| Author |
Message |
    
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5605
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 10:28 pm: | 
|
A rational leader wouldn't use nukes in a first strike scenario. Is Ahmadinejad rational? Someone wrote it seems he's looking for a diplomatic solution. Then he restates his intention that Israel should be destroyed, after giving the US the historical "convert to Islam or die" type of missive that has preceded offensive launches of some military sort.
This is a guy who won after the mullahs disqualfied lots of opposition for him to win. Then he tries to put in his people in various ministries which are nullified by the mullahs. A setback to Ahmadinejad but answered by more extreme rhetoric.
I spoke to an Iranian today who said the reason for this bluster is because Iran itself is having problems within. Like a wounded, cornered animal, it's lashing out and at it's most dangerous. You've got Kurds sniping in the west, rampant unemployment and poverty, diminished oil production because of an inefficient state oil industry, and the youth and business community who aren't informationally isolated from the world so that they know how miserable they are.
Whackos use diplomacy to gain time for their desires. If they agree to anything, they renig on it. They only respond to force, and the world 1) isn't united on that and 2) there's only 2-3 countries that are able to project the force that might bring them to heel. Then you've got a nut who wouldn't mind the end times being played out now. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4316
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 9:55 am: |
|
Ahmadinejad is rational and pretty smart. He is playing the sabre-rattling game to bolster his political power internally. The only way he can lose is if we attack Iran with nuclear weapons. If we were to attack with conventional forces, Iranians would rally in support of their country.
No matter what people in the Middle East think of their leaders, there resentment of the United States and Israel is real and heartfelt. Populist leaders can exploit this resentment very effectively. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1328
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 10:27 am: |
|
Quote:'The only way he can lose if we attack Iran with nuclear weapons'
We all lose in that scenario.
cjc - so now you are against all diplomacy? News flash to cjc - wars are resolved through negotiations too.
Listening to what passes for news on the TV to sound bites coming out of Iran is provoking a fear response. Fight or flight. But its not necessarily true is it?
Dont worry, the intelligence community will let us know whether we are really in danger... 
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5609
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 11:58 am: |
|
Hoops -- send us that bulletin of a war that was 'resolved' through negotiations. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1329
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 12:25 pm: |
|
You dont believe it?
Paris Peace Accords
Iraq Desert Storm chronology <-- notice that after the cease fire terms are Negotiated diplomatically.
Pick a war and let me know which ones did not have a negotiation at its conclusion. Let me know which one you find that diplomacy was not the final result.
The ability for two people to discuss their differences and yet still get along is diplomacy.
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3092
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 12:29 pm: |
|
Hoops, as much as I might agree with your point, wars are typically ended with one side dictating terms to the other. Diplomacy in those circumstances is very one-sided. The type of diplomacy you describe, where equals (or people who consider themselves equals) sit down and hash things out rationally, rarely happens, particularly in wartime. |
GOP Man
Citizen
Username: Headsup
Post Number: 377
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 12:32 pm: |
|
exactly. that's why we need a war with Iran. we plan to dictate terms to them, and the way to do that is to pound them into submission. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5610
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 1:00 pm: |
|
Hoops -- if you mean negotiation (many times surrender, exceptions being Korean War and the Iran/Iraq War) takes place AFTER the shooting starts, I guess I don't disagree with you. You gave me the impression that negotiation stops wars from starting. I suppose I could agree if whatever key security or national interest issue is resolved.
In the case of Iran, I don't see that happening with this nut. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4317
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 2:20 pm: |
|
Here is America, we have a slightly different view of how wars are won than do less powerful countries. In our major wars up through WW II, we always pursued a strategy of unconditional surrender. In cases were the power equation is more balanced, it is common for some third party nation to broker a deal between the warring parties.
Inconveniently for us, in our wars since Korea, we have fought to win the hearts and minds of the citizens of the battleground country. This is a much more difficult thing to pull off than was, say, our offer to the Germans and Japanese to pound them until they went belly up.
