Wow, well done 'twilight', you managed two paragraphs before mentioning Hitler. Weird that you're so anti-semitic then.

Incidently, its not a 'lets wipe out Muslims' war, its about achieving "full spectrum dominance", regaining the empire they were (very gradually) squeezed out of in the 50's and 60's, but this time starting in the middle east. Oh, and you think they'll attack China huh? Well, lets look at it like this, when Iraq was supposed to have nuclear arms, and it didn't, the US invaded. When China ITSELF claimed to have nuclear arms the US engaged in diplomatic talks. Why? In the words of Jon Stewart "oh yes, the GIANT army."
The Chinese have one of the biggest (possibly THE biggest) armies in the world, numbering in the multiple millions. They have (some) sophisticated weaponry, enough to ensure that, combined with their numbers, any US attack on China would result in a bloody war and a very likely defeat.
Before you start commenting on wars, twilight, might I suggest you learn a little about warfare and the forces involved.

In addition, I've said this before, but you evidently didnt listen: JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE IS THREATENED BY THE US DOESNT MAKE THEM THE GOOD GUY! Stop supporting the Iranian regime, YES, FORCE IS THE WRONG CHOICE and is counterproductive, but so is supporting a fascististic (note: not "Islamofascist", before you get worked up) theocracy. And NOW your supporting China?! Tianamen square ring any bells? Or was that an Israeli plot too? How about Tibet? Was that really conquered and occupied by Mossad and the CIA? Or were those 'incidents' perpetrated by the Chinese regime?
By the way, it was the Chinese, just thought you might need that spelt out for you.

And the Guardian a Blair propaganda machine? You ever read it? Maybe the main articles arnt as negative as you'd like them to be (what with journalistic integrity and balance to consider, two things which you evidently have never heard of) but the comment and analysis pages are overwhelmingly given over to critics of our regime.
You want propaganda? Why not take a trip to your precious Iran and take a look at what their papers produce over there. Then come back and tell us which is more like Goebells' material.

Oh, and "The Long War" is the new name primarily (but not solely) used in order to cover up the fact Bush spewed "Mission Accomplished" several years ago, and is still fucking Iraq and its people over. The American public were starting to cotton on to that piece of bullshit, so telling them theres still a war going on is and easy way to placate them.

THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID ABOUT IRAQ!

You know why they went there. Oils aint oils!

And so why wouldn't you support Iran?

At least over the fact that western world has joined forces to nuke them!

=============================

Now here we go you say that 'who' can't take on china and win?

NATO? The western world? the US? The coalition of the killing?

All of the above?

So that reduces the chinese odds I would have thought.

Pre-emptive gang warfare for global security is their aim as I read it!

=============================
I have been following the guardian stories they talk like Ruters or AP

Right wing corporation talk mainstream media giants language.

If you don't think that then you are a right winger and possibly a war monger at that!

Well, you are evidently a moron.

Me, a warmonger? What part of 'force is not the answer' do you not understand?

And would you like to explain WHY you support Iran with such fervor? We should have solidarity with the Iranian PEOPLE, but NOT the government. You accuse me of being right-wing? Asside from the general laughability of this, I'd point out that Iran supresses dissent and trade unions, in other words they prevent workers from protecting and furthering their rights... you're support of this regime would seem to mark YOU as a right-winger.

Grow up, stop supporting any regime opposed to the USA witha knee-jerk reaction, it makes you as bad as them. The world isn't black and white, as you and the press see it (though admitedly from different perspectives), an enemy of democracy is an enemy of democracy, whether their the president of Iran or the president of the US, what difference do you seem to percieve between them?

Oh, and and:
"Now here we go you say that 'who' can't take on china and win?

NATO? The western world? the US? The coalition of the killing?

All of the above?

So that reduces the chinese odds I would have thought.

Pre-emptive gang warfare for global security is their aim as I read it! "

I think i understand what you said, despite the garbled language. My rebutal: China is rapidly becoming a US partner, despite contentious issues over small sections of their economies, another reason they wouldnt attack. And do you think China wouldnt find allies of its own. People often band together out of mutual hatred (you and the Iranian Imams for example), you dont think they and North Korea, or even (a remote possibility) Iran, wouldnt create their own 'coalition of the willing'?
And again - why support China? Their human rights are abysmal - just because YOU see them as an enemy of the US you rally round something like THAT? Dissidents in China find themselves rapily in danger, if we dont encourage and help them (and the Iranians) reclaim their country from the despots we're no better than those who intend to bomb them into little pieces. War is not the answer, but neither is cheering on an opressive regime whose characteristics you claim to abhor.

And as for "Right wing corporation talk mainstream media giants language"[sic], (critical) reading of it can offer a unique insight into the psychology of the enemy. I think it was Sun Tzu who said "know your enemy, know yourself". You would do well to consider the second part of that proverb.

The problem with nuking some nation state because of their cultural differences tells me that no matter how bad they treat their people it's got to be better than nuking them.

Sure things don't go according to someone's plan but that is not how cultures develop.

It's like making a cake without flour, eggs or water. The end result will be poor. But by discarding the idea of attempting to make nice cakes or to abolish the idea by burning the recipe sounds to me like giving up on the notion that we can make cakes.

These are all unique individuals who are priceless. You say one of them or all of them needn't be there but you see some things in life cannot be controlled and it should be understood that you could blow to bits what you cannot control through frustration. Bin it or let it bake. How do you know that God has no plan if you bin it?

Let it bake!

Iran is not the superpower that has the majority of the nuclear weapons in the world?

So if anything even if they were building a bomb it would only be in self-defence of the obvious.

Defending against a pre-emptive strike by foreign imperialist.

