| Author | Message | ||
     Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 117 Registered: 4-2006 |
From some of the posts that I have read it is apparent many of you have never lived in the Middle East nor completely understand that America is at war. Let's discuss Ahmadinejad for a moment. He is a figurehead for the mullahs but represents their thinking. The majority of Iranians, especially the young, did not vote for Ahamdinejad or the man who ran against him, Rafsanjani (he was viewed as corrupt or supporting the corruption of Iranian society that allowed mullahs and their supporters to acquire great wealth). Many boycotted this " democratic" election, which only allowed handpicked candidates to run. Ahmadinejad is not actually the rational, western type thinking national leader you liberals may want to think. For one, he was quoted as saying that when he was speaking at the U.N. an "aura" enveloped him, making the U.N. members especially keen to listen to his message. He is also a member and supporter of an apolyptical sect of the sh'ia in Iran which holds the 12th Mahdi or savior (think Jesus if you will, and supposedly hiding in a well) will return when the last days are brought about. For you who are worried about George Bush's christian ideas and the rapture, this is 20x worse. The end of the world brings the Mahdi out. You want this nutcase to have the bomb? Ahmadinejad believes we are in a war of civilizations and the Bush administration is an aberration, as Americans don't have the stomach for prolonged conflict, (if he reads some of the posts here he will feel even more supported). Like OBL he seeks a world islamic caliphate. Which he would like to lead. Um... that kinda includes us guys. A good web site to look at is www.jihadwatch.org in terms of extreme islamacist thinking. America did not think it was at war when the Khobar Towers where bombed when Reagan was in office, or when the U.S.S. Cole was attacked under Clinton. After 9-11 I would think some of you would finally have a clue where this was going. Guess not. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 118 Registered: 4-2006 |
On Israel- Some of the posters do not understand the level and range of Israeli technology in terms of attacking weapons sites in Iran. Israel has its own millitary industries which are more than competitive with the US's. The US in fact had to restrict Israeli weapons sales to China due to the concern about the quality of the millitary technology being transfered. Iran's air force and millitary services are not as sophisticated or well trained as Israel's, and the Iranian bomb program had to basically be lifted from Pakistani efforts. They don't have the equal of Israel's scientists or weapons programs. The U.S. can probably engage in a more comprehensive and sustained attack on Iranian weapons sites than can Israel. But Israel has more than enough ability to attack them as well, and can very effectively decapitate the Iranian program by taking out Iran's leadership. Israel also probably has better on the ground intelligence than the US. Additionally, President Johnson told Israel that he was still attempting to diplomatically address the blockade of Israeli shipping by the Egyptians in 1967. Israel still felt the need to launch a pre-emptive strike that was called the Six Day War. You ignore the Israelis at your own peril here I am afraid. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 11352 Registered: 5-2001 |
Southerner, joining the military isn't like leaving one bank to go to work for another. There is a lot of risk here. Also, it isn't like moving from Morgan to Goldman. People are putting their life on the line. Fact, nobody is going to deny the Israeli's technological capability or their will, although I think the last few years has hurt them there. However, unless they have figured out how to refuel fighter/bombers (and they may have) the trip to Tehran is one way only. Take a look at a map and figure out how Israel can support a sizeable military force in Iran. The whole trip is through "Indian Country". The idea that the Iranians will rise up against the Ayatollahs and their minions sounds a lot like the Bush approach during the run up to Iraq. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1218 Registered: 10-2004  |
