Post by: bblackwood on July 09, 2008, 11:40:41 AM
Ugh.
Post by: Jay Kadis on July 09, 2008, 11:53:33 AM
Worth reading.
Post by: J-Texas on July 09, 2008, 11:56:24 AM
Missile tests. Threats. They're enriching uranium for energy???
Post by: bblackwood on July 09, 2008, 12:04:00 PM
This sucks.
Post by: mgod on July 09, 2008, 12:07:31 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Wed, 09 July 2008 08:40 |
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSDAH91544220080709 ?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews |
And who can blame them, given what this administration keeps saying? They keep pounding the drumbeat of aggression on the middle east. Only 6 months left!
DS
Post by: C.Cash on July 09, 2008, 12:13:47 PM
This is what I have been using for the last 9 months. 85mpg.
Post by: JDNelson on July 09, 2008, 12:29:45 PM
| mgod wrote on Wed, 09 July 2008 09:07 |
And who can blame them, given what this administration keeps saying? They keep pounding the drumbeat of aggression on the middle east. Only 6 months left! DS |
Dan, I hear what you're saying, but remember when the Iranian "students" seized our embassy in '79? Jimmy Carter was president, and he was hardly a warmonger. Those folks have a serious chip on their shoulders...
Post by: PRobb on July 09, 2008, 12:46:32 PM
| mgod wrote on Wed, 09 July 2008 12:07 | ||
And who can blame them, given what this administration keeps saying? They keep pounding the drumbeat of aggression on the middle east. Only 6 months left! DS |
The game is militaristic bluster. Why do we think we're the only ones who get to play?
Six months.
Six more months.
Then a sane person takes over.
Post by: mgod on July 09, 2008, 12:48:06 PM
| JDNelson wrote on Wed, 09 July 2008 09:29 |
Dan, I hear what you're saying, but remember when the Iranian "students" seized our embassy in '79? Jimmy Carter was president, and he was hardly a warmonger. Those folks have a serious chip on their shoulders... |
Yes they do. So do some of us.
DS
Post by: bblackwood on July 09, 2008, 12:49:04 PM
Post by: J-Texas on July 09, 2008, 01:24:35 PM
| PRobb wrote on Wed, 09 July 2008 11:46 |
Six more months. Then a sane person takes over. |
Who? This guy?
Post by: mgod on July 09, 2008, 01:32:45 PM
Post by: J-Texas on July 09, 2008, 01:57:43 PM
Post by: JDNelson on July 09, 2008, 02:05:19 PM
| mgod wrote on Wed, 09 July 2008 09:48 | ||
Yes they do. So do some of us. DS |
Contrast the Middle East grudge-driven mindset with that of Vietnam. The U.S. carpet bombed and napalmed them(!) But the Vietnamese communists have basically let bygones be bygones and now they are eager for business deals, etc. A rather adult rational attitude IMO.
I mean the Japanese would have more to hate us for for A-bombing 'em. But they've moved on, as rational adults do.
The beef that Iranian militants have with the U.S. relates to basic skullduggery the CIA undertook to put their desired guy in charge decades ago. Big friggin' whoop. Get over it!
What I'm thinking is, even with Obama as president, I doubt that the Iranian regime's attitude is going to change.
Post by: mgod on July 09, 2008, 02:09:00 PM
But I assume you'll be enlisting - because you're right, its easy to armchair this.
http://www.agd.state.tx.us/rr/
DS
Post by: mgod on July 09, 2008, 02:12:36 PM
| JDNelson wrote on Wed, 09 July 2008 11:05 |
Contrast the Middle East grudge-driven mindset with that of Vietnam. The U.S. carpet bombed and napalmed them(!) But the Vietnamese communists have basically let bygones be bygones and now they are eager for business deals, etc. A rather adult rational attitude IMO. I mean the Japanese would have more to hate us for for A-bombing 'em. But they've moved on, as rational adults do. The beef that Iranian militants have with the U.S. relates to basic skullduggery the CIA undertook to put their desired guy in charge decades ago. Big friggin' whoop. Get over it! What I'm thinking is, even with Obama as president, I doubt that the Iranian regime's attitude is going to change. |
The Viet Nam-ese got over it quite a long time after we got out. The Iranians will too. If we ever get out, which we likely won't. And remember, unlike here, the power in Iran is not in the regime.
DS
Post by: J-Texas on July 09, 2008, 02:29:01 PM
Even Obama, who was so radical and so left before he got the nomination, has changed his tune about the war.
He used to say that he would excuse a battalion a month. Well, guess what? He says now that if he's elected he'll weigh his options carefully, blah, blah, blah.
Our presence over there is making a difference. Iraq is the most confident than it's ever been. They are proud that they have terrorists on the move and it's clear that their military is getting self-sufficient. If we moved out, it would be a matter of time before someone else took Saddam's place.
How would you feel if Iran DID close down the Strait of Hormuz and you couldn't get to work because you're paying $20 a gallon for gas? Iran is threating the world! Now let's throw in some ballistic missile testing and some uranium and YES... we've got a big problem.
I would like to think we could just sit down and talk and everybody just calm down and let's iron out our differences and peace and love and let's cut some records and everything will work out... that's not life. That's not the world we live in. There are crazy fucking people around every corner. You can't TALK to crazy fucking people man. There's no rationalizing with irrational people.
Post by: rankus on July 09, 2008, 02:48:51 PM
Maybe Iran is simply trying to keep us on our heels... "Lets threaten the oil supply... the oil companies will panic, the prices will go up and that will be bad for the western economy.."
Mission already accomplished
Post by: mgod on July 09, 2008, 02:50:41 PM
| J-Texas wrote on Wed, 09 July 2008 11:29 |
There are crazy fucking people around every corner. You can't TALK to crazy fucking people man. There's no rationalizing with irrational people. |
Its true!
DS
Post by: JDNelson on July 09, 2008, 02:52:50 PM
Post by: J-Texas on July 09, 2008, 02:55:52 PM
| mgod wrote on Wed, 09 July 2008 13:50 | ||
Its true! DS |
What are you saying?
Post by: YZ on July 09, 2008, 02:59:03 PM
| J-Texas wrote on Wed, 09 July 2008 15:29 |
How would you feel if Iran DID close down the Strait of Hormuz and you couldn't get to work because you're paying $20 a gallon for gas? |
One more reason to:
1- drive smaller, more efficient cars;
2- use renewable fuel sources that do not depend on oil.
If the average U.S. citizen wants to maintain his 'way of life', he'll have to change it a bit to make it sustainable and less subject to the whims of lunatics.
Post by: mgod on July 09, 2008, 03:00:46 PM
Just so we have a little awareness from the comfort of our non-combatant armchairs. As with any war, if you think it should be fought you should be doing the fighting. You should have to kill someone yourself if you think its justified, and live with the damage it does to your mind and body.
DS
Post by: Jay Kadis on July 09, 2008, 03:06:43 PM
Post by: YZ on July 09, 2008, 03:23:47 PM
| mgod wrote on Wed, 09 July 2008 16:00 |
Just to put a little perspective on the situation, these are people over there: men, women, children, lovers, bakers, musicians, etc. My wife has some students from there who's parents spend half the year here and half the year there. These are the people were getting all hopped up to kill. KILL. Just so we have a little awareness from the comfort of our non-combatant armchairs. As with any war, if you think it should be fought you should be doing the fighting. You should have to kill someone yourself if you think its justified, and live with the damage it does to your mind and body. DS |
Yes, mgod.
And there will always be a state of 'near-war' for as long as certain regimes have enough power to constitute a threat.
Just like Reagan broke down the Soviet Union with a fantasy war program and efficient counter-espionage without shedding a drop of blood, there's a way to reduce the power of those belligerant states: cut their supply of money.
Reduce your consumption of oil-derived energy.
This will reduce the power of the Islamic dictators and of clowns like Chavez.
And just like the Star Wars fake program had its costs, the reduction in oil consumption will have its costs too, but IMHO the long-term benefits, which include more than world peace, will be long-lasting and far-reaching.
A little less comfort now with less HVAC, less opulent automobiles, more rational use of energy, a shift from disposable goods to durable ones and other small things that add up.
Needs effort? yes. But again IMHO it ends up being less costly than a state of war, in all accounts.
Post by: JDNelson on July 09, 2008, 03:47:36 PM
Post by: mgod on July 09, 2008, 03:56:28 PM
DS
Post by: Berolzheimer on July 09, 2008, 04:06:08 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_ hersh
"Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership. ......"
Post by: J-Texas on July 09, 2008, 05:17:13 PM
Isn't that what this thread was about? Once again, just another anti-Bush, screw America, soapbox thread.