As we become relatively less powerful and our wars become fuzzier, the idea of unconditional surrender becomes more of a fantasy. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1330
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 2:24 pm: |
|
cjc - we agree on that point. I dont see 'this nut' as anything other then the front man for the mullahs.
Rastro - true but in the past 50 years we havent seen any total victories where the winner fully dictated to a loser. Even desert storm only force Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. It saw the UN place sanctions on Iraq but not a surrender in the sense of victors dictating terms.
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3097
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 2:40 pm: |
|
Hoops, I don't disagree, except w/r/t Desert Storm. We chose to not invade Iraq and take out Saddam. A decision I'm sure GHWB now regrets. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4318
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 2:44 pm: |
|
And GHWB regrets it because he missed a chance to get into a quaqmire? |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3099
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 2:48 pm: |
|
No, I believe he might regret it becuase he had broader support for his actions and would have been able to have more international support for the aftermath. Plus, I believe more Iraqis trusted us then than now, considering GHWB said something to the effect of "rise up and we'll support you" and then we didn't.
So I don't think it would be quite the quagmire that it is, and I don't think we'd be as alone in it.
Plus no father would want to see happen to his son what is happening to GWB. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3100
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 2:50 pm: |
|
Besides, since we know Saddam was responsible for 9/11, GHWB could have prevented the attacks if he had taken Saddam out in'91. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4319
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 3:23 pm: |
|
Rastro,
I tend to agree with your first point but want to confirm with FOX News before accepting the second point. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3108
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 4:26 pm: |
|
Envoys Say Enriched Uranium Found in Iran
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060512/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear_66
Quote:VIENNA, Austria - U.N. inspectors have found traces of highly enriched uranium on equipment from an Iranian research center linked to the military, diplomats said Friday — a revelation likely to strengthen U.S. arguments that Tehran wants to develop nuclear arms.
The diplomats, who demanded anonymity in exchange for divulging the confidential information, cautioned that confirmation still had to come through other laboratory tests.
Initially, they said the density of enrichment appeared to be close to or above the level used to make nuclear warheads. But later a diplomat accredited to the
International Atomic Energy Agency said it was below that, although higher than the low-enriched material used to generate power and heading toward weapons-grade level.
Still, they said, further analysis could show that the find matches others established to have come from abroad. The IAEA determined earlier traces of highly enriched uranium were imported on equipment from Pakistan that
Iran bought on the black market during nearly two decades of clandestine activity.
Even then, nevertheless, the find would be significant.
Because Iran has previously denied conducting enrichment-related activities at the site, the mere fact the traces came from there bolsters arguments that it has hidden parts of a program that can create the fissile material used in nuclear warheads. Additionally, the site's connection to the military weakens Iranian arguments that its nuclear program is purely civilian.
"That has long been suspected as the site of undeclared enrichment research and ... the Iranians have denied that any enrichment research had taken place at that location," said Iran expert Gary Samore of the MacArthur Foundation in Chicago. "It certainly does reinforce the agency's suspicion that Iran has not fully declared its past enrichment research."
The development, however, was unlikely to result in an immediate American push for strong
U.N. Security Council action against Tehran.
The Americans recently agreed to put such efforts on hold and give new European-led attempts to find a negotiated solution a chance in the face of fierce Russian and Chinese opposition to a strong signal from the council.
Moscow and Beijing have balked at British, French and U.S. efforts to put a Security Council resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter. Such a move would declare Iran a threat to international peace and security and set the stage for further measures if Tehran refuses to suspend uranium enrichment. Those measures could range from breaking diplomatic relations to economic sanctions and military action.
Despite their declared support for the European effort to persuade Iran to give up enrichment, the Americans are ignoring calls for direct contacts with Iran — a stance criticized Friday by U.N. Secretary-General
Kofi Annan.
Calling on "all sides to lower the rhetoric," Annan said Washington should "come to the table" and join the Europeans and Iranians.
