Who are the next countries to be called "un free" or "harboring terrorists" or "having WMD" http://www.ch.doe.gov/offices/OCI/TerroristCountries/ American Minestry Of Home Land Security: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan continue to be the seven governments that the US Secretary of State has designated as state sponsors of international terrorism. Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2000. It provided increasing support to numerous terrorist groups, including the Lebanese Hizballah, HAMAS, and the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ), which seek to undermine the Middle East peace negotiations through the use of terrorism. Iraq continued to provide safehaven and support to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, as well as bases, weapons, and protection to the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), an Iranian terrorist group that opposes the current Iranian regime. Syria continued to provide safehaven and support to several terrorist groups, some of which oppose the Middle East peace negotiations. Libya at the end of 2000 was attempting to mend its international image following its surrender in 1999 of two Libyan suspects for trial in the Pan Am 103 bombing. (In early 2001, one of the suspects was convicted of murder. The judges in the case found that he acted "in furtherance of the purposes of...Libyan Intelligence Services.") Cuba continued to provide safehaven to several terrorists and US fugitives and maintained ties to state sponsors and Latin American insurgents. North Korea harbored several hijackers of a Japanese Airlines flight to North Korea in the 1970s and maintained links to other terrorist groups. Finally, Sudan continued to serve as a safehaven for members of al-Qaida, the Lebanese Hizballah, al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the PIJ, and HAMAS, but it has been engaged in a counterterrorism dialogue with the United States since mid-2000.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
LMAO I just noticed that who ever made that map (CIA) dosnt know where , North Korea, Iran , Iraq, sudan or Afghanistan are anyway.... whos next.. share your views
I really love the simplicty "Terrorist countries" and then a list of countries. . . how amazingly in depth!
Red states...having less education, less income, and more "values" then those heathen blue staters, you have to make things easy to believe, like religion (Jesus would be a neo-liberal) or capitalism (pure market capitalism is good, but too bad most Red States rely on subsidies for their economic survival alas welfare cheques from the Blue states), to terrorism (good when "we" do it, but bad when they do it) one is good the other is bad.
my guess would be syria... The US is likely going to secure it's position in the region though... It will go in cycles of about 10 to 20 years. I wouldn't expect anything big for at least another 10 years... We might pump money into a rebellion or something... but that's largely dependent on how lucky we get with that stuff. The CIA is being restructured... so that just means it will take longer.
It's funny how you liberals are the ones in favor of the policies that result in "welfare" payments to the Red states, but then do nothing but bitch about it. As far as us Red staters are concerned, you can eliminate the entire federal budget except for defense. But, if we must have these ridiculous federal programs designed to waste money and get politicians re-elected, it's only fitting that the programs should be a net loss for those who support them.
nah, we don't need bases there if we have iraq Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (anyone that suggests that Iraq was about some bases is being silly by the way... for a 100th of the cost we could have bought the acceptance of such a base in any of those countries... including iraq... saddam would have sold it to us.) Syria is top of the list because: they're the least able to defend themselves. they're the least stable. have the worst human rights. the most oppressive. and are the most destabilizing aside from Iran (which will be dealt with by a revolution.) Syria is my guess, if we're talking about actually sending troops in. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
the worst offender and the greatest threat to world peace is Iran. Syria is weak. if Iran falls, so will Syria. though i don't know if it's a particularly bad idea to remove the SECULAR government from power. North Korea is pretty bad when it comes to human rights, but it is not as dangerous to world peace as the other countries. yes they have nukes, but they could be easily pacified into not using them. all you have to do is give them cash, food, oil, etc. sort of like a severely demented violent criminal who is connected to Morphine 24/7. if the Morphine is gone, there'll be troubles Iran though is expansionalist, ambitious, destabilizing, and dangerous. while Syria would be the easiest target on the list, Iran is the most urgent. if the current regime there is not replaced, i believe it would be Iran, not Saudi Arabia, that would trigger a chain of events that would turn the sandbox into glass, which would be most unfortunate. i hope everything could be avoided, and not a single US soldier's blood is spilled.
madanthonywayne...those "welfare" checks to red states are another deception. Look at defense contracts for last year.Lockheed (MD), Boeing (WA) and Rathyeon (MA) got the largest. Then comes little Connecticut with a bunch of contracts. California did well. Down are the list are Texas, Floirda and Kentucky (Humana). Blue states got the biggest checks by far. In addition, all those government employees across the country are in Democratic Party Unions. From the Postal workers, to the NEA, the NTEU, AFSMCE and SEU--everyone of them supported Kerry. Add in the lawyers and their assistants in EPA and OSHA offices in every state. Nearly all Democrats. Same with welfare and HUD recipients. The money may go to a red state but the people who get the money are mostly Democrats.