We can sign petitions, stand up and unite, and all that jazz, but we don't call the shots. And frankly, I'm glad that we don't, because we are all misguided products of spoon-fed info.
I'm just a squirrel trying to get a nut.
Post by: JDNelson on July 09, 2008, 05:32:43 PM
The thugs who took over (masquerading as "students") seized our embassy and abused our diplomats. This was an act so barbaric it hadn't been done in hundreds of years. Hitler, Stalin, Tojo... none of them ever violated diplomatic immunity. That's how "out there" the act of invading a sovereign embassy was.
There are eyewitnesses who place Ahmajinedad at the scene as one of the hostage-takers, although it hasn't been "officially" confirmed.
What we have today is all of the chickens coming home to roost. And the choices for the West aren't very appealing, to be frank. Like that old joke about wrestling with a pig. You'll just get dirty and besides the pig enjoys it!
Had we applied a measured military support to keep the Shah in power, perhaps things would be different. In retrospect, the Pehlavi family were positively enlightened leaders...
Post by: PRobb on July 09, 2008, 05:41:23 PM
| J-Texas wrote on Wed, 09 July 2008 14:29 |
How would you feel if Iran DID close down the Strait of Hormuz and you couldn't get to work because you're paying $20 a gallon for gas? |
Good question. If we went the military route, that would be their response. And it wouldn't be at all difficult for them to accomplish.
Post by: Barry Hufker on July 09, 2008, 06:08:01 PM
There are quite a few anti-government (theirs) Iranians. They wish we would shut up so they can carry on their movement. By us heating things us for their government, the government is cracking down on them.
Post by: jimlongo on July 09, 2008, 06:10:58 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 09 July 2008 18:08 |
There are quite a few anti-government (theirs) Iranians. They wish we would shut up so they can carry on their movement. By us heating things us for their government, the government is cracking down on them. |
Exactly. We play right into their hands. Demonizing them just strengthens their position, One needn't look any further than Cuba to see how it plays out.
Post by: J-Texas on July 09, 2008, 07:19:39 PM
| PRobb wrote on Wed, 09 July 2008 16:41 | ||
Good question. If we went the military route, that would be their response. And it wouldn't be at all difficult for them to accomplish. |
So, are you saying that we should tell them that it's okay to carry on with the ballistic missile testing as long as they promise to never use them on neighboring countries? And that it's okay to enrich the uranium as long as it's used for energy and they will never decide one day to use the technology to attach a nuclear warhead to those missiles? What happens when diplomacy doesn't work anymore? How do you know that there haven't been "talks" for ages? We know what we are allowed to know.
No. It wouldn't be hard for them to shut down the strait. It also wouldn't be that hard for us to open it right back up.
Post by: mgod on July 09, 2008, 08:26:55 PM
| J-Texas wrote on Wed, 09 July 2008 16:19 |
So, are you saying that we should tell them that it's okay to carry on with the ballistic missile testing as long as they promise to never use them on neighboring countries? And that it's okay to enrich the uranium as long as it's used for energy and they will never decide one day to use the technology to attach a nuclear warhead to those missiles? What happens when diplomacy doesn't work anymore? How do you know that there haven't been "talks" for ages? We know what we are allowed to know. No. It wouldn't be hard for them to shut down the strait. It also wouldn't be that hard for us to open it right back up. |
Last time I looked, Iran was a sovereign nation, considerably older than ours, and not subject to US law or US political manipulation. In a free world whoever wants to build ad test any technology is free to do it. Of course if the world ISN'T free, and we are the group calling the shots (for now, China will be doing it very soon), then its a whole different story. But lets not have any of this leader of the free world and greatest nation on earth crap then. We defend freedom or we don't. Freedom means not imposing our momentary political will on other nations as we have of course done in Iran, time and time again. And lets not bitch when China imposes its will on us.
Its interesting that no one ever talks about international co-operation to use nuclear energy, with international standards available to all. Its all about controlling who has the right to it. The homemakers in Iran have the same right to it as ours do, and the generals in Iran have the same right to test ballistic missiles as we do.
Again, if we're not in favor of freedom, we really just ought to STFU about it.
DS
Post by: mgod on July 09, 2008, 08:30:11 PM
| JDNelson wrote on Wed, 09 July 2008 14:32 |
Had we applied a measured military support to keep the Shah in power, perhaps things would be different. In retrospect, the Pehlavi family were positively enlightened leaders... |
Except of course for torture, disappearances and the fact that they were installed by the west after deposing a democratically elected leader. I mean, other than that, sure! Positively beneficent!
DS
Post by: maxim on July 09, 2008, 10:01:51 PM
the nerve!!!!
Post by: Berolzheimer on July 10, 2008, 01:47:35 AM
http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobsiran.html
Post by: Barry Hufker on July 10, 2008, 02:10:07 AM
Post by: PRobb on July 10, 2008, 08:06:41 AM
| JDNelson wrote on Wed, 09 July 2008 17:32 |
I remember reading an article in National Geographic magazine, about Iran. This would have been just before all hell broke loose there, right about '78 or '79. The overall picture they painted was a country shaking off the past and quickly entering the 20th century, thanks to progressive leadership by the Pahlavi family. Months later and all that was, as they say, history. |
I don't know what article you read, but you were misled. The Shah was a brutal dictator. SAVAK, his Gestapo style secret police, kept the population in check through brute intimidation. Political opponents "disappeared" pretty regularly. Torture was standard procedure. And the Shah was on the throne because the CIA helped him overthrow a democratically elected government that was going to nationalize the oil industry.
The Shah was seen, correctly, as an American puppet. So when the people rose up to overthrow the dictator, America was part of the enemy. Sadly for them, they wound up going from bad to worse. But there's no mystery where the revolutionary fervor, or the anti Americanism, of 1979 came from.
Post by: bblackwood on July 10, 2008, 10:29:31 AM
Great, now we're being 'threatened' and feel the need to 'defend ourselves'.
Post by: Fibes on July 10, 2008, 10:32:04 AM
In that case it's time to dust off the mickey mouse mirror i have from 74 that reads "Fuck Iran!"
Does that mean we are no longer at war with Eurasia?
Post by: PRobb on July 10, 2008, 10:36:08 AM
| Fibes wrote on Thu, 10 July 2008 10:32 |
The propaganda machine is in full effect. In that case it's time to dust off the mickey mouse mirror i have from 74 that reads "Fuck Iran!" Does that mean we are no longer at war with Eurasia? |
We are at war with Oceania. We have always been at war with Oceania.
Post by: JDNelson on July 10, 2008, 11:39:20 AM
| mgod wrote on Wed, 09 July 2008 17:26 |
Its interesting that no one ever talks about international co-operation to use nuclear energy, with international standards available to all. DS |
There was a briefing of on Undersecretary of State by the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday, and I caught a bit of it on C-SPAN. There is a clear protocol in place for any nation to utilize nuclear energy. It's the reprocessing of the fuel, which has weapons implications, which is proscribed by the international agreements. All of the committee members of both parties were strongly in agreement with preventing Iran from pursuing this technology, which is not the same thing as trying to prevent them from using nuclear enery for electrical power generation. The Committe Chairman, Joe Biden (a Democrat the last time I checked) was quite strongly in favor of this position.
Post by: JDNelson on July 10, 2008, 11:43:25 AM
| PRobb wrote on Thu, 10 July 2008 05:06 |
I don't know what article you read, but you were misled. The Shah was a brutal dictator. SAVAK, his Gestapo style secret police, kept the population in check through brute intimidation. Political opponents "disappeared" pretty regularly. Torture was standard procedure. And the Shah was on the throne because the CIA helped him overthrow a democratically elected government that was going to nationalize the oil industry. The Shah was seen, correctly, as an American puppet. So when the people rose up to overthrow the dictator, America was part of the enemy. Sadly for them, they wound up going from bad to worse. But there's no mystery where the revolutionary fervor, or the anti Americanism, of 1979 came from. |
What I'm suggesting is that you guys are "making the perfect the enemy of the good". When you consider the brutal, uncompromising nature of his Islamist enemies, what else could the Shah do to maintain order? Sometimes it's a choice of lesser evils...
Post by: Barry Hufker on July 10, 2008, 11:56:24 AM
We are often the masters of our own destruction. We've screwed around with nation-building to upset most of the world and we do it just to please ourselves.
I don't think any single founder of this country would approve of this strategy.
Post by: bblackwood on July 10, 2008, 12:10:57 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 10 July 2008 10:56 |
I don't think any single founder of this country would approve of this strategy. |
Just guessing, but I suspect they'd despise it...