Iran's president remained defiant. He accused the Americans of "waging a propaganda campaign" against his country. "The people of Iran and the country are not afraid of them," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Islamic leaders in Indonesia.
Uranium enriched to between 3.5 percent and 5 percent is used to make fuel for reactors to generate electricity. It becomes suitable for use in nuclear weapons when enriched to more than 90 percent.
Iran denies it wants to make nuclear arms and says it is interested in uranium only to generate power. It already has enriched uranium to low levels — an accomplishment that opens the pathway to weapons-grade enrichment.
Diplomats accredited to the IAEA on Friday noted that Tehran's enrichment program has progressed faster than agency experts had expected. That also suggests Iran has hidden research and development from IAEA inspectors, they said.
To argue that it never produced highly enriched uranium domestically, Tehran cites the IAEA's tentative conclusion last year that traces collected from Iranian sites with no suspected ties to the military arrived on equipment from Pakistan.
But the origin of the samples now being studied created some concern in that regard.
One of the diplomats told The Associated Press that the samples came from vacuum pumps that has various applications, including use in uranium-enriching centrifuges at a former research center at Lavizan-Shian. The center is believed to have been the repository of equipment bought by the Iranian military that could be used in a nuclear weapons program.
The United States alleges Iran conducted high-explosive tests that could have a bearing on developing nuclear weapons at the site.
The State Department said in 2004 that Lavizan's buildings had been dismantled and topsoil removed to hide nuclear weapons-related experiments. The IAEA later confirmed the site had been razed.
In an April 28 report, IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei said the agency took samples from some of the equipment of the former Physics Research Center at Lavizan-Shian.
|
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 416
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 5:07 pm: |
|
A number of you seem to think that Ahmadinejad of Iran is a world leader of the likes of Chirac or Putin (rational dealmakers based on national interest) with whom the issue of Iranian nuclear development can be negotiated.
You believe that this is a ficticious dispute jinned up by the Iranians to distract their people from internal problems, ignoring that many of these problems could have been solved by Iran mitigating its behavior in supporting international terrorism, by ending internal repression, or by opening up a variety of diplomatic processes.
Once again, you ignore Ahmadinejad's very clearly expressed religious ideology and that of the mullahs who selected him. He is anti-western, anti-infidel (non-muslim), and a believer in a messiah (12th immam) who arises from an apocalypse.
If you can't seem to find a way to expand your vision beyond a western, secular, and rationalist approach, and understand and conceive of the 12th century mentality that is driving this process, you put everyone in harm's way. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3506
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 5:24 pm: |
|
and a believer in a messiah (12th immam) who arises from an apocalypse.
So, now we have two fundamentalist fanatics who believe in the apocolypse, staring each other down with their fingers on the nuke button.
Well,
's been nice knowin' ya!!!
|
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 421
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 6:10 pm: |
|
Tulip-
That was a bit over the top. Bush has not said, for example, that abandoning the Crusades was a mistake, and that raising a christian flag on the mosque in Jerusalem is his holy mission.
He has not called upon the muslims of the world to convert to christianity en masse, or face the wrath of the USA.
It is wonderful to have the lovely humanist views as you do, but you do need to recognize pure evil when you see it. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1334
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 6:58 pm: |
|
there is nothing pure about what you wrote fvf. it is as you say jinned up. To believe anything that this administration says about foreign policy is to believe in fairy tales.
To believe in the existence of pure evil in Iran without verification of mass evil acts and without evidence of aggression against the USA is foolish.
You are of the impression that Iran is after world domination but that would be an impossibility. The chinese or russians would join together to anhilate their neighbor should they become that sort of threat.
Your beating of war drums is your own fantasy. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 192
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 6:59 pm: |
|
The Reactionary Utopian
April 27, 2006
APOCALYPSE NOW
by Joe Sobran
"To bomb, or not to bomb?" asks the cover of the
April 24 issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD, and if you know
the magazine, you can guess the answer, provided by an
editorial and two articles within.