Factvfiction and Southerner would have us at war permanently. They are both advocating attacking Iran without provocation. Did Iran bomb the Cole or commit the 9/11 attrocity? No. If anything that was Saudi Arabia wahabiists. Now all of a sudden Iran is the power that attacked us. No I think not. We should deal with states diplomatically. We should deal with terrorists criminally. Iran is under a very strict rule by the mullahs currently but if you are thinking long term and if as Factvsfiction states there were more people voting against Ahmadinejad (who by the way I never made any statement about one way or the other) then we can most definitely wait them out the same way as we waited out the soviet union during the cold war. Ignoring Israel? Who said that and what has it to do at all with pre-emptive war against a country who has not first attacked us? Yes, I agree that militant Islam is a scourge on the world and western civilization is a prime target but that threat does not rise to the level of war against Iran. Hey why not war against Pakistan, they have the bomb and far more militant Islamists living and learning to hate the west there? Its a myopic view of the world where you think the USA can dominate the planet or even should dominate the planet. Its quite dangerous and foolish. Can we be attacked again? Surely we are vulnerable, and we should be spending our resources on beefing up our port security and our intelligence capability. Eventually, if we do not destroy the world with nuclear weapons, the world will change for the better. Until then diplomacy not war is the best way to counter any threats | ||
| Debby Citizen Username: Debby Post Number: 2279 Registered: 5-2001 |
fact - you seem very knowledgeable, so correct me if I'm wrong - but I believe Israel has had mid-air refueling capabilities for quite a while. Bob - Israel took out Iraq's reactor in the 80's. What makes you think they couldn't do the same in Iran today? Hoops - I think you are choosing to disregard the gravity of the situation. Ahmedinejad says that the holocaust never happened, and that Israel needs to be destroyed. He was one of the captors/torturers in the US Embassy hostage crisis in the 70's. He is enriching uranium against orders, despite sitting on huge oil reserves...this is not for electricity. tom - Why would you think Iran would attack the U.S.? Their leaders may be islamic fundamentalists, but there's no reason to believe they're insane. They're not living in caves, after all, and you don't see any members of the Iranian parliament blowing themselves up in shopping malls. No, but they are training them and funding them. They are the world's largest state-sponsor of terrorism. Think Hizbollah.} | ||
| Darryl Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7109 Registered: 10-2001  |
Anyone who disagrees with Debby and factvsfiction on this subject is a complete moron. | ||
| Duncan Supporter Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 6277 Registered: 12-2001  |
I am supposing you all have read Amy Chua's World on Fire? It would help explain a lot about the tensions inherent in that area. If you haven't read it, I recommend it. | ||
| Debby Citizen Username: Debby Post Number: 2281 Registered: 5-2001 |
Straw - you're making me blush! Here's some info about Iran's legitimate need for nuclear power for non-military purposes from Wikipedia: Iran is OPEC's second largest oil producer, as it exports between four and five million barrels of oil per day; moreover, it holds 10% of the world's confirmed oil reserves. Iran also has the world's second largest natural gas reserves (after Russia). | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1220 Registered: 10-2004 |
Debby - take a look at the atlas I posted. Now tell me exactly what the USA is going to do about Iran being a nuclear power. Attacking Iraq is no where near what it would take to attack Iran. If you think we can do it and not have the war spill over onto American shores you are 100% wrong. Oh - A compliment from Straw is faint praise. Straw - anyone thinking that the United States can wage a war on Iran without consequence at home is a moron. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 122 Registered: 4-2006 |
Debby- Israel has a variety of capacities, some reflected in the Jane's assessments and some not. I suggest BobK ask a DOD official about "re-fueling" as a problem for the Israeli Air Force. Not. The attack on the Osiris reactor in Iraq by Israel included the overflight of hostile arab countries. Israel will not repeat the restraint, which was later condemned as a matter of relinquishment of national soverignty, during the first Gulf War when scuds fell in Israel because Bush Sr. asked for Israel not to retaliate against Saddam Hussein. The posters also fail to consider, given Israeli success in "targeted assassination" of Hamas and Islamic Jihadi leaders, the ability of Israel to similiarly target and take out the Iranian leadership as an alternative to striking the nuclear facilities as a possibility. What is tremendously sad is reading these posts and seeing people in the presence of and facing true evil, equivocate or bury their heads in the sand with rationalizations. This is no doubt how Hitler was successful. To Hoops and the others, they don't think like you at all guys. Your democratic ideals, social beliefs, and general western values are ALL an abomination that has to be wiped off the map to these people. There isn't any accomodation. You can see what you are dealing with by the Mohammad cartoon riots and the inability of radical islamists to accept the liberal western governments in Europe in which they live. If you do nothing I hope your ok with seeing your daughters in burkhas, and if you want to remain christians, paying your muslim overlords a "dhimmi" tax. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1222 Registered: 10-2004 |