Post by: J-Texas on July 10, 2008, 12:18:21 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 10 July 2008 10:56 |
We've screwed around with nation-building to upset most of the world and we do it just to please ourselves. |
Professor, please. I'm sure the Iraqi people feel they are better off now... don't you?
Post by: Jay Kadis on July 10, 2008, 12:19:48 PM
| JDNelson wrote on Wed, 09 July 2008 14:32 |
I remember reading an article in National Geographic magazine, about Iran. This would have been just before all hell broke loose there, right about '78 or '79. The overall picture they painted was a country shaking off the past and quickly entering the 20th century, thanks to progressive leadership by the Pahlavi family. Months later and all that was, as they say, history. |
Post by: PRobb on July 10, 2008, 12:20:07 PM
| JDNelson wrote on Thu, 10 July 2008 11:43 |
What I'm suggesting is that you guys are "making the perfect the enemy of the good". When you consider the brutal, uncompromising nature of his Islamist enemies, what else could the Shah do to maintain order? Sometimes it's a choice of lesser evils... |
You need to learn some history. The brutality of the Shah is what lead to the Islamist takeover.
Post by: mgod on July 10, 2008, 12:30:19 PM
| J-Texas wrote on Thu, 10 July 2008 09:18 |
Professor, please. I'm sure the Iraqi people feel they are better off now... don't you? |
No and no. WE are in a lot more danger then before we destabilized Iraq, and the Iraqi people, while being no freer, are faced everyday with a lot more death. So-called political freedom, while not being able to leave one's house and not even being safe in that house, is not freedom. They were considerably more secure under our chosen and armed dictator, Hussein. He was brutal with weapons "we" (Cheney/Rumsfeld) sold him. This war (Cheney/Rumsfeld) is more brutal.
DS
Post by: Barry Hufker on July 10, 2008, 01:33:10 PM
| J-Texas wrote on Thu, 10 July 2008 11:18 | ||
Professor, please. I'm sure the Iraqi people feel they are better off now... don't you? |
Absolutely not. Not one lick better and hundreds of thousands dead, many of whom have helped us have been executed. Even the government we put in place in Iraq is corrupt through and through with private allegiances of their own with militant groups
Over the years we've set up the following governments:
1. Noriega in Panama. Worked as a paid CIA operative (a dictator whom we later removed).
2. Various U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials have asserted that Saddam was strongly linked with the CIA, and that U.S. intelligence, under President John F. Kennedy, helped Saddam's party seize power for the first time in 1963 (whom we removed and had executed).
3. "In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."
4. The (disasterous) Bay of Pigs Invasion as an attempt to overthrow Castro in Cuba.
5. Pakistan: Western countries (including the United States and the United Kingdom) have switched from sanctions to active support through military and monetary aid.
6.Osama bin Laden: trained and armed by the U.S. in a successful effort to overthrow the Russians in Afghanistan.
I'm sure there are more.
Post by: mgod on July 10, 2008, 02:22:19 PM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 10 July 2008 10:33 |
Over the years we've set up the following governments: 1. Noriega in Panama. Worked as a paid CIA operative (a dictator whom we later removed). 2. Various U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials have asserted that Saddam was strongly linked with the CIA, and that U.S. intelligence, under President John F. Kennedy, helped Saddam's party seize power for the first time in 1963 (whom we removed and had executed). 3. "In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs." 4. The (disasterous) Bay of Pigs Invasion as an attempt to overthrow Castro in Cuba. 5. Pakistan: Western countries (including the United States and the United Kingdom) have switched from sanctions to active support through military and monetary aid. 6.Osama bin Laden: trained and armed by the U.S. in a successful effort to overthrow the Russians in Afghanistan. I'm sure there are more. |
Man!!!
Do NOT mess with the Professor!
DS
Post by: PRobb on July 10, 2008, 04:01:41 PM
| J-Texas wrote on Thu, 10 July 2008 12:18 | ||
Professor, please. I'm sure the Iraqi people feel they are better off now... don't you? |
I'll let Doonesbury take that one.
Post by: PRobb on July 10, 2008, 04:03:06 PM
Post by: J-Texas on July 10, 2008, 04:15:37 PM
| mgod wrote on Thu, 10 July 2008 13:22 |
Man!!! Do NOT mess with the Professor! DS |
What are you the peanut gallery?
While I understand your point, Professor... I can't fathom that we're talking about the same people here. I mentioned the Iraqis and Saddam. The guy who:
Put bodies in mass graves. Some still alive.
The Anfal Campaign. 100,000 Kurds killed by chemical weapons.
During the '91 uprising killed 50,000 fed up civilians.
Drained the marshlands and deprived people of a way to live.
His motorcade was shot at... he bulldozed the whole town of Dujail, killed 150 men and 1,500 women and children were taken to prison.
Dropped bombs of mustard gas and nerve agents on Halabja. 5,000 men, women, and children dead. 10,000 more disfigured, sick, cancer.
Now:
Businesses are re-opening.
City councils are meeting.
Iraqi government has passed a budget.
Is making laws.
The national government is sharing oil revenues w/towns.
Iraqi police and military are taking on more or the security responsibilities.
US is talking with Jordan, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, and Egypt to encourage them to reopen their embassies in Baghdad.
I'm sorry guys, I just don't agree.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on July 10, 2008, 04:42:26 PM
| J-Texas wrote on Thu, 10 July 2008 15:15 | ||
What are you the peanut gallery? While I understand your point, Professor... I can't fathom that we're talking about the same people here. I mentioned the Iraqis and Saddam. The guy who: Put bodies in mass graves. Some still alive. The Anfal Campaign. 100,000 Kurds killed by chemical weapons. During the '91 uprising killed 50,000 fed up civilians. Drained the marshlands and deprived people of a way to live. His motorcade was shot at... he bulldozed the whole town of Dujail, killed 150 men and 1,500 women and children were taken to prison. Dropped bombs of mustard gas and nerve agents on Halabja. 5,000 men, women, and children dead. 10,000 more disfigured, sick, cancer. Now: Businesses are re-opening. City councils are meeting. Iraqi government has passed a budget. Is making laws. The national government is sharing oil revenues w/towns. Iraqi police and military are taking on more or the security responsibilities. US is talking with Jordan, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, and Egypt to encourage them to reopen their embassies in Baghdad. I'm sorry guys, I just don't agree. |
Some good things may be happening. I'm really not well kept up on this subject. But the question was, are they better off?
And "better" is subjective.
You can't argue with the tens of thousands of civilians who have been killed. Can you imagine if 80,000 American civilians were killed in this war? The outcry would be unbelievable. But these are Iraqis.... so where is the outcry?
"Better off" is extremely relative. And it is not our country, nor our lives that are at the center of what is going on. It is theirs.
Post by: J-Texas on July 10, 2008, 04:55:02 PM
It's not cool. I know. "Better off" that after this shit is over, one could live without the fear that he will be forced to lop off a friend's hand in public.
The casualties of war. Unfortunate. Necessary?
Whatever the conspiracy theory, conservative-bashing, anti-government, underlying arguments to this war...
We are helping a country form a safe, democratic government where people can live with hope instead of fear. Not today. Someday. That's why it's so important for us to stay there and make sure it happens.
Post by: Jay Kadis on July 10, 2008, 05:06:23 PM
| J-Texas wrote on Thu, 10 July 2008 13:55 |
Jessica, It's not cool. I know. "Better off" that after this shit is over, one could live without the fear that he will be forced to lop off a friend's hand in public. The casualties of war. Unfortunate. Necessary? Whatever the conspiracy theory, conservative-bashing, anti-government, underlying arguments to this war... We are helping a country form a safe, democratic government where people can live with hope instead of fear. Not today. Someday. That's why it's so important for us to stay there and make sure it happens. |
Post by: PRobb on July 10, 2008, 05:13:17 PM
| Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 10 July 2008 17:06 |
And what gives the US the right to install governments in other sovereign countries? |
What gives any nation the right is an immanent threat. Or as a response to an attack. That's why Afghanistan was justified. And why Iraq wasn't.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on July 10, 2008, 05:30:48 PM
| J-Texas wrote on Thu, 10 July 2008 15:55 |
Jessica, It's not cool. I know. "Better off" that after this shit is over, one could live without the fear that he will be forced to lop off a friend's hand in public. The casualties of war. Unfortunate. Necessary? Whatever the conspiracy theory, conservative-bashing, anti-government, underlying arguments to this war... We are helping a country form a safe, democratic government where people can live with hope instead of fear. Not today. Someday. That's why it's so important for us to stay there and make sure it happens. |
Jason,
I know you're heart is so very in the right place, and I am not being insincere about this. You're a helper. And I think a lot of us here would see ourselves as the same. Why else would we all come to this forum to blahblah about audio every single day? I don't think it is because any of us feel superior to anyone else. We're not here to dictate law and order into the audio business of others. It's so we can help each other, and get help in return. And that is great and wonderful.
