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT?  
multi, dont worry. we only pick on super-easy targets. Iran poses an annoyance, so we're trying our best to get him to stop

and if he did fire nukes? hah. we have enough accurate missles to knock Russia's whole stock out of the sky. Iran's pathetic system isnt a concern.

and then retaliation, the middle east becomes Earth's second moon.

LMAO

Well its not that im afraid. But im kinda getting sick about all those wars.
But i guess the more war we see. The sooner there wont be any more ppl to kill.
And tell the president of yours. To not send in ppl. Just nuke it..

I just want a peaceful world like paradise where we all can run around naked and singing coom ba ya...


Well erm... peaceful would be nice. But we will properly never see it happen

Dont be so sure Schem



Are we trying to achieve the blame of throwing our Earth into the Sun or something?

In my opinion its only a little time before Vietman happens all over again, war demonstration and everything else, the whole package.

I just dont see why the UN doesnt intervene or kick Iran out. According to their 'laws' no one besides the Big Eight is allowed to have nuclear weapons

we lack the social instability for such

wouldn't be without warrent.

because they are a bunch of passive fence-sitting snipers who get an erotic kick out of watching us kick the asses of the bad guys that they are too weak to fight themselves.
did I mention that they're European?
yeah, I guess I did   
(I hate European politics, they do everything indirectly without conflict... nothing gets done that way)

I'm such an ass. but to clarify
I prefer cowboy politics to the passivity of the central-West

Which means you arent, since you have no warrent



Really now.

Anyways I found this video its perfect for you. Cold hearted capatalism to the max eh Schem?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q-lEATP-9Y

quite obviously I am, so deducive logic proves my point.

bleeding heart liberal wants to save the world?

have you seen how pathetically dependant our "up and coming" are? the school JUST ACROSS TOWN from my house ASKED!!! ASKED!!! ASKED to disobey the law. and guess what? the parents and administrators endorsed it!

"oh look, our children are doing democracy the right way! ASKING before they break the law, aw how cute"
every time a new disease is identified and treated, the GDP goes up
every time you find comfort in fresh bedsheats, the GDP goes up
every time a cancer patient gets early treatment, the GDP goes up
every time your parents bring home money to pay for your food, the GDP goes up

you blind, bleeding heart "save the world" liberal. thats all I can say, really.

You selfish, arrogant, and coniving capatalist.

Its what I expected you to say.

Plus, you dont get its meaning anyway, watch the last part again.

obviously I'm missing some very very subtle thing here. Oil spills would occur anyway, forests get cut down anyhow (and we replant them, not as good as the original but, meh) and that cancer patient? how the hell do you plan to stop it.

Its the fact that negative things act as a boost to the GPA, at the end where he person says "Economists need to learn to subtract". I know it propoganda, but if fits.

because, you know, invading small ME countries seems to be a very effective tactic.

But, I doubt the missles will start flying, seeing how isreal has the best missle defense network know to man. Iran knows better. Besides, there's still the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction, which should make either country think better of attacking.

That and the fact that whoever starts will soon have a "peacekeeping" force on their doorstep.

obviously then, you're ad misses the point of everything.
true the oil spill is bad, but the GDP doesn't go up because of it (not as much as a safe arrival, anyhow)
trees we replant
cancer diagnosis is a good thing, not a bad thing.

its propoganda, and its also blind to obvious facts. this is another reason why I'm a republican. at least when they do sneaky things, people find out about it instead of playing blind into their hands.

the honest truth is that its the only effective way to deal with an amorphous enemy.

I'm sure like we did with Lebanon.
Israel has too much of a hand in all wallets for us to interfere with them. Iran notsomuch.

MAD only works when both forces have enough nuclear capacity to blow up the major centers of the world.
Israel has that, but they wouldn't attack us. and Iran doesn't have the capacity as of yet.