No one is debating whether radical islam is a good thing. We are talking about 'preemptive' war. That is a horrible thing. No one is talking about appeasment either. I dont see Iran attacking a neighbor, nor do I see them attacking us. I assume Factvsfiction that you are for bombing Iran without them attacking us. I assume that you dont care about the real people that will die in those attacks, both Iranian and American. Please tell me your brilliant solution for the problem of 'islamists'. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 123 Registered: 4-2006 |
Hoops- The solution is very simple, show them you have the will and the force. You believe they understand nuanced negotiation. They understand it alright, as weakness. Iran will and has attacked us through surrogates. The pronouncments of Ahmadinejad also targets the destruction of America, and they are working other non-nuclear weaponry with us in mind. The Iranian missles will be able to reach Europe. In the history of the Near East as I can recall it from Professor Bernard Lewis' writings, the radicalization of islam is a cycical matter. The supression of extremists has resulted in the end of that segment of the cycle. I think encouraging democracy also works. Iran to me is a different subject than Iraq as a defensible pre-emptive war. People will die, but more people will live as a result of removing this threat to the world. If Hitler had been killed early millions upon millions of people would have lived. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1223 Registered: 10-2004 |
Nice of you to be so sure of yourself with someone elses life. Are you going to volunteer? | ||
| GOP Man Citizen Username: Headsup Post Number: 343 Registered: 5-2005  |
It is vital to our safety that we spread democracy to the Middle East. Our president is, as usual much smarter than his opponents think he is. He is right to encourage democracy, because democracies never preemptively start wars against countries that don't threaten them. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 11356 Registered: 5-2001 |
Debby, take a look at this map. The trip to eastern Iran is maybe three times longer than to Bagdad for the Israeli Air Force. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.uark.edu/depts/globmark/middea stmap.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.uark.edu/depts/globmark/middeast.html&h=1206&w=10 00&sz=365&tbnid=GODZ_DjlM0wJ:&tbnh=150&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmiddle%2Beast %2Bmap%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D&start=2&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=2 Fact, I have no problem with a little Realpolitiks. I initially supported the Iraq War because I thought Cheney and Rumsfeld were smart enough not to let us get involved unless their was a lot of internal support, including within the Iraqi military. I have since been disillusioned, as have most people in this country. I hope we don't make the same mistake again. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 134 Registered: 4-2006 |
Bob K - If Israel's Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and Chief of Staff have repeatedly stated they have the capacity to attack the Iranian nuclear targets I think you should take them at their word. They are not blowing smoke. I think attacking Iran is a justified pre-emptive strike, I did not feel that way about Iraq. Big differences between the two. Hoops- If that is all you can come back with I suggest you realize your argument is shrinking. Anyone who has ever served in a millitary understands the risk, and the Iranians have a low value on human life. They had thousands of young soldiers with keys around their necks ( to enter paradise) deliberately cross mine-laced battlefields, in order to launch attacks in the Iran-Iraq war. They are not naifs and keep on developing nuclear weaponry knowing a number of Iranians may die if the sites are attacked. They ain't liberal humanists Hoops. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3477 Registered: 3-2004  |
FF: "Iranians have a low value on human life." What a HUGE silly stereotype. Good Lord. Have you ever spoken with an Iranian? Do you know any? Interesting how the right cries "xenophobia" when it comes to leasing ports, but when it comes to juicy Mutual Assured Destruction, they're just salivating to have us all hate "those guys" so we can see the fireworks start. UGGGGGHHHHH!!!!! | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 137 Registered: 4-2006 |