So wonderful, in fact, that we, as Americans, see a country far away in a tight spot. like Iraq. And we logically say to ourselves, "gosh, we sure could help them out". And this might possibly be true.
However good hearted and good natured Americans can be, there are a few who don't want to "help". They want to control. This is nothing new. But if you think very carefully, you can see how this is problematic. The few people, who want control and power, can very easily say "We're going off to help!" Words are cheap, and politicians say lots of worthless words. And us poor everyday people who say "I think we should help" climb on board, because we're helpers after all. We like it.
But what is going on now is not helping. It could be that there isn't much help we can give them. They need humanitarian help, not military help.
You say yourself that the US is helping create a government in Iraq to give the people hope instead of fear. But as we all know from watching the blunders of our elected officials..... "hope" does not come from a government. False hope might. And I think believing that what we are doing is somehow an innocent, untainted attempt to help is to give America false hope.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, nor am I a conservative basher, nor am I anti-government. I want to see Iraq healed. I want to see them have hope. Just like you do. But that is not what the military is doing in Iraq. That is not what we are giving them. As long as America is afraid (see the opening post of this thread) we cannot help others to emerge from their fear. No matter how long we try, nor how desperately we want to believe we are helping.
Jessica
Post by: bblackwood on July 10, 2008, 05:38:20 PM
Post by: J-Texas on July 10, 2008, 06:16:19 PM
Jay... what gives us the right? Crimes against humanity. Like I said, the US is not perfect, but at least G-Dub wouldn't wipe out Craword, TX for stealing a horse!
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on July 10, 2008, 08:49:53 PM
| J-Texas wrote on Thu, 10 July 2008 17:16 |
Although I appreciate your approach (as always), and do respect your POV... I still have to argue that a humanitarian effort won't solve the problem of terror and fear in Iraq. I don't think you could slip a daisy in the barrel of the gun of an extremist. |
There is a problem of terror and fear here, in the "Homeland". We owe a humanitarian effort to ourselves. Humanitarian may mean "philanthropic" in some ways, but also means having to do with "humanity". Where is our humanity, Jason? If we lose that, what hope is there for anyone?
An "extremist" is a person. Nothing more. A person who's head is filled with ideas that came from someplace. That's the "-ist" part, just like an "evangelist" or a "philanthropist", or a "communist" or a "facist" or a "racist". But these are all still people. And people are dynamic, capable of changing if they want to. They can go from misunderstood and/or combative to something better. Or, they can go from indifferent to something far worse.
Understanding these things could help the situation (notice I don't say "solve" it):
1) Iraqis are just as proud of being Iraqis as we are proud of being Americans. This means that even if they do desperately need help, they might be too proud to say so. Remember what happened immediately after Hurricane Katrina? The world responded in amazing fashion with offers of aid: food, money, supplies, medicine. But most of it was rejected, even tho' it could have been put to very good use in the face of a lot of government incompetence and unlucky happenstance. Noone wanted to admit we couldn't handle the problems.
2) Their idea of help might not be our idea of help. This doesn't make it wrong for us to want to help. But consider for a moment that yes, Saddam was horrible and ruthless and violent and killed many thousands. To an Iraqi, I can see how our presence in Iraq might seem just as oppressive, violent, and lethal. It might seem better to us, because now we're in charge instead of Saddam; but to them it is likely we are about the same.
Maybe the best help would be to help the warring factions in Iraq to hate each other less. And between this kind of "help" (the "humanity"-based approach if you will), and fighting fear and terror with a show of force I assure you the first choice is the much more difficult path. They need to be reconciled to each other; that's the real problem in Iraq. That is what threatens their hope and causes the terror among themselves.
How is the US military going to help them to do this, I ask you? I sincerely hope there is a way. But...
you cannot quiet fear and terror with a gun.
Not in Iraq, not in America. It doesn't work that way.
Brad,
Who knows what to believe anymore? People will pay $100 for a tank of gas, but truth seems to be worthless. I am ashamed to say that it is causing me to lose heart.
Jessica
Post by: i dig music on July 10, 2008, 10:20:17 PM
i love how so many buy into this perpetual bullshit......
Post by: Barry Hufker on July 10, 2008, 10:43:20 PM
When you do start watching the BBC, your draw will drop at realizing what the world thinks of us.
Post by: J-Texas on July 10, 2008, 10:53:16 PM
Sorry... but we DON'T possess the same type of fear that these people have. We could chat like this in a coffee shop over a latte and a scone, but under Saddam's rule, we would have secret police pulling out tongues out in public. It's not the same. I don't buy it! Sorry.
As far as Katrina. What I remember is Bush hovering around in his helicopter for three days and people begging for help and shouting from their rooftops with no food or water. A hideous site of an overflowing football stadium where people were getting beaten and raped. You don't think those people wanted help? You think they were too proud? Most of those people moved to Houston and Dallas. We were bringing in kids into school here in Plano! I just got back from NO and it looked like a ghost town in the Quarter.
Post by: Berolzheimer on July 11, 2008, 12:09:28 AM
It's not 80 thousand, it's over a MILLION.
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html
And American casualties, including injuries, possibly as many as 100,000.
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
NOW do you think the Iraqi people are better off? The dead ones certainly aren't.
Post by: Jay Kadis on July 11, 2008, 10:20:38 AM
| J-Texas wrote on Thu, 10 July 2008 15:16 |
Jay... what gives us the right? Crimes against humanity. Like I said, the US is not perfect, but at least G-Dub wouldn't wipe out Craword, TX for stealing a horse! |
Post by: weepit on July 11, 2008, 10:41:13 AM
| J-Texas wrote on Thu, 10 July 2008 17:16 |
Jay... what gives us the right? Crimes against humanity. Like I said, the US is not perfect, but at least G-Dub wouldn't wipe out Craword, TX for stealing a horse! |
you honestly believe that we did this to help iraq gain democracy? really?
i am sorry but that is absurd. there are plenty of countries around the globe with governments as bad or worse than iraq under saddam but we don't bother them at all. they don't have oil.
"Crimes against humanity." hook, line and sinker...
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on July 11, 2008, 10:51:51 AM
| J-Texas wrote on Thu, 10 July 2008 21:53 |
Jessica, Sorry... but we DON'T possess the same type of fear that these people have. We could chat like this in a coffee shop over a latte and a scone, but under Saddam's rule, we would have secret police pulling out tongues out in public. It's not the same. I don't buy it! Sorry. As far as Katrina. What I remember is Bush hovering around in his helicopter for three days and people begging for help and shouting from their rooftops with no food or water. A hideous site of an overflowing football stadium where people were getting beaten and raped. You don't think those people wanted help? You think they were too proud? Most of those people moved to Houston and Dallas. We were bringing in kids into school here in Plano! I just got back from NO and it looked like a ghost town in the Quarter. |
I know it doesn't manifest itself the same way here as it does in Iraq. You are correct about that.
You misunderstand my reason for mentioning Katrina. I never meant to say that the people in New Orleans weren't in need. They were in great need. But, those people were powerless to make choices to help themselves. They weren't calling the shots when the aid was offered. It was those in control who said "no".
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on July 11, 2008, 11:01:14 AM
| weepit wrote on Fri, 11 July 2008 09:41 | ||
you honestly believe that we did this to help iraq gain democracy? really? |
I think that is what our leader(s) wanted us to believe. I'll wager that is what a lot of Americans wanted. And we really wanted so much to believe them that we said Okay.
Am I wrong in thinking this? Is it really so unimaginable that the ones making the choices played us all like a fiddle? Its not really a conspiracy, it's pretty much out in the open for all to see.
We always say "we", but it's a little self-abusive to claim that NO Americans want to see a safe, democratic Iraq. That we're all somehow out to kill and torture Iraqis. Not everyone in America has a say in what is going on here.
No, George W. is not like Saddam. I'm trying to understand what Jason is getting at, here. But just because our tempers run high is no reason to be condescending about his ideas. Give a little respect.
The saddest part of all this is we're all pretty much in the dark. Barry is right about the BBC... but even so I can't help but doubt any news that comes my way. People seem to mold the news to support their own agendas, whatever that is.
Post by: J-Texas on July 11, 2008, 11:04:28 AM
Of course it had a lot to do with oil. Why do you think Saddam was burning all the oil fields in '91?