Iran has a mad man as leader, so someone has to stop him from having nuclear power, so well i think is ok to ee.uu to kick their ass, and well since they are gonna make the dirty work, they can keep oil, and the rest.

UN are pussy's, they don't have power and when heat get up they leave war zones. As for Europe nations well they situation is more difficult, since in Europe there is no oil. They depend a lot on ME countries, so attacking openly a nation like Iran they would upset other nations friendly to Iran, most of this nations swim in oil, so they would see they oil cut off.

And well truly i could not care less ,while they don't use nuclear weapons or biological and hurt the rest of the world, they could kill between then.

i agree that the Iran leaderm seems like a mad man.

I like that the US is the "man" enough to take action against such treats.
I see, and i think more in the EU, think of US as becomming more of a world police.

Ofcourse the US is not perfect, but atleast they do something.
And if its true what some ppl say that the US is taking irak's oil. I say SO WHAT. They are risking there lives. The least thing they can have in return is some oil to pay back to the lost ppl and the expenses.
The UN could learn a few things from the US.

It just sadens me, that its always the US, that are doing the hard parts

s bit offtopic:
How come stardock employs, never speak in theys (theys the right word?) kind of discussions? its against some rules? just curious

stardock's not stupid. You me are essentially noone, but you can't go and make political statements when you're Devs.



True, but not a very good solution to a war between two countries. And we all agree that it could have been more subtly. ie. not declaring war on afghnistan, but helping them get rid of al'qaida


Hmmm. got a point there...



That we know of. Besides, who said you had to use nuclear weapons? there's three letters in ABC/NBC and it need not be total destruction.

thats why its the war "in" afghanistan. not "on"

the only efficient delivery systems are by missle. and we can counter that easily

wow multi! nice.

you see I don't agree with a singular "world police" entity, but the Euros haven't been helping out, and they really are the only other people in such a position (that we favor anyhow, China tries to police a little more subtly)

look at iraq, when the worst part was over. The UN send in its military.

I like the idea with the UN where smaller countrys like denmark, and other smaller once, that cant defend themself against evil nations. But if the UN cant do what they are ment to do, then i cant see whats the point.

I agree with you Multi, all the way.
UN has self imposed bounds that it itself refuses to follow. they won't step into the war, but hell, they'll tell us what to do when we're in there.

You can complain (rightly so) about the EU being disorganised but the UN is just 100 times worse.

The permanent members of its Security Council sell the UN's main enemies the damn weapons in the first place!

Passing referendums and going through diplomatic channels just will NOT work on dictators (it really just bought Saddam over a decade of time between the Gulf Wars to build up his military again).

The UN should learn from the League of Nations (its equally spineless predecessor before and during WW1) dictators pray on such organisations that think everything can be solved diplomatically, it would be nice, but there are people in the world to whom reason is laughable.

Now I think that the Second War in Iraq should never have happened, simply because Saddam should have been deposed in the 1990 conflict, when we had the chance, instead we gave him a decade more to torture his citizens and gas innocent people, there are some people for whom a hanging is too good.

And yes I agree, the US is the only country with the stones to do things about threats(even if the way its handled is open to some improvement (civilians in the crossfire)).

yeah. diplomacy breaks down unless if everyone is either 1) on equal, or near equal footing, or 2) the people who are in the dumps don't have anything to hold over other people's heads (great example, Africa)


the only difference is that the UN orders the US around instead of ignoring them, and that the LoN never knew what a nuclear weapon was.

Yes, that dont have loaded guns, and even if they did they wouldnt be able to use them.



Seems Sherlock himself has grace our forums, you know they werent really there right? Guess you Watson after all.



They did have power though, in the 50s and 60s they organized several large military strikes coordinating dozens of nations(ie Korean War). However, these 'powers of intervention' have been suspended ever since the Soviet Union collapsed.



Probably dont want to get angry and then misuse their moderator powers.



You disappoint me Multi.

