US/ Iran on verge of war?

Post Reply New Topic

Christians have slaughtered a shedload of people in the past. Hitler was a Christian, didn't he order the slaughter of 7 million jews, and gypsies. If you read Mein Kampf, you will see Hitler was a Christian. What Hitler and his people did to them was way worse than a plane flying into a building. So, it appears Christians have done some really messed up s**t compared to Muslims

Quatermass, I apologize for getting the spelling your name wrong. I can only assure you it was not intentional. I will try to get to the rest of your post latter (thanks for responding, BTW).

America send, I can hardly disagree with that fact that what Hitler did was many thousands times worse then 9/11, however I must point out that Hitler did not consider himself a Christian (he struggled with issue and eventually decided that Christ had to be condemned because he had a Jewish mother), and he ran a state that promoted vaguely paganistic practices (although he himself was not a pagan).

Yes, Christians have done terrible things in the past in the name of their religion. On the way to fight the Crusades (which were defensive in nature), "soldiers" pillaged and massacred innocent Jews, as well as Christians. Jews were murdered and tortured in the name of the Inquisition. Indigenous people were murdered in the Age of Discovery. Slavery was long defended by the Roman Catholic Church. This is only a few things obviously. If you think I am going to defend such things...well, I'm not.

However, I am concerned primarily with today. The Crusades, of which the propagandized historical version of which only spread around the Muslim world in the 1800s (in reality it was a local affair), are not justification for murders committed by zealots today. Apologizing for it a thousand times will not change what is happening today. Islam had it's golden period, but it ended centuries ago with the burning of the Library of Alexandria. This is not to say the Christian world has not hit it's zenith, as it has been traditionally defined, with European countries becoming increasing secular (with low birthrates) against increasing Muslim populations. However, you do not see leading Christian leaders calling for a Christian version of jidah, and you do not see Muslim leaders condemning such things. This is not to say that Islam is inherently violent or anything like that. I don't care what a religion, and it texts say, I only care about what a religion and it's texts produces: The people. Are they good people, or bad people. Only a minority of Muslims support terrorism, but that is still large number (there are 1 billion Muslims in the world).

Let's say 1% of all the Muslims in the world would be willing to participate in an act of terrorism (a Sky News Poll of British Muslims put that at 1 in 8, and I would guess that number is much lower in the U.S. and higher then that in much of the Arab world). That would still be 30 million people, cut that in half you have 8 million men, and assume that half are children you have 4 million people.

I get very touchy about my nick being misspelt (as with my real name, which has a few spelling variations), so I thank you for that reasoned response to my (admittedly) angry post.

Hopefully, those that would actually act out a terrorist act would be

1. In a vast minority

2. Caught before they do anything.

In pointing out the Crusades, I hoped to put the current antagonism between Christianity and Islam in context.

However, you have a point, mostly here:

Ass for Nuclear technology, why would the US want to not only export, but use it ourselves when there is 10X enough wind power potential to become energy efficient? To me nuclear is SO 1950s, it just isn't practical with the radioactive waste and treat of being attacked by terrorist. Wind energy is also highly localized, reducing the amount of power lines put up.

Jimservo, all I'm trying to say is that, political tensions are getting rather explosive in sentiment, and all it'll take is an preemptive strike on Iran to ignite it into hostility. Russia and China are uneasy about growing US military presence in the Middle East and I'm sure if their oil supply is threatened, they will respond more aggressively than expected. It would be of apocalyptic proportions when countries outside of the middle east begin to get bombed either by accident or intentionally and that's when World War 3 truly begins.

Russia and China have considerable oil interests in Iran, and they won't tolerate America disrupting their supply, and god forbid if the US got any control of it, as the Americas could screw them economically. In worse case they're likely to help combat along side with Iranian forces to ensure that the US cannot invade Iran or damage oil infrastructure. Russia has already provided them with technology to defend against an American invasion just recently. Not to mention ties between Russia and Iran are growing, and I'm sure China might considering joining in on the deal soon too.

I feel that Europe does serve importance to the US military interest and to loose it's support entirely will be a problem. Because Europe could easily kick the US military out of their land, air and sea space and force them to dismantled the bases on their soil, meaning that you'll loose all strategic points in Europe. They don't even need to declare war to cause problems for America. This might not be so important for Iran, but if a war escalates outwards into Afghanistan and Turkey you lost vital strategic points to respond. All Europe needs to do is simply say that they refuse to get involved and will only respond defensively to any threats and defend their own borders; leaving the US in it's own mess.

About North Korea, they only developed nuclear weapons just recently and you know why North Korea developed nuclear weapons? Because Bush branded them as an 'axis of evil', causing Kim Jong Ill to response angrily in defiance and broke away from such a promise. Didn't you hear the news reports about how they were fearing that North Korea is beginning to build it's first atomic bomb around several years ago, around the time Iraq was about to be invaded?

You're getting played by Iran, just like how North Korea is playing you too (and the US Press doesn't help much either). Like I've said, political mind games and nuclear technology development is a playing card to their game. Iran knows all too well that if it were to attack another nation preemptively, it'll loose any form of support, ties and basically knows it's entire landscape will be obliterated. As for them threatening to use a nuclear weapon if demands are not met; I'm sure Russia and China would pressure them not to do such a thing (and china does pressure North Korea too, which is why the North Koreans didn't proceed with a second nuclear test).

Yes I made a mistaken generalization, it's the Bush Administration that's war hungry, not the entire US.

But I guess we'll wait and see what happens.

I had intended to move away from this topic but ...