Tulip- yes. do you? | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3478 Registered: 3-2004 |
Why go on a message board and try to drum up hate against a country because it's leader's a jerk? You all accuse me of doing that toward the US? Are you all subscribers to the "evil empire" school of international politics? This guy, Ahmadinejad, do you really think he has the persuasive power in Iran that Hitler had in Germany? Has Iran been brought to its knees the way Germany had after WWI, throwing the citizenry into a fighting mood? Do you think the "average Iranian" (who would get turned to hamburger meat if we attacked) wants to end up like their neighbors in Iraq. Hey, you guys, you showed them how much damage the US can do. This ain't peace and love, boys, but it ain't about shock and awe either. I don't think all Israelis look forward to a nuclear strike by the US, either. Why don't you think about the PEOPLE of these countries and what they would like, rather than the abstraction and entity "ISRAEL" and the abstraction, and entity "IRAN" (as represented to you by its deranged spokesman...certainly not "leader?") Stop this sabre rattling. I really think Israel has spoken with one voice in voting AGAINST Netanhayu, the known sabre rattler. Leave it alone and get off of it. Preventive war is not just Mutually Assured Destruction in this case. It's bizarre and sadistic. Get off the paranoia and give it up. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3479 Registered: 3-2004 |
facts: I'll bet my Iranian friends are nicer than yours. And I'll bet none of them want war. And no, I'm not an insurgent terrorist. Are you? You can rattle off "facts" and names and places, but all of your facts are as cherry picked as any presented by this Administration. You guys have to see the forest for the trees. Stand back and look at the big picture. Do you want your children and your grandchildren living with the Chernobyl-like remnants of nuclear hits? Get defensive, but use diplomacy. Look at Libya. Did any like or trust Qaddafi? He's a jerk. He doesn't have nukes, but he was a threat and a bother. We didn't kill him, we didn't get rid of him, we didn't send in the Marines. Where's Qaddafi now? There are hundreds of lunatics running countries. That doesn't mean you build up armies against them and nuke 'em. Now you sound like the 70's with the hostage crisis. How did that end? With nukes? Give it up!!! | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3480 Registered: 3-2004 |
Facts: Your argument, I take it, is that when we try to use diplomacy, "Iran" (this single-minded, unified entity) thinks it's a sign of weakness, so we should use military might. If you follow that, you are saying that the US has to think like an Iranian fanatic, sink down to their level to "end" the problem of nuclear proliration in Iran. Wrong on two counts: If you "get down" to their level by choosing the military option (which YOU perceive to be their level, I might add) you are doing just that, "getting down" and not moving up. Wrong on the other count: If you are "getting down" to their level (which YOU perceive to be their level) you are not ENDING proliferation in Iran, you are ENCOURAGING proliferation, that is, if there's an Iran LEFT after we blow it up. Tell me, are you really trying to eliminate the country of Iran? Is that what you REALLY want to do? If so, Hoops' point is even more obvious. You can't just make a giant backyard for the US of the whole planet. Just realize that, would you? | ||
| Debby Citizen Username: Debby Post Number: 2283 Registered: 5-2001 |
Fact, I have no problem with a little Realpolitiks. I initially supported the Iraq War because I thought Cheney and Rumsfeld were smart enough not to let us get involved unless their was a lot of internal support, including within the Iraqi military. I have since been disillusioned, as have most people in this country. I hope we don't make the same mistake again. This is pretty much how I feel, too. But I do feel something has to be done. And I don't think it will require a Hiroshima style attack on a city.} | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3481 Registered: 3-2004 |
Debby, Please tell me. Do you think there is such a thing as a "limited" nuclear attack? Nukes carry radiation. Radiation spreads. It causes leukemia, and other deadly, painful diseases. Do you really want innocent children in Israel, Iran and other countries to suffer from this? Now tell me. What about this is wrong. Please, someone tell me what is limited about nuclear radiation. How do you contain it. Has anyone seen Chernobyl around here? Sheeesh talk about Kafka!!! | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 11359 Registered: 5-2001 |
Fact, even Israeli officers blow smoke occasionally. My guess is he means they can deliver a nuclear warhead in the general vicinity via rocket. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 143 Registered: 4-2