To quote Randy Newmen, "No one likes us, and I dont know why... So lets drop the big, there would be no one left to blame us". The US does try its best, and that I think is the thing. Everone doesnt like to have to look up and stare at this giant nation having its way with the world. We are just a bit to arrogant in telling others what to do. Its always our way, no theirs. If we cooperate with anyone, they have to do it our way. That is one of the reasons I think most other powerful nations want it to be hindered.

In the beggining the UN did have powers, vast powers. Now they dont for the pure reason that there isnt a nuclear weapons crisis going on.

Emp, I really do like how you assume the usage of the word "us" when talking about any nation that supports your point (Europe, US and Russia) but never about a contradictory point... its such a great piece of little psychiatry

Osama in afghanistan???
yes, excuse my intellectual failings in not reasoning that ALL OF OUR DATA FROM A CUMULATIVE 100 COUNTRIES MUST BE FREAKING WRONG!!! what was i THINKING??? god smite me now...

dozens of nations... damn, odd how they all came from one place.

they probably have a policy, because obviously if they used their powers or angered us then they would lose customers and/or publicity.

yes, but now that its not as simple as "blow shit up" or "dont blow shit up" and they actually have to get their feet dirty, they are as far away from conflict as possible.
and the shift had all to do with who was running the UN (USA or Europe) at the time, back then Europe was really sniffling off in its corner after WWI and II, we had to do everything.

at least you can admit that its pure jelousy.

*evil look*
how am i that my oh greaty leader?
And who is Randy Newmen?

In the war on iraq, the UN as i remember said no to help out. But denmark, Great Britain, and others i dont remember. Said they would help the US. But ofcourse that was after the war was started.
But thoughs countrys did go against the wishes of the UN.

Some say, that we should have just "kidnap" (or what ever you wanna call it) Saddam.
But then there would have been alot more crasy ppl running around with bombs on there chests.
So i totaly support what the US have done. And i really hope they will kick a** if it comes to that with the Iran.

I dont like what a war does, but at times theres no other option. Some ppl have to be taken care of. For the greater good of our race.

Im even thinking about joining the military. Not because of shoot to kill. But what a soldier stands for. He is there to protect and serve his fellow ppl. Not just within his own country, but every country that needs help from what we see as "evil leaders"

Well evil leaders, might not be as evil as we think. They just want to tell every country, to stay out of there way. And that they can with nuclear weapons.
The problem as i see it, is the security, of keeping those weapons REALLY safe from the real "evil ppl" and that i see as a concern.

*side hands multi a note*
consider the offer, I think you'll find it a bit more "satisfactory"

the question of an evil man is not the measures he is willing to take for his country, but the measures he takes for himself.

if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (DAMN what a name) was not such a hotblooded, selfish, tunnelminded bastard, and could prove that he could keep security in his own country and AGREED to UN supervision, I wouldn't be half worried about it. but he IS a hotblooded, selfish arrogant tunnelminded bastard who is in the center of the worst security crisis (second only to unmonitored russy stockpiles) that civilization has known in AGES.

Here is why a global organization such as the UN cannot have any real power:

If they did, then nobody would join.

Think about it. If you were the leader of a country, would you join an organization that had the power to deploy your military and tell you what to do and not to do? No. Or maybe you would but if they told you not to do something that you really wanted to then you would just drop out.

Also, what if it were the United States or Russia or some other nuclear power that were misbehaving? Who is going to stand up to them? I sure as hell wouldn't. If the rest of the world teamed up on them they could bring them down... but it would be VERY costly.



And Schem, we don't have a missile defense system that could protect us from an all out attack. Sure we have some interceptor missles here and there... but that is not nearly sufficient to stop everything. Stop kidding yourself.

As i said above. Denmark, United Kingdom and other countrys did go agaist the wishes of the UN, when the US was attacking iraq, and asked for help or was it just the countrys that just wanted to help? dont remember, and its not the point.
The point is that a few countrys did go agaist the UN wishes. But was are still in it...