The United States must attack Iran soon. The
dithering of the Bush administration must cease. The mad
mullahs who are trying to get nuclear weapons threaten
not only the United States, but Israel. Time for another
preemptive war, complete with regime change, democracy,
and purple fingers.
Such is the conclusion of the brainy
neoconservatives who gave us the Iraq war. Evidently they
trust the Bush team to manage a far more difficult war
against Iran with equal finesse.
Sure, they admit there will be costs. Terrorism will
erupt throughout the Middle East and elsewhere, maybe
even in the United States itself. The Europeans won't
like it. Anti-Americanism will spread explosively around
the world. And of course there will be countless other
unpredictable consequences (on oil prices, to begin
with).
All this can be expected even if we assume that the
Bush team brings it off with more competence than it has
brought to previous crises. Vice President Cheney summed
up the administration's pragmatic view when we faced the
threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction:
"The risks of inaction are greater than the risks of
action." Words to live by!
And let us not forget Condoleezza Rice, the
mushroom-cloud lady, who never cries "Wolf!" unless she's
pretty darned sure there's a wolf out there. Maybe she's
right this time. We can't completely rule it out.
These people know so much more than we do. They have
the best intelligence at their fingertips. That's one
more reason to rely on their proven good judgment and put
our lives in their hands. When have they ever misled us?
Islam, Bush has said, is a religion of peace that
has been hijacked by a few fanatics. Some, observing him,
might say the same about Christianity. Bush makes one
wonder where religion ends and psychosis begins. Is his
foreign policy driven by a conviction that we are in the
End Times, and that the Lord has anointed him to lead us?
Is it mere accident that many of his remaining supporters
believe so?
Last week one of those supporters assured me that
the War on Terror is necessary because the Muslims are
determined to exterminate us. As proof, he quoted a verse
from the Koran about destroying infidels; he'd read this
in a book by Hal Lindsey, the apocalyptic "new
evangelical" author. I guess that's what you'd call a
theological slam-dunk, and it seems akin to Bush's way of
thinking about the world.
Smoking guns? For Bush the appropriate image is the
loose cannon. In domestic policy alone he would rank as a
disastrous president; but with his finger on the nuclear
button he threatens to become an utter nightmare. With
other fanatics egging him on, we may yet see those
mushroom clouds Miss Rice worries about. No wonder Colin
Powell got out of this administration while the getting
was good; but will he ever give the public a frank
account of what he saw inside it?
Even Pentagon war planners are alarmed at what Bush
has done -- and at what he may yet do. The retired
generals who called for Donald Rumsfeld's removal were
really talking about Bush (the neocons were right about
that). And Bush's dismissal as "wild speculation" of
Seymour Hersh's report on his preparations for war on
Iran was actually a chilling nondenial.
The Democrats have shamelessly encouraged him to
prevent Iran from getting nukes by any means necessary;
Ted Kennedy is one of the few Democrats who have insisted
that these means must not include a nuclear attack, which
Bush hasn't ruled out.
Meanwhile, the Republicans are still playing
follow-the-leader, even if it means following him over
the precipice. We can hope only that the poll figures and
the approaching elections will bring them to their
senses.
The scandal of our time is that so many important
people have failed to say what is obvious and urgent:
that this president is out of his mind. Whether it's
clinical madness or fanaticism, it's something more
serious, and more dangerous, than stupidity. And the men
around him can't or won't restrain him.
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2006/060427.shtml
|
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 425
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 5:06 pm: |
|
Hoops- You make no sense at all. On the bright side, I am sure your mother loves you. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3508
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 5:35 pm: |
|
3ringale:
Welcome to the fold, or were you always there?! |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1345
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 5:59 pm: |
|
FVF- no, What tulip posted is not over the top, its spot on.
Bush talks to God. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 195
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 6:35 pm: |
|
Tulip,
For lack of a better term, I would say that I am conservative, (Paleo, not Neo, an important distinction). I am not now, nor have I ever been a Republican. My problem with President Bush is that he is not a conservative in any meaningful sense of the word. If I had to give a one-word summary of conservatism, it would be: prudence. Prudence is distinctly lacking in the current administration.