I'm sure there were MANY reason for all of this. A lot of which none of us REALLY know. OK. That still doesn't change the fact that Saddam was (edit for tense), nor the Al Queda are doing ANYONE any good.
No war is good. Do you really think that during the Civil War, brothers wanted to shoot each other because they lived in different states? Sometimes some gruesome things are necessary for the greater good.
We can't just tell the terrorist to leave Iraq and never come back. Oil, terrorist, vendettas, anger, freedom... we're there. Whatever the reason, WE ARE THERE. It would be horrible to leave these people in a shitstorm. It's not fair for left wing peace lovers to try and take the US out of there right now. EVEN Obama realizes that. He just wanted to get the nomination.
Like I said, damned if we do, damned if we don't. We would DEFINITELY be even more hated around the world if we got out of there. We would look weak to the terrorists and put everyone in more danger.
That's why McCain said we would stay there for a 100 years. If we have to... so be it! We started something (WHATEVER THE REASON) and it's only right to finish it. That is what is happening over there now. We are helping to set up the government and the military to succeed. Most importantly, economically.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on July 11, 2008, 11:25:57 AM
OK, first, I would suggest you realize that more people than just the "left wing" want American soldiers out of Iraq. I consider myself very neutral, politically. Even to the point of a general apathy. But even an apathetic person can only see so much before you can no longer realize something went wrong.
And yes, something did go wrong. The American Civil War was not right. Yes, brothers were killing each other, but eventually someone came to a realization that "this is not how things are supposed to be". We grew out of our differences and our hatred of each other and a lot of those wounds were healed with progress and the passage of time. Noone made us do it, or could have made us do it. We had to choose it for ourselves. And it took a long time to fix the brokenness it caused.
To tell you the truth, I think you're right about the disaster that would be left in Iraq if America made a complete withdrawl. However, "WE ARE THERE" is more accurately described as "the American military" is there. Do you admit that leaving soldiers in Iraq is the only way for the US to keep a presence there? Or that this is the only way to "help"?
We might not be more hated around the world if "we" got out of there. If we must keep a presence in Iraq and continue to influence them, perhaps military strength is not the only way.(You said yourself, economics was the most important).
Send economists, send business people, send doctors and teachers. This is not hippy, peace-loving crap. It is giving a chance to intelligence and planning. It is hard work and takes just as much money and planning as a military occupation. Give research a chance. Maybe if we could identify what makes their economy go in the first place, we could bolster it and help it grow.
Maybe "we" should be there for 100 years, or more. I don't know. But if that is the case, must the only bit of "us" present there be our military? No, the terrorists won't go away just because we tell them to. But they also won't go away by killing them. So what is the next step?
Maybe we don't need to get out of Iraq as importantly as we need a "next step". America is an ingenuity engine. I feel so strongly that whatever we choose to do, we can think of something "better" than our current behavior.
Post by: J-Texas on July 11, 2008, 11:45:40 AM
There WILL be a time for the humanitarian process. It's wonderful to think of a safer time when corps volunteers could be there to help, along with doctors, economists, more.
Right now though... killing terrorists is the only way. The Iraqi military has the Al Queda "hiding in the hills" right now. Deadly force, IMO, is the only way because these people will stop at nothing. They will die for their beliefs in an instant.
The world needs to know that NOWHERE will be a safe haven for terrorists. The ones involved in this type of extreme behavior need to know that they will be found. We don't need to pay off an informant again and have him keep our money and let Bin Laden escape either. We need to carpet bomb his cave and be done with it.
I'm not saying the ones in Washington making "our" decisions aren't greedy fuckers. I'm saying that whatever the masquerade is, we have a moral obligation and a responsibility as a strong nation to help countries of the world to be free of tyranny.
We are not the only ones that deserve the pursuit of happiness.
Post by: JDNelson on July 11, 2008, 12:09:49 PM
| Jessica A. Engle wrote on Fri, 11 July 2008 08:25 |
The American Civil War was not right. Yes, brothers were killing each other, but eventually someone came to a realization that "this is not how things are supposed to be". We grew out of our differences and our hatred of each other and a lot of those wounds were healed with progress and the passage of time. Noone made us do it, or could have made us do it. We had to choose it for ourselves. And it took a long time to fix the brokenness it caused. |
As long as we're veering OT from Iran to Iraq, I'll throw in my $0.02 on the Civil War (or War of Northern Agression as they call it down South). There are some who believe that the war was unnecessary. If the goal were truly to free the slaves (it was not), their freedom copuld have been purchased outright from the US Treasury reserves for less money than was spent fighting the war. Lincoln himself proposed $400 a head to the slaveholding stetes (Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri) which stayed in the Union. Pointedly, the Emancipation Procalmation did not apply to these three states,, only the 'states in rebellion".
But the real reason it was unnecessary is this... the Confederacy's main trading partners were Britain and France. Within a decade at the outside, both nations would have insisted that the Confederacy abolish slavery, as a condition to maintain trade. The South would have had no choice, abolition or bankruptcy! Remember, slavery was abolished without bloodshed in Britain, France, Denmark and other nations. The pressure on them to pressure the Confederacy would have led to this eventually, sooner than one thinks.
In fact, had cooler heads prevailed in the North, the South could have very well been convinced to re-join the Union of its own free will. Maximillian of France proposed a peace conference, which Lincoln spurned. Copperhead Democrats in the North were routinely jailed, etc. to tamp down protests against the war...
For more, read "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo.
Post by: Unwinder on July 11, 2008, 08:35:10 PM
| rankus wrote on Wed, 09 July 2008 19:48 |
Maybe Iran is simply trying to keep us on our heels... "Lets threaten the oil supply... the oil companies will panic, the prices will go up and that will be bad for the western economy.." Mission already accomplished |
It isn't about the US. Iran isn't threatening to bomb the US...imo.
They're talking about Israel.
After all...it IS all about Israel.
Post by: Barry Hufker on July 11, 2008, 09:04:17 PM
Post by: MagnetoSound on July 12, 2008, 07:12:42 AM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Fri, 11 July 2008 03:43 |
If you'd like a better idea as to what is really going on in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter, you've got to watch news from the BBC and other similar organizations. Unfortunately, American news presents an extremely biased view. When you do start watching the BBC, your draw will drop at realizing what the world thinks of us. |
| weepit wrote on Fri, 11 July 2008 15:41 |
you honestly believe that we did this to help iraq gain democracy? really? i am sorry but that is absurd. there are plenty of countries around the globe with governments as bad or worse than iraq under saddam but we don't bother them at all. they don't have oil. |
Yup. If the US administration really cared about democracy abroad, don't you think they would have done something about Mugabe?
Too bad Zimbabwe doesn't have oil.
Post by: malice on July 12, 2008, 10:33:56 AM
| J-Texas wrote on Fri, 11 July 2008 00:16 |
Jay... what gives us the right? Crimes against humanity. |
Wow,
You still have people who buys that "we went there to relieve Iraq from that nasty dictator" shit ...
amazing
malice
PS: to bad that now that you have a REAL threat, you won't be able to do anything ...
Post by: YZ on July 12, 2008, 10:45:04 AM
| MagnetoSound wrote on Sat, 12 July 2008 08:12 |
Yup. If the US administration really cared about democracy abroad, don't you think they would have done something about Mugabe? Too bad Zimbabwe doesn't have oil. |
This "guardian of Democracy" talk is pure BS for internal consumption of the US citizens.
The US of A have been acting from a long time like any Imperial power, meddling in other countries' matters to defend their own commercial and political interests; during the cold war the excuse was the defense of poor little weak nations against the Communist menace (that actually existed), now it is what it is.
Latin America was one of the places that was hit the hardest by such U.S. policies, the U.S. government backed some pretty bloody dictatorships around here. No U.S. support for _any_ democracy in the 3rd world ever unless some commercial interests were at stake or the USSR was drawing close.
"America for the Americans" was actually "the whole of Latin America coerced into submission by the United States", and you do remember what a crisis it was when the 'power from the East' set foot into a small island nearby.
Post by: Emil "Gus" Gawaziuk on July 12, 2008, 10:47:57 AM
But, it is truly sad to watch the uselessness unfold in the middle east. The conflicts there have been ongoing for hundreds of years, plain and simple. Through the US government's continual seeming need to "keep the peace" (for whatever thinly veiled reasons they seem to come up with), they are agitating situations that they really have no connections with (aside from oil). The worst and possibly most unfortunate side effect of these actions are other countries are forced to either join in, or go in and clean up afterwards. As a Canadian, I still question the reasoning behind our military forces desire/mandate to go and keep the peace in situations that we did not start at all. The amount of resources and lives wasted in a mostly futile attempt to babysit someone else's problems frankly agitates me to no end. In time, I am sure it will bite us in the ass, and we will no longer be seen/accepted as a peaceable country.
