Attack on Iran - IMMINENT!

Can't believe it, but I agree with Peipiik.

 

I guess, if your gonna be in a fight,
Hit first and as hard as you can.

The world would be a much better place if we were all hippies.
But we aren't.

 

What????

 

The title of this thread is
Attack on Iran - IMMINENT


My answer (because I live in the US and we are the likely attackers) was:

I guess, if your gonna be in a fight,
Hit first and as hard as you can.

The world would be a much better place if we were all hippies.
But we aren't.

 

My response would be why should America attack anyone?

 

trying to get us back on course here.

 

But the US military is so over extended in Iraq and Afghanastan, it's hard to see us being a bully boy for the world, especially since we can't rely on Britiain to back us up any longer. You can move your carriers into place, like Bush has, but picking a fight with Iran isn't going to be as easy as his war in Iraq. I am sure Bush thought all he had to do was position the carriers, but the world is watching this time.

 

It is not a remnant of a captor - merely clothing that is widespread and required as to be adequately clothed for the country that she is within. Yes it could be wrong to wear such clothing -that is another arguement - It could make her feel less of a women etc etc.
The point is she disrespected something that she did not need to disrespect.
She looked like a rascist bitch. I have no problem with her profiteering from her capture - it was what she said and what she did that made me feel sick.

 

Wearing a scarf makes one feel less like a woman? "Racist Bitch" bit strong isn't it for a description of a heroic warrior involved in a current conflict?

 

Yes maybe adding the ''bitch'' was a bit strong.
I'm not looking at her as a ''heroic warrior'' i'm looking at her as a human being regardless of what she has done within her job.
Do you not agree with my sentiment then ?.

 

As in the hijab she was ''forced'' to wear.
Some people say it takes away a womens femininity - wich I guess is the point.

 

My grannie and mom wore one all the time when the wind was blowing.

As to the heroic warrior, I thought that's how you viewed all military.

 

Why does a hijab take away a womens feminity more than jewsih laws on women's hair covering or the little doilies women wore in the catholic church until the seventies?

Because maybe it's an arab tradition?

 

I don't think like that - If a women wants to wear it - fine.
You can not discount the debate that is occuring even in the MUSLIM COMMUNITY. Why did women in the catholic church wear them ? why did they stop ?.
The covering of a womens body to preserve her chastity and or modesty has been evident in the majority of cultures - some persist others do not - but i reckon you know this.

Ofcourse.
Yes thats right - I'm calling somebody racist - then being racist myself.

Our mums and grandparents wore scarfs when it was windy - not hijabs.
The purpose of the two items are very different indeed. I know your not that naive - please do not insult either of our inteligence.

No - if you are attempting to wind me up It is failing

 

Then don't attack head scarves as political statements. Or support all military personnel as heroic warriors.

 

Where am I ''attacking'' anything other than her mindset ?.
I was pointing out she was mocking them - to me that looked a tad racist on her part - hence why I called her a ''racist bitch''.
Where am I showing ''all military personnel as heroic warriors'' ?.

 

do you think the warriors who invaded iraq are heroic?

 

For invading iraq - ? difficult question. Prob' nothing much too heroic about that - just doing a job.
Some of their individual actions since that - yeah for sure.
Not just ''warriors'' or soldiers as I like to call them - all kinds of people that have helped benefit Iraq over the last few years.

 

I'd just like to say that Skip started this thread in March. The attack on Iran isn't imminent anymore, unless the western world buys into some media blitz that they have to be stopped from whatever it is that this administration wants to feed the public is a source of risk for a posh life style.

 

it is very difficult to know what the admin is thinking, they say one thing they do another. who knows if indeed they are still attacking iran, i'd say given the lack of projection of irans military (no long range missiles , other technology etc) if an attack was mounted on the nuclear facilities no further attack on any other facility would be necesary, does the us really want a third front? i'd say it depends what they want to do, attack the source of the "problem" or simply do what they always do, bomb any up and coming "enemy" back to the stone age. if it weren't the americans doing this it would be someone else doing it and we 'd be complaining about them.

i'd say the invasion is simply on hold and preparations are being made, probably a land invasion from the territories adjacent to iran. when it happens it will be a surprise attack preceded with a media barrage about 6 months before the attack. as the time approaches it will be very quiet for about 2 weeks before the invasion.

the americans learnt one thing from pearl harbour, if you are launching surprise attacks always make sure you go back and make sure the job has been done. the japanese found to their cost that allowing carrier groups to remain intact and not bombing properly allows the enemy to re-group. in many ways ww2 has been americas tutor, it has shown them that surprise, unproked attacks can be effective if carried out properly, pin point bombing combined with mass bombing can yield results.

iraq has been a lesson too. from the american perspective they could have bombed iraq and then just pounded it for decades for artillery practice, why bother sending troops in unless it was just honing their skills for further invasions in the area. yes theres the oil and some is getting out.

the invasions of the middle east are just the prelude to more invasions.