=========================================

As for china the very same goes no different

=========================================
You say, "I think it was Sun Tzu who said "know your enemy, know yourself". You would do well to consider the second part of that proverb."

I think it was Mr Tze who told me, "do not attack" I said why? He said you will always underestimate your opponent! He but do not scare. Just take two steps back because your opponent can reach you with a kick if you only take one step back. He also said move to the other side. The sun and the moon! While the sun is on one side the moon is on the other.

You would do well to consider all of the poverb.

what ARE you talking about.

I must admit, Im totally confused.

Nuking nation states? Who said anything about that (other than Bush a Blair)? Did I say it was a good idea? I think saying that force isnt the answer kind of answers that one.

And this cake nonsense? The last time I saw a metaphor that twisted was in an article written by a semi-literate Tory. Whats all that about? If your talking about diversity and peace, do you think those threatening war are interested in any of that? You think Bush cares about Iranian lives? Or that the Iranian Mullahs and their political puppets care about the lives of westerners?
Neither side respects the lives of their enemy, or even their own people (evidenced by the number of people Bush had executed as Texas govenor, or the blatant disregard Blair has for the lives of British soldiers, to say nothing of Iraqi civilians). And by the way, that means that should Iran build a nuke, and find a way of firing it at Britian, they wont bother to warn you in recognition of your sterling work as an apologist.

Oh, and that 'proverb' at the end? Im sorry? What? Is that from some low-budget kung-fu movie or something? Its yet more quasi-philosphical nonsense like the cake analogy. And again illustrates a viewpoint of a two-sided divide - light and dark, one side as opposed to the other - I've already said that the life is mre complicated than that.

The UK wouldn't use a nuke?

The UK has nukes?

The UK wouldn't pre-emptively strike at a sovereign nation state unlawfully?

The UK has done that I'm sorry!

Iran 2 UK 0

Now who would you trust?

I say Iran must be given the benefit of the doubt!

What you reckon?

Don't worry, ask a silly pom a question get a silly Irish answer out of you....

errr - thats not whats being said. Do you even read the comments?

The UK does have nukes, it would use nukes, it has invaded countries unlawfully.
AND THATS PRECICELY WHAT IM SAYING.

THINK before responding. Im saying we ought to try and PREVENT another unlawful invasion - why and how could I do that without making the assumption (not really an assumption, its a fact, but in a 'technical' debate thats what it would be called) that the Iraq invasion was illegal?

Oh, and your scorings off, Iran benefitted slightly (though possibly only in the short term) from the fall of Saddam, and didnt really lose much. Only slightly more recently has it's security situation got worse from the agressive stance of the US and UK.

Get a grip,

What you're saying is don't back Iran?

Yeah!

You would rather people back the Coalition of the Killing? No!

Now think about what you say!

Iran didn't do nothing!

Now leave Iran alone.

Iraq has been screwed up enough! Yeah!

'technical debate' you say, is that like collateral damage?

Are you serious?
"Iran didnt do nothing"?
Did I not mention the hangings? Or the throwing-people-over-a-cliff-tied-in-a-bag thing? Ok, they only use that on murderers and rapists, but still, hardly a nice thing to do.

Let me ask you a question. If someone kills his next door neighbors, and another kills his own family, who is the more moraly repugnant? Neither, its still murder. So when the US/Uk alliance kills innocent civilians in another country, thats bad. Thats really bad. But so is the Iranian governement imprisoning and killing those who dont agree with them.


And only the "technical" part of that statement was in quotations - dont take things out of context, thats what people like Anne Coulter do - by which term i mean a debate carried out using the jargon and strict guidelines of and 'official' debate. Whats more, your statement means nothing, it was merely an effort to insert the words "collateral damage" (an appalling doublespeak phrase) into the discussion.

Incidently, are "err" and "errr" two seperate people? The occasional semi-literacy of one is confusing.


Either way - we cant back EITHER side here is what im saying - and what i said in an article i posted elsewhere on the site - both are equally abhorrant.
Dont forget the old Zapatista saying, "there are no good governments".

Into the abyss then is it?

Are you serious?

Who's arguing about what the UK does? Even thought they left 100,000 dead, maimed, injured and tortured in Iraq? Shoots its citizens dead on the train? But I'm not going into the law or penal system there and vouching to nuke the UK because of their killing and mistreatment of prisoners and the rest.

Or like the Murder of Lady Dianna etc if you're still not satisfied.

But still no reason to nuke the UK for their wrongdoing!

You say, "Let me ask you a question. If someone kills his next door neighbors, and another kills his own family, who is the more moraly repugnant? Neither, its still murder. So when the US/Uk alliance kills innocent civilians in another country, thats bad. Thats really bad. But so is the Iranian governement imprisoning and killing those who dont agree with them."

Yes I agree really bad both are guilty of crimes except not so bad I should choose to nuke them.

What are you and your cuntry the sheriff of the world?

If someone in my street were breaking the law then any decision to blow up my street would not be fair.

Or my suburb or my city.

That's what happened in Iraq. The coalition of the killing thought it was okay to take out innocent people to stop or prevent crimes against humanity accept those living in the same street, suburb, town or city were blown to bits! Why?

What happened to the right to life?

Do you get the picture?

err and don't attack my integrity because you have failed miserably to make you point.

Remember what I said? Do not attack or you will always underestimate your opponent!

THE PUNISHMENT IS THE CRIME FOR A WORLD WITHOUT VIOLENCE!

WAKE UP TO YOURSELF BEFORE YOUR CUNTRY NUKES THE WORLD!

What happens in Iran is simply none of your business. Nor should it be.

It's up the the citizens of Iran to deal with law breakers.

If I went to the UK and started telling them who to prosecute they'd take little notice of me.

People like you would say mind your own business!