You, and some (many?) others on MOL probably dislike Mr. Bush because he is too conservative. It's funny how people of wildly diverging perspectives can look at the same thing and be in agreement. This is one reason why I don't think the left/right, liberal/conservative labels are very useful anymore.
The disaster called the Bush administratio foreign policy might be one of the only things we are agreed upon, but I'm always glad to see some common ground.
Cheers |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3509
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 7:07 pm: |
|
Actually, 3ring, I find him too radical in many ways. I am not in favor of the massive hemorrhage of the US Treasury that has happened since Clinton left office.
I think the line between radical and conservative gets a bit blurry with Bush. There are even some areas I can almost agree with, including the spirit of No Child Left Behind, if not the unfunded mandate of it.
Bush is quite radical in many areas, including his reactionary responses to world leaders, international agency leaders, and his easy sabre rattling that has marked his "legacy."
His cowboy style has nothing to do with the pinstripe conservatives I have seen at Columbia Business School or Wall Street.
He seems quite confused, actually, about who he is politically, and I think he's more like a cross between James Dean and Calvin Coolidge, with some strange strands of fundamentalism and fanaticism (stem cell research, creationism, "faith-base initiatives," ((?)) repetition of theological tenets ad nauseum) thrown into the balance.
In fact, he is living proof that supply side economics is not the only form of capitalism, and it is neither a necessary nor sufficient form of capitalism to keep a nation afloat economically.
He overreacted, point blank, and often does. He's too quick to judge and too stubborn to listen to the people, often until it's too late.
I don't like his style of governing.
I don't know the man personally.
He seems a lonely and tragic figure right now, actually.
|
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 196
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 10:23 am: |
|
Tulip,
Just because I think Mr. Bush is not a conservative doesn't mean I would call him a liberal. This would be falling into the "either/or" trap that I am trying to avoid. He is indeed radical in some ways and I would not be opposed to calling him a Jacobin, as odd as that may sound.
The image of a cross between James Dean and Calvin Coolidge is a little startling, but I think I see the point, although I would say that Coolidge has gotten a bum rap as a do-nothing President.
I can think of one area where I agree with the Bush administration. I am opposed to embryonic stem-cell research. In brief, the whole thing reeks of eugenics, which I think is a bad idea. The President's Council on Bioethics issued a pretty good report a couple of years ago, although I haven't read all of it. Even if you disagree, you can't just dismiss people like Leon Kass and Mary Ann Glendon as ignorant Bible-thumpers. Kass also wrote a book called Toward a More Natural Science which should be read by anyone with an interest in bioethics.
I suppose it all comes down to my conviction that people and their institutions are always a mixed bag. I will continue to be suspicious of and opposed to anyone's agenda to transform society (locally or globally), whether it emanates from the putative left or right. Most people have enough to do just looking after their family and front yard.
Cheers |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3513
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 11:14 am: |
|
3ring: I fail to see how helping people to survive cancer and other life-threatening illnesses is "eugenics." Do you know anyone with a life-threatening illness, or a paralysis? Do you think they should be left to die, and no attempt made, no matter how effective and promising it might be, to find a cure?
Really!
Taking stem cells from tissue that has already been discarded is eugenics?
There was an editorial buried in today's Star Ledger about how the right needs
Darwinism as the tenet behind their economic theory of the survival of the fittest, even as they try to discard the concepts of evolution.
Also, no one implied that Bush is a liberal. I used the term "radical" and in case you aren't aware of this, these terms are not synonymous.
|
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 432
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 5:22 pm: |
|
It is truly incredible that the obsessive and compulsive nature of the political ideologies of the posters here negate any intellectual capacity to comprehend the real nature and seriousness of the Iranian threat to our people.
