Yeah, right. No one could make an educated guess about what the world would be like if Iran were the most powerful nation on the planet. I predict a loving and peaceful place, a world in harmonious bliss. And you aren't having a debate. You are just banging out anti Israeli/US lines again and again whilst totally ignoring the issues with Iran and Syria. We all know what Israel and the US have been up to over the decades. It's you who seems to be ignoring what Syria and Iran have been doing.
I proposed posting pics of tits, fannies and gapes and they all stopped posting for a while but it obviously got started back up again Bastards
Ever heard of the Lancet tally Dev, and this is for Iraq only "An eminent research team from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health ↑ in Baltimore, United States estimates that as of July 2006, 654,965 Iraqis have died as a consequence of the war. Of these, 601,027 deaths are due to violence. The study specifies that people in Iraq are dying at a rate two-and-a-half times greater since the invasion occurred, and that violent deaths are primarily responsible for the increase. " and this total is only up to July 2006 I think I am not ignoring Syria or Iran, I never said either side were saints. As ar as Iran go I struggle to see what they have really done wrong, it does make me uncomfortable that they have continued their alliance with Syria, but they are a nation currently short of friends. And it is childish dicussing what ifs. Iran are not and never will be in that position so it is a waste of time to debate such things.
Violence by whom exactly? Don't tell me you think those are all casualties caused DIRECTLY by US troops? I'll grant you that the Yanks are not exactly A1 when it comes to target selection but I doubt they killed a half a million people.
Directly it is in the 10s of thousands but collaterally these deaths are still their fault. They went in on false pretenses, toppled a hateful despot yes but a hateful despot that was maintaining law and order, they stirred the hornets nest. These civilians didnt ask for this sort of conflict in their country but America brought it to them and the populous blame them for it as a result
Ok now I get you but I don't agree. A hateful despot, Saddam certainly was but I don't think a fragile excuse for law and order was a fair price to pay for his continued reign of terror. You do know he murdered 100s of thousands of people off his own back don't you? Maybe the reason for war was false, as in the case of Gaddaffi I believe taking him out was the correct thing to do, the end justified the means.
If he is hateful enough to topple just say it. To justify military action on lies and then have it accepted as ends justifying means makes me very uncomfortable. For that reason I would tend to take Irans side here. No where has it been displayed that Iran's nuclear research has a military element. Not in the much trumpeted IAEA report, not from American military and intelligence chiefs, yet this excuse seems to be leading us down a very familiar path. An attack on Iran will make Iraq and its fallout look like a cakewalk. Many people on all sides will die. Lives ruined, children maimed. The only people who stand to gain are the shareholders of firms like Lockheed, BEA, Boeing, Haliburton etc.
WHo knows Jacky, you may be right and there is no valid reason for anyone to go to war with Iraq, but like Saddam, their refusal to even discuss it is doing them no favours.
Where did they get reliable figures for death tolls in Iraq before the demise of Saddam? I doubt that he did headcounts when he was slaughtering people, somehow. Why did you ignore my point about Iran's leadership, Jacky? Theocratic loons issuing fatwas against authors generally aren't going to be trusted too easily, are they?