It is truly too bad that the current (and several previous) administrations lack the ability to leave well enough alone. It seems the price is slowly being paid by all of us for these actions. Leave them be over there, it doesn't involve us directly. It is all their problem, let them take care of it.
Use the funds that are earmarked for waging war to fix the issues at home (could you all imagine if even 20% of the military budget was spent on a healthcare system? Or improving educational resources?) Now that would be an accomplishment that the United States should be proud of........
Post by: Version on July 12, 2008, 11:21:08 AM
Post by: J-Texas on July 12, 2008, 11:30:32 AM
| malice wrote on Sat, 12 July 2008 09:33 | ||
Wow, You still have people who buys that "we went there to relieve Iraq from that nasty dictator" shit ... amazing malice PS: to bad that now that you have a REAL threat, you won't be able to do anything ... |
Man, you need to read the rest of what I wrote. I've already touched on that bullshit. Find something else to pull out of context, won't you?
Post by: Unwinder on July 12, 2008, 11:47:08 AM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Sat, 12 July 2008 02:04 |
It is about the vacuum of power in the Middle East. And if you can't hurt your enemy, then hurt your enemy's friend. Iran knows destroying Israel would wipe out U.S. influence in the Middle East. |
The first part of your statement i agree with Barry...but not the second.
Imo,
Iran is not intending to wipe out Israel because they are the US's friend. Iran is threatening to wipe out Israel, because they hate the Israelites...period. Iran feels Israel should never have happened in the first place..
Now, i will retract back to the first part of your statement.
"It is about the vacuum of power in the Middle East."
--- between the Muslim and the Jewish and their religions.
Post by: PookyNMR on July 12, 2008, 11:53:07 AM
| desol wrote on Sat, 12 July 2008 09:47 | ||
|
There's no vacuum of power in the middle east. The problem is too many people seeking power.
I'd have to agree with the statement that it is all about Israel. The rest of the world does not see America as important as Americans do.
Post by: mgod on July 12, 2008, 01:20:17 PM
Hmmm...doesn't that sound familiar?
Its really about destabilizing a sovereign nation that's sitting on one of the world's largest oil reserves. That's all its ever been about.
Hey...that sounds familiar too...
DS
Post by: malice on July 12, 2008, 02:31:31 PM
| J-Texas wrote on Sat, 12 July 2008 17:30 |
Man, you need to read the rest of what I wrote. I've already touched on that bullshit. Find something else to pull out of context, won't you? |
Dude,
You mean I have to read your prose from page one to argue with you !
Fuck, I don't have time for that, sorry...
I was under the impression you believed US went to Iraq for humanitary reasons.
If you don't believe that, I'll gladly stand corrected.
So do you ? Believe that ? You went for what reason ?
malice
Post by: J-Texas on July 12, 2008, 07:02:00 PM
| malice wrote on Sat, 12 July 2008 13:31 | ||
Dude, You mean I have to read your prose from page one to argue with you ! Fuck, I don't have time for that, sorry... I was under the impression you believed US went to Iraq for humanitary reasons. If you don't believe that, I'll gladly stand corrected. So do you ? Believe that ? You went for what reason ? malice |
I'm sorry you don't have time to see where I'm coming from before jumping me.
What reason? What? That wasn't my decision. You want to know where I stand? Read the post. You don't have time? I don't have time to explain it.
Post by: Unwinder on July 12, 2008, 09:33:12 PM
| mgod wrote on Sat, 12 July 2008 18:20 |
I think it has very little to do with Israel. Its really about destabilizing a sovereign nation that's sitting on one of the world's largest oil reserves. That's all its ever been about. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Israel_relations
Wikipedia - Israel/Iran relations
Currently, the countries do not have diplomatic relations with each other. Iran does not formally recognize Israel as a country, and official government texts often simply refer to it as the "Zionist entity " or the "Zionist regime."
Islamic Revolution
[edit] It was Ayatollah Khomeini who first declared Israel as an "enemy of Islam" and 'The Little Satan' during the second Pahlavi period in his campaign against Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who supported Israel [1](the United States was called 'The Great Satan'). Khomeini also called for Israel's destruction. [2] After the second phase of the 1979 Iranian Revolution which witnessed the establishment of the Islamic Republic, Iran withdrew its recognition of the state of Israel and cut off all official relations; official statements, state institutes, events and sanctioned initiatives adopted a sharp anti-Zionist and arguably antisemitic stance, such as the 2005 "World Without Zionism" conference in Teheran[3]. Iranian military parades started featuring ballistic missiles adorned with slogans such as 'Israel must be uprooted and erased from history'.[4]
[edit] Khatami
Under reformist Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, elected in 1997, some believed Iran and Israel would work to improve relations. While at first Khatami's election did not seem to change anything—he called Israel an "illegal state" and a "parasite".
[edit] Ahmadinejad
Main article: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel
As of 2006 relations between the two states became very tense primarily due to the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. After his election, Ahmadinejad frequently began to call for a complete end to the State of Israel (later claimed to have meant through non military means), and has made various controversial remarks regarding Israel and the Holocaust.
On December 8, 2005, Ahmadinejad gave an interview with Iran's Arabic channel 'Al-Alam' during a summit of Muslim nations in Islam's holy city of Mecca:
[Edit]They should give some of their provinces in Europe—like in Germany, Austria or other countries—to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe and we will support it."
Ariel Sharon reportedly said, "Israel - and not only Israel - cannot accept a nuclear Iran. We have the ability to deal with this and we're making all the necessary preparations to be ready for such a situation."
- For the US gov it may be about Oil or Terrorism, but not for Israel or Iran. Based on the information i've read, it looks like Israel is going to attack Iran in the near future, because of Nuclear threats; in an attempt to disable Iran's Nuclear developments.
Post by: malice on July 12, 2008, 11:20:37 PM
| J-Texas wrote on Wed, 09 July 2008 19:57 |
Are you joking man? The Middle East has never known peace. You can't "talk" to fanatical people. They're ready to die for what they believe in. Are you? It's easy to armchair this whole thing, but shit is hitting the fan elsewhere in the world. Should we give them a "timeout"? A pat on the butt? Or should we let Iran know that there will be consequences? It's the same as a kid. Should the US police the world? Absolutely. It's like a bodyguard protecting the little guy from the bully. We are the biggest and baddest and that gives us the responsibility to help others who can't help themselves. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. Are we supposed to sit idly by while fellow humans are in danger? Act! If we TALK it will be too late. |
Ok, If I read you correctly: all muslims are fanatics, US should police the world and you should act before talking ...
| J-Texas wrote on Wed, 09 July 2008 20:29 |
Our presence over there is making a difference. Iraq is the most confident than it's ever been. |
does the word "chaos" comes to mind ?
| J-Texas wrote on Fri, 11 July 2008 00:16 |
Jay... what gives us the right? Crimes against humanity. Like I said, the US is not perfect, but at least G-Dub wouldn't wipe out Craword, TX for stealing a horse! |
So that gave you the right ?
That is a poor knowledge of international laws. They were no threats from Iraq against USA, you didn't have a UN mandate. The motivations were wrong, based on a lie from your gvt and motivated by greed. The humaniary part is a plain joke.
I took the time to read your posts : I perfectly know where you stand now.
And I respectfully disagree with about everything you THINK.
Have in mind that :
1) You destabilised this area of the world even more by invading Iraq
2) You created terorist nest in a country that had very little terrorism and no Al Qaida influence
3) you weakened your country economicaly and on the military level to the point countries like Iran feels that they can takeover the area
I could go on and on with this list, it's endless.
Now do I think Iran should be stopped ?
Of course I do. But the right way, with the support of as many nations as possible, not like you did in Iraq, precisely.
Don't you understand that your failure in Iraq is exactly the reason Iran feels so strong now ?
The danger now is that a weak position of US and the rest of the world forces Israel to take actions alone, that would be bad.
This mess was n great part Bush's administration's mess.
Now you understand where I stand. Nothing personal.
malice
Post by: J-Texas on July 12, 2008, 11:58:31 PM
| malice wrote on Sat, 12 July 2008 22:20 | ||||||
Ok, If I read you correctly: all muslims are fanatics, US should police the world and you should act before talking ...
does the word "chaos" comes to mind ?