I honestly don't know what we're going to do obviously. But, I really think that we're hoping to convert Iran from within. THe political situation there is such that if we go in we might lose all the good will they have to us... which is real. So if we do anything it should be in such a way that no american soldiers set foot on their soil. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
i just wanted to ask a question right here. Do you suport the iraq war and why? because what you just wrote could EASERLY refer to sudam rather than NK
I hope you realise that the REGIME in Iran is the same as the one the iraqi people just DEMOCRATICALY elected, if its acceptable in Iraq why is it not acceptable in Iran. :bugeye: Well I HOPE that no more middle eastern blood is spilled in the search of self-enrichment by the west. :m: Erm no... America is... Its the most DIstabalising because it has no counter weight since 1984 Besides The only threat Iran has on anything is on american plans to take over all profitable areas on the globe.
if we go in we might lose all the good will they have to us absolutely. i think the US gov't strategy now (and probably has been for at least a decade) is to keep cultivating the anti-mullah movement so it can peak sort of like the 1979 revolution, only into a secular democratic regime, not a terrorist mullah regime Do you suport the iraq war and why? because what you just wrote could EASERLY refer to sudam rather than NK Yeah i do, for so many reasons. and no, you can't compare NK to Saddam. Kim, as fruity as he is, is not funding "Palestinian" terrorism, nor is he harbouring active international terrorists. Saddam was a major distabilizing force in the ME. the ME is like a room full of gass-- all you need is a little spark and it could go boom. Saddam was trying to spark it, just like the Iranian mullahs are trying now -- only they're much more active, powerful, influential, and destabilizing. continuing my analogy: if Saddam had matches, Iran has a blow torch. I hope you realise that the REGIME in Iran is the same as the one the iraqi people just DEMOCRATICALY elected, if its acceptable in Iraq why is it not acceptable in Iran. not quite they are quite fundamentally different. i mean, it remains to be seen how Sistnani will run things, but i think it will be nowhere near as evil as the Iranian mullahs. in a Democracy you have to respect all your constituents. the government doesn't have unlimited powers. the mullahs don't care about all that, while Sistani will have to. Besides The only threat Iran has on anything is on american plans to take over all profitable areas on the globe the mullahs, following the Khomeni doctrine, want to export the Islamic Revolution. they also want to be the most powerful and feared country in the middle east. not in terms of "we'll take your business" feared, but in terms of "do as we say or we'll bomb you" feared. that's why all of Iran's neighbours have been forced to spend on weapons (quite in futility, since they're still no match for Iran). once they export their ideals and influence, they will try to implement their stated objective of "eradicating the Zionist cancer" from the M.E. why don't they support the road map? why don't they want peace between "Palestinians" and Israelis? now imagine what happens if Iran (alone or w/ alliances) attacks Israel. imagine the Israeli war machine colliding with Iran. think of the impact it'll have on the M.E. guess who's going to have to fix everything (if you guessed EU or UN, guess again) see, it's against US interest to have a crazy regime in power in Iran, because it'll cost more lives in the long run. plus, the Iranian mullahs call the 1981 Lebanon bombing where 241 Marines died, "the greatest martyrdom operation against tyranny ever" and have a statue to commemorate this "glorious event" in the middle of Tehran. the mullahs are not pussycats. they are dangerous and need to be taken care of. btw, a big difference between NK and Iran: NK want food, supplies, etc., which is why they got the nukes. Iran, which is developing nukes right now, they don't even want any economic carrots. they want the nuke technology, period. why?
It's funny how you liberals are the ones in favor of the policies that result in "welfare" payments to the Red states, but then do nothing but bitch about it. I am not an American so I don’t care much about this, but if I were an American living in California, or Mass. I would be pretty pissed off that my hard earned tax dollars are being sent to ungrateful, uneducated, poor brutes in the Middle of no where, who have decided the fate of my nation. If I were in the United States I wouldn’t object to equalization payments (I don’t here in Canada), what I would object to is how conservatives in these states preach the gospel of neo-liberalism yet would defend their poor subsidy to the last tooth in their mouth. As far as us Red staters are concerned, you can eliminate the entire federal budget except for defense. Which of course is hubris, if subsidies were to be totally eliminated from the equation state’s like Nebraska, Mississippi, etc would become third world states overnight. They can’t pay their way, that’s why they depend on welfare cheques. You say that Madwhateveryourname because you have conception of what your state would look like without handouts. But, if we must have these ridiculous federal programs designed to waste money and get politicians re-elected, it's only fitting that the programs should be a net loss for those who support them. I suspect that Blue state anger will grow unless a moderate Republican, or Democrat gets into office in 2009. Be careful what you wish for Mad.