Sadly, it's not about Bush. But the Iranians are no doubt grateful for your cluelessness. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 198
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 7:12 pm: |
|
Tulip,
I don't believe that the ends justifies the means. I do have sympathy for people with chronic or life-threatening conditions, but none of us gets out of this world alive. Government funded recycling of unborn babies is ghoulish.
Cheers |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4320
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 8:24 pm: |
|
FvF,
I don't find the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran to be particularly threatening by itself. What I find worrisome is that the governments of some of these countries (e.g. Pakistan) are not the most stable and the control of these weapons is not the best. That raises the possibility that these weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists.
I do not believe that a country such as Iran will commit suicide in a first strike on Israel. I do not believe that a country such as Iran will supply nuclear weapons to terrorists.
I do not believe that Israel is the 51st state of the United States. The long-term survival of Israel is irrelevant to the long-term survival of the United States. In fact, I think that the long-term prospects for Israel are extremely bleak. The Western colony of Israel very much depends on keeping the Arabs powerless and disorganized for her survival. If ever the Arab world undegoes the equivalent of the European Renaissance, Israel will be economically overwhelmed. |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 437
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 9:02 pm: |
|
tjohn-
The reality of an armed nuclear Iran under the presidency of Ahmadinejad and the control of the mullahs is that you have a country opposed to everything the US stands for, democratically, culturally, and societally on purely religious ideological grounds, not rational statecraft. The beliefs of Ahmadinejad and the mullahs are apocalyptical. Death by jihad or by religious martyrdom is perfectly acceptable, as the mullahs sacraficed thousands upon thousands of their own people knowingly in suicidewave attacks on Iraqi positions in the Iran and Iraq war. Their religious ideology welcomes death, and martyrdom has special currency and appeal in the shi'a branch of islam they practice.
Their pronouncements on the use of nuclear weapons has been clear and unambiguous. Iranian officials have stated their belief that Iran would survive a nuclear attack, while Israel will not. They have worked on weapons systems with the USA in mind, specifically pulse weaponry. The Iranians have been behind world terrorism that has attacked US citizens and interests. The Khobar towers bombing in Lebanon which killed over 200 US Marines was claimed to be funded and planned by Iran.
While it is the simplistic refuge and inaccuracy of the extreme left or anti-semites to say Israel is a western creation and has no right to exist, even without the existence of Israel we would be the target in this war.
The US is the only remaining world superpower, and stands in the way of the islamists and Iran's desired creation of a world islamic caliphate. We are, as they have always said, " the Big Satan". Israel is only "the little Satan".
Our values and our very existence will always make us a target to this radical religious ideology, irrespective of supporting Israel.
You of course can attempt to be an appeaser, as you suggest, by wanting to turn Israel over to these sick savages. But that wouldn't be the end of it. That didn't work for Neville Chamberland, with the end result of causing a much bloodier and terrible world war.
Or you can do what it seems to me you are doing. Burying your head in the sand like an ostrich hoping and wishing for the best. Won't work though. All I can say is
"Be about reality" - They are already at war with us, you just don't seem to know it. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 199
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 7:29 am: |
|
tjohn is right that the long term prospects for Israel are bleak. The Orthodox are having large families, but the non-religious are not. There is a demographic tidal wave in Israel's future.
Factvsfiction says that the US is the only remaining superpower. But is it really, and if so, for how much longer? A few thousand "insurgents" have 130,000 American troops tied down in Iraq. We are funding the war by borrowing money from Japan and China who prey on what is left of our manufacturing base.
Budget and trade deficits are exploding. Gold is now trading above $700 for the first time since 1980. Our infrastructure is crumbling. We haven't built a new nuclear power plant in 30 years. Our borders and ports are insecure, but the President offers only cliches and cosmetic gestures. if this is the profile of a superpower, I shudder to think what will happen when we lose that status.
Cheers |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1342
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 8:52 am: |
|
The US spends more money on defense yearly then all of the other countries in the World put together.
How was it that we defeated communism again? Oh, that right, we created an arms race and bankrupted the USSR. It looks like we are getting mighty close to doing the same thing to ourselves.