So that gave you the right ? That is a poor knowledge of international laws. They were no threats from Iraq against USA, you didn't have a UN mandate. The motivations were wrong, based on a lie from your gvt and motivated by greed. The humaniary part is a plain joke. I took the time to read your posts : I perfectly know where you stand now. And I respectfully disagree with about everything you THINK. Have in mind that : 1) You destabilised this area of the world even more by invading Iraq 2) You created terorist nest in a country that had very little terrorism and no Al Qaida influence 3) you weakened your country economicaly and on the military level to the point countries like Iran feels that they can takeover the area I could go on and on with this list, it's endless. Now do I think Iran should be stopped ? Of course I do. But the right way, with the support of as many nations as possible, not like you did in Iraq, precisely. Don't you understand that your failure in Iraq is exactly the reason Iran feels so strong now ? The danger now is that a weak position of US and the rest of the world forces Israel to take actions alone, that would be bad. This mess was n great part Bush's administration's mess. Now you understand where I stand. Nothing personal. malice |
Did I say that all Muslims are fanatical? No? Ok.
Blah, blah,
Yes, no, maybe so.
Yada
I don't recall "failing" in Iraq.
Blah, blah,
no
no
Aren't you glad you're not speaking German?
Post by: mgod on July 13, 2008, 01:25:39 AM
| desol wrote on Sat, 12 July 2008 18:33 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Israel_relations Wikipedia - Israel/Iran relations |
Like I said, its about oil and always has been.
And I could easily rewrite the Wikpedia entry to reflect that.
Follow the money.
DS
Post by: maxim on July 13, 2008, 01:41:53 AM
Post by: malice on July 13, 2008, 03:35:38 AM
| J-Texas wrote on Sun, 13 July 2008 05:58 |
Did I say that all Muslims are fanatical? No? Ok. |
Great : then you can talk before acting.
| Quote: |
Blah, blah, Yes, no, maybe so. Yada |
Maybe not after all
| Quote: |
I don't recall "failing" in Iraq. |
I have some upseting newz for you then
| Quote: |
Blah, blah, no no |
Nice exchanging opinions with such a rhetorician. Did you learn with the Jesuits ?
| Quote: |
Aren't you glad you're not speaking German? |
Oh Lord, he didn't flunk history at college. Maybe I can use this to my advantage.
Aren't you glad you don't pledge allegiance to the Queen of England ?
You take this way to personal for me
malice
Post by: dcollins on July 13, 2008, 03:59:42 AM
http://www.amazon.com/Photo-Fakery-Techniques-Photographic-M anipulation/dp/1574881663/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books& ;qid=1215935937&sr=1-1
Imagine that,
DC
Post by: malice on July 13, 2008, 05:39:57 AM
First, I'm like everyone here : I don't want Iran to complete their nuclear plan. Why ? Essentially because if they have nuclear weapons, every arab country will. Somehow, this scenario is unavoidable in the long term, but time would be on the side of wisdom. Let's not forget that Ahmadinejad is NOT somebody that has full power in Iran and that the decision of going to war has to be taken by ayatollah Ali Khamenei, far more moderate. Iran, in many aspect, is probably meant to evolve as a reasonable country in the long run. So time is on our side. Note that Chenney is no better to my eyes than Ahmadinejad.
Still, I'm very pessimistic. Because I can see four scenarios here. I'll give you them from the worse to the acceptable. Three of them mean war, probably nuclear strikes.
1) Armageddon : We let Iran complete their program. Nuclear weapons proliferate in the middle east. Power struggles are modifying in the area with possible fall of the Saoud regime. A conflict starts between Israel and Syria. Degenerate with Nuclear conflict with Iran. Total Chaos.
2) The Gary Leupp scenario : you gonna love this one. How about creating a casus belli that forces US to declare war to Iran. How about forcing Iran to start the war. Read this :
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/15644.
That would certainly help McCain win the election. And Cheney surely has a twisted mind to setup this. Furthermore, Resignation of Fallon could corroborate this scenario.Should this happen, it will of course take place before the elections (that's the whole idea)
That said, I think scenario 2) is likely to happen, probably next year.
3) Most likely to Happen : Israel raids against Nuclear facilities in Iran.Iran retaliates by trying to close the Strait of Ormuz. Oil price raise up to the sky (like 500$/barrel is not completly out of question). US is forced to enter the conflict to open Ormuz again. Iran retliates by bombing US base in Iraq (we told you not to go there, remember). Schiites milice from Mahdi de Moqtada al-Sadr attacks american base all over Iraq. The whole middle east is at war, Hesbollah launches rockets against Israel. Tactical nukes is not out of question.
Russia will be very happy with this scenario.
4) There is a tiny hope : It will of course start with US starting direct negociations with Iran. Iran, in phase two, help stabilisation of south of Iraq. Then hopefully oil supply increases and price stabilized. Then only negociation with Iran concerning nuclear program can take place.This was Fallon's plan. I believe Obhama would embrace it as well,France could help mediating this scenario. I doubt this is going to happen. This needs time and good will.
Btw : Olmert has already asked US to set a blocus around Iran : if that doesn't ring a bell, it's exactly how the Six day War started in 1967.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/985421.html.
Enjoy the read.
malice
Post by: malice on July 13, 2008, 07:06:21 AM
http://www.lemonde.fr/asie-pacifique/article/2008/07/13/les- talibans-accroissent-la-pression-sur-les-autorites-afghanes- et-les-troupes-de-la-coalition_1073004_3216.html?xtor=RSS-32 08
sorry, in french, but it is no big scoop.
Makes you think about efficiency of military actions...
malice
Post by: J-Texas on July 13, 2008, 01:12:41 PM
| malice wrote on Sun, 13 July 2008 02:35 | ||||||||||
Great : then you can talk before acting.
Maybe not after all
I have some upseting newz for you then
Nice exchanging opinions with such a rhetorician. Did you learn with the Jesuits ?
Oh Lord, he didn't flunk history at college. Maybe I can use this to my advantage. Aren't you glad you don't pledge allegiance to the Queen of England ? You take this way to personal for me malice |
Marcel,
It's been heavy on me since I hit "submit reply". Allow me to apologize about the "Germany" thing.
I didn't appreciate your mincing my words and jumping to conclusions without trying to understand my post as a whole, disrespecting my country, and then saying "nothing personal".
It struck a nerve. I'll be the bigger man.
By the way, no I didn't flunk history, nor did I do badly in English. (It's "too", not "to")
Post by: MDM, on July 13, 2008, 02:11:52 PM
being in Europe, which is closer and all..
Italy is full of USA nuclear missiles.
there are bases everywhere.. I wonder how many nuclear missiles the USA has in all of europe..
the only way for peace would be for every underdeveloped country to simply sign itself over to the USA and it's banking/oil system..
with over a million dead in recent military action (mostly civilians with no power to threaten the USA or anyone else) and cities destroyed, I really don't see how you could look at it as being a fight for freedom..
the nasty terrorists are mostly CIA-organized.. like Saddam was.
there will NEVER be a lack of terrorism, because if there is the CIA will create new terrorism, by finance, training, arms etc..
it has very little to do with Iran, Iraq, or any other small country.
Post by: malice on July 13, 2008, 04:22:34 PM
| J-Texas wrote on Sun, 13 July 2008 19:12 |
Marcel, |
Oh, I really love that joke
it's Denis, you can call me Denis
| Quote: |
It's been heavy on me since I hit "submit reply". Allow me to apologize about the "Germany" thing. |
I'll gladly accept the kind apology.
| Quote: |
I didn't appreciate your mincing my words and jumping to conclusions without trying to understand my post as a whole, disrespecting my country, and then saying "nothing personal". |
Then it's my turn to apologies. rest assured I am not disrespecting your country. Ask around, you will have great bunch of people telling you of the exact contrary: I think your country is a GREAT country. I'm not found of GW.Bush and his administration? But that doesn't change my ositive opinion about US of A.
| Quote: |
It struck a nerve. I'll be the bigger man. |
I'll thank you for that, I certainly don't seek confrontation with you. I'll be honored to discuss with you about what I think will be next year major international conflict.
| Quote: |
By the way, no I didn't flunk history, nor did I do badly in English. (It's "too", not "to") |
Thanx. I'm doing my best learning English by writing in forums like this one. I'm always grateful to people taking the time to help me correcting obvious mistakes like that.
Sincere regards
malice
Post by: J-Texas on July 13, 2008, 05:09:31 PM
[quote title=Quote:]
Should we start another thread?
| malice wrote on Sun, 13 July 2008 15:22 |
I'm doing my best learning English by writing in forums like this one. I'm always grateful to people taking the time to help me correcting obvious mistakes like that. |
I was being a sarcastic asshole. I ought to be good at it... I only speak English. (well, some Spanish... I'm Texan) Stupid Americans.