i think the US gov't strategy now (and probably has been for at least a decade) is to keep cultivating the anti-mullah movement so it can peak sort of like the 1979 revolution, only into a secular democratic regime, not a terrorist mullah regime Which would be a fruitless endeavour if the US or Israel were to attack Iran. Because even those democrats want nuclear weapons, so get rid of the Mullahs you still have nuclear ambitions in Iran. Any attack against Iran would unite those within the nation against a common enemy the US, and dash any hope of a Iranian revolution. Secondly much of the support for a democratic Iran comes from the cities, and most rural Iranians would want a theocratic state, and if Iraq were to become a Shi’a state, chances are that Iran’s Mullahs will be in an even stronger position. [/i]Saddam was trying to spark it, just like the Iranian mullahs are trying now -- only they're much more active, powerful, influential, and destabilizing. continuing my analogy: if Saddam had matches, Iran has a blow torch.[/i] Saddam was not a threat to anyone in the region, if anything he kept the region in relative peace as shown by this “democratization of Iraq” bullshit that is going on. Iran is the natural superpower of the region, and I feel that eventually she will get the bomb, and if not Iran, Saudi Arabia. Iran has learned the lessons from Iraq and the experiences of 1981, and learned a few tricks from their allies North Korea, Iran also has support from China and Russia at the UN so it would very difficult to get anything done. they are quite fundamentally different. i mean, it remains to be seen how Sistnani will run things, but i think it will be nowhere near as evil as the Iranian mullahs. This sounds like an episode of daffy duck “evil” god how simpleton can one get? The reality is simple a Iraqi Shi’a victory will be a boost to Tehran, there are going to be Shi’a theocratic laws introduced, they aren’t going to give much to the Sunni’s or the Kurds because after 80 years of no one caring about them they are going to do what they believe to be their manifest power, and destiny. Also the unsuing civil war that will most likely swap Iraq after the Sunni’s attack the Shi’a due to their powers, who do you think the Shi’a are going to go to for help? they also want to be the most powerful and feared country in the middle east. not in terms of "we'll take your business" feared, but in terms of "do as we say or we'll bomb you" feared. That’s too simple; Iran has never attacked another country in the region. Actually the only nation that I know of that Iran attacked was Afghanistan’s Taliban! Iran knows it cannot export the revolution by military means it would encounter American forces eventually. Iran is doing what the Soviet bloc did before, use proxies to further its goals. Now I realize that your Zionist upbringing has shown the world in a black and white light but its much more complicated then what you think the world is. once they export their ideals and influence, they will try to implement their stated objective of "eradicating the Zionist cancer" from the M.E. To be fair to Iran…which Muslim government in history didn’t have that explicit goal? Iran is the only nation in the region that can tame Israel, and I see the growth of Iran as a good thing because the Middle East will finally reach parity, even with a elected, democratic Iranian government chances are that things vis-à-vis Israel will not change significantly, nor would Iran’s growing military power. China and Russia are defacto Iranian allies, and realize that Iran has trillions of dollars ready to spend in the future for everything from weapons to food stuffs. With the inevitable fall of the United States economy, and the rise of China the dynamics of the Middle East could very well change. why don't they support the road map? why don't they want peace between "Palestinians" and Israelis? No they don’t…like Israel Iran needs an enemy to keep its government legitimate. see, it's against US interest to have a crazy regime in power in Iran, because it'll cost more lives in the long run. Why do so many ignorant people love the term crazy? What does Iran do that is so crazy? If anything Iran is pursuing a very successful foreign policy, and has shown that one doesn’t need to rely on the United States for economic growth, or military power. the mullahs are not pussycats. they are dangerous and need to be taken care of. Let the Iranian people deal with them. btw, a big difference between NK and Iran: NK want food, supplies, etc., which is why they got the nukes. Iran, which is developing nukes right now, they don't even want any economic carrots. they want the nuke technology, period. why? Of course Iran wants more economic markets, and Europe is wiling to offer it to them, Iran already has Russia and China and NK, and Pakistan for its nuclear tech. all Iran wants now is more markets for its oil, and NG.
"That’s too simple; Iran has never attacked another country in the region", Undecided Well it depends on how you define "attack". Iran has been attacking Israel for decades by supporting Hezbollah and Hamas. They attacked the U.S. soldiers in 1983, which eventually led to U.S. support of the Iraq invasion. I think it has taken a great deal of patience by Israel that it has not assualted Iran in the past. There is no difference between a terrorist attack or an assault by a nations army, except that one is veiled. "Which would be a fruitless endeavour if the US or Israel were to attack Iran", Undecided Agreed, which is why Israel has remained so patient with Iran. Israel should play the same game as Iran, and destroy some of Iran's nuclear potential covertly. Then simply deny that you ever launched an attack. Iran has been getting away with it for decades. Any direct assualt would only strengthen the present government. "Let the Iranian people deal with them.", Undecided The problem might be that this will never happen. Covert destabilization attempts and support of democratic elements in Iran (the right way), would help the process move along.