As far as Iran goes, this is a manufactured 'crisis'. The exact same saber rattling, terrorism fear mongering, America in peril talk happened 5 years ago before the Iran war began. The big run up was full of news about how 'threatened' the US is by Iraq. Now they point at Iran and say the exact same things.
Meanwhile Cheney meets with oil company executives to get a good idea how best to split up the natural resources in middle east and we get a privatized war run by Rumsfeld and Haliburton.
America is not going to be fooled into another conflict without first being attacked. The country is broke and the rich do not want to pay for the war, they want to profit from it.
Iran is not a simplistic society run by fanatics. It is a complex country that contains many different kinds of thought. Yes the country is governed by a moron. But that moron is gleaning more popular support amonst Iranians every time Bush talks about war. Saber rattling is dangerous for us all. Fvf, unless you plan on being the first one to enlist, I suggest you find a way to lower the intensity of your rhetoric.
|
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 441
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 6:38 pm: |
|
3ringale- Israel has no demographic issues in the sense that it will now draw it's own borders via the Olmert goverment. But you can of course hope otherwise 3ring. I find you don't address the substance of my post in any event. I take it you are an isolationist who hopes that if we ignore Iran or leave it alone nothing will happen. Good luck.
Hoops- You substitute your domestic politics and political agenda for any real knowledge or understanding of radical islam or the agenda of the mullahs in Iran that is necessary to understand this crisis or resolve it in the first place. You thought process is in western secular terms and has no relevancy to an eastern and extreme religious ideology. Please argue about american politics and those sort of issues. Here you have zero clue or experience, sorry to say. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4324
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 7:38 pm: |
|
In 1956, Nasser was the Arab Hitler. From 1990 until 2003, it was Saddam Hussein. Now it is the turn of Ahmadinejad.
|
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 445
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 8:33 pm: |
|
Your last post shows you know nothing about the history or politics of the region, to say nothing of radical islam. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1346
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 9:12 pm: |
|
fvf - your posts are nothing more then refried hocum cooked up by the people who brought you Iraq. Sorry to say but your supposedly informed posts include no facts, no links to places where we can find facts supporting your point of view and in fact have only your supposedly informed opinion.
As far as I can see your point of view is pointless. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4325
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 8:44 am: |
|
FvsF,
It is a simple fact that in 1956, Anthony Eden compared Nasser to Hitler and justified the Suez war by saying that this Hitler wannabe had to be stopped before he became too strong.
Ahmadinejad may be as bad as you claim or this might be yet another round of demonizing the leaders of the Middle East who choose to stand up to the West.
In any case, we have time to pursue an orderly solution to the problem. You would have us launching an attack on Iranian facilities sooner than later. That would be a really bad move. |
Twokitties
Citizen
Username: Twokitties
Post Number: 438
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 10:06 am: |
|
This adminsitration has cried wolf a few too many times before. It's no wonder nobody is paying attention. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 201
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 10:50 am: |
|
Factvsfiction,
The substance of your previous post appears to be that we should launch another pre-emptive war and cause even more chaos in the Middle East. I disagree. Deterrence and containment would be a better course to follow in my opinion. I am not a pacifist nor do I even have much respect for Islam, radical or otherwise, but we have spent the last 6 or 7 decades meddling in the Middle East and we don't have much to show for it. Except for a few thousand dead Americans and a lot of Arab hatred. (I am aware that the Iranians are not Arabs, but we have also been sticking our nose in their business since at least 1953.)
I have a novel idea. Let's pull our troops out of Iraq and end all economic and miltary assistance to all countries in the Middle East and stop interfering in their internal affairs.
I do hold to an isolationist point of view, which has a respectable place in American history. I guess this makes me a minority of one on MOL, but that's OK. I disagree with the neo-con right and the humanitarian-interventionist left. Hands off of Iran and stay out of Darfur! I admire and respect Taft Republicans and McGovern Democrats. It's too bad there are none left in American politics anymore.
Cheers
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page