Post by: John Ivan on July 14, 2008, 02:36:02 AM
| J-Texas wrote on Wed, 09 July 2008 13:24 | ||
Who? This guy? |
Yep. That's the guy. And I'm pretty sure he's more sane and perhaps smarter where it counts than nearly anyone in the Republican party right now.. He is not perfect. But at least he's not a total idiot. Which is clearly what we have now.. A criminal. A dumb one at that..
Right? Or am I just a big old liberal dumb ass? Or, I guess both things could be true at the same time??
Sumptin'.. Sunptiins' goin on.. I think..
Ivan..............
Post by: Barry Hufker on July 14, 2008, 03:00:32 AM
Sheeeeeiiiitttt.
Post by: Barry Hufker on July 14, 2008, 11:42:03 PM
"While poking around Iraqi news I ran across an odd little piece in the Arab Times reporting that Israel was denying reports that Israeli fighter jets were using US bases in Iraq to practice for an attack on Iran. My perennial worry about an attack on Iran kicked in - and was not eased by the report in the Sunday Times of London that Bush has “amber lighted” an Israeli attack on Iran:
President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official."
Post by: phantom309 on July 15, 2008, 12:00:49 AM
| Barry Hufker wrote on Mon, 14 July 2008 21:42 |
Quoted from www.crooksandliars.com "While poking around Iraqi news I ran across an odd little piece in the Arab Times reporting that Israel was denying reports that Israeli fighter jets were using US bases in Iraq to practice for an attack on Iran. My perennial worry about an attack on Iran kicked in - and was not eased by the report in the Sunday Times of London that Bush has “amber lighted” an Israeli attack on Iran: President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official." |
He's gonna go out with a bang. What's he got to lose? That he cares about, that is.
Post by: YZ on July 15, 2008, 12:16:37 AM
I can't erase from my mind the image: a middle-class female reporter in disarray walking around in circles wringing her hands saying "oh my god someone is going to attack Iran oh my god someone is going to attack Iran oh my god someone is going to attack Iran oh my god someone is going to attack Iran".
Post by: Barry Hufker on July 15, 2008, 12:21:45 AM
Post by: J-Texas on August 07, 2008, 03:26:48 PM
By STEVEN GUTKIN Published: Today
JERUSALEM (AP) — Israel is building up its strike capabilities amid growing anxiety over Iran's nuclear ambitions and appears confident that a military attack would cripple Tehran's atomic program, even if it can't destroy it.
Such talk could be more threat than reality. However, Iran's refusal to accept Western conditions is worrying Israel as is the perception that Washington now prefers diplomacy over confrontation with Tehran.
The Jewish state has purchased 90 F-16I fighter planes that can carry enough fuel to reach Iran, and will receive 11 more by the end of next year. It has bought two new Dolphin submarines from Germany reportedly capable of firing nuclear-armed warheads — in addition to the three it already has.
And this summer it carried out air maneuvers in the Mediterranean that touched off an international debate over whether they were a "dress rehearsal" for an imminent attack, a stern warning to Iran or a just a way to get allies to step up the pressure on Tehran to stop building nukes.
According to foreign media reports, Israeli intelligence is active inside Iranian territory. Israel's military censor, who can impose a range of legal sanctions against journalists operating in the country, does not permit publication of details of such information in news reports written from Israel.
The issue of Iran's nuclear program took on new urgency this week after U.S. officials rejected Tehran's response to an incentives package aimed at getting it to stop sensitive nuclear activity — setting the stage for a fourth round of international sanctions against the country.
Israel, itself an undeclared nuclear power, sees an atomic bomb in Iranian hands as a direct threat to its existence.
Israel believes Tehran will have enriched enough uranium for a nuclear bomb by next year or 2010 at the latest. The United States has trimmed its estimate that Iran is several years or as much as a decade away from being able to field a bomb, but has not been precise about a timetable. In general U.S. officials think Iran isn't as close to a bomb as Israel claims, but are concerned that Iran is working faster than anticipated to add centrifuges, the workhorses of uranium enrichment.
"If Israeli, U.S., or European intelligence gets proof that Iran has succeeded in developing nuclear weapons technology, then Israel will respond in a manner reflecting the existential threat posed by such a weapon," said Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz, speaking at a policy forum in Washington last week.
"Israel takes (Iranian President) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statements regarding its destruction seriously. Israel cannot risk another Holocaust," Mofaz said.
The Iranian leader has in the past called for Israel's elimination, though his exact remarks have been disputed. Some translators say he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," while others say a better translation would be "vanish from the pages of time" — implying Israel would disappear on its own rather than be destroyed.
Iran insists its uranium enrichment is meant only for electricity generation, not a bomb — an assertion that most Western nations see as disingenuous.
Israeli policymakers and experts have been debating for quite some time whether it would even be possible for Israel to take out Iran's nuclear program. The mission would be far more complicated than a 1981 Israeli raid that destroyed Iraq's partially built Osirak nuclear reactor, or an Israeli raid last year on what U.S. intelligence officials said was another unfinished nuclear facility in Syria.
In Iran, multiple atomic installations are scattered throughout the country, some underground or bored into mountains — unlike the Iraqi and Syrian installations, which were single aboveground complexes.
Still, the Syria action seemed to indicate that Israel would also be willing to use force preemptively against Iran.
"For Israel this is not a target that cannot be achieved," said Maj. Gen. Aharon Zeevi-Farkash, former head of Israel's army intelligence.
However, it's unlikely Israel would carry out an attack without approval from the United States.
Recent signs that Washington may be moving away from a military option — including a proposal to open a low-level U.S. diplomatic office in Tehran and a recent decision to allow a senior U.S. diplomat to participate alongside Iran in international talks in Geneva — are not sitting very well with Israel.
That may help explain recent visits to Jerusalem by Mike McConnell, the U.S. director of national intelligence, and Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, each of whom delivered a message to Israel that it does not have a green light to attack Iran at this time.
Senior Israeli officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they do not wish to appear at odds with their most important ally, said they were concerned about a possible softening of the U.S. stance toward Iran.
Apparently to allay Israeli concerns, Bush administration officials last week assured visiting Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak that the U.S. has not ruled out the possibility of a military strike on Iran. And the U.S., aware of Israel's high anxiety over Iran's nukes, is also hooking Israel up to an advanced missile detection system known as X-Band to guard against any future attack by Iran, said a senior U.S. defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions over the issue have not been made public.
With sanctions and diplomacy still the international community's preferred method to get Iran to stop building the bomb, an Israeli strike does not appear imminent.
If it did attack, however, Israel would have to contend with upgraded Iranian defense capabilities, including 29 new Tor-M1 surface-to-air missile systems Iran purchased from Russia last year in a $700 million deal.
Russia has so far not gone through with a proposed sale to Iran of S-300 surface-to-air missiles, an even more powerful air defense system than the Tor-M1. An Israeli defense official said the deal is still on the table, however. This is a big source of consternation for Israel because the system could significantly complicate a pre-emptive Israeli assault on Iran.
Military experts say an Israeli strike would require manned aircraft to bombard multiple targets and heavy precision bombs that can blast through underground bunkers — something Israel failed to do in its 2006 war against Hezbollah. It's widely assumed that Israel is seeking to obtain bunker buster bombs, if it hasn't already done so.
Elite ground troops could also be necessary to penetrate the most difficult sites, though Israeli military planners say they see that option as perhaps too risky.
America's ability to take out Iran's nuclear facilities is far superior to Israel's.
Unlike Israel, the United States has cruise missiles that can deliver high-explosive bombs to precise locations and B-2 bombers capable of dropping 85 500-pound bombs in a single run.
Yet the cost of an attack — by the U.S., Israel or both — is likely to be enormous.
Iran could halt oil production and shut down tanker traffic in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, which could send the price of crude skyrocketing and wreck Western economies.
It could stir up trouble for the U.S. in Iraq by revving up Shiite militias there just as Washington is showing some important gains in reining in Iraqi chaos.
It could activate its militant proxies in both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, from where Israel could come under heavy rocket attack. And it could strike Israel with its arsenal of Shahab-3 long-range missiles — something Israel is hoping to guard against through its Arrow missile defense system.
Perhaps most importantly, any strike on Iran — especially if it's done without having exhausted all diplomatic channels — could have the opposite of the desired effect, "actually increasing the nationalist fervor to build a nuclear weapon," said Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-born Israeli and expert on Iranian affairs.
Whether an attack on Iran would be worth its cost would depend on how long the nuclear program could be delayed, said Chuck Freilich, a former Israeli deputy national security adviser and now a senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School.
"A two, three-year delay is not worth it. For a five to 10-year delay I would say yes," he said.
___
Associated Press Writers Anne Gearan and Lolita C. Baldor contributed to this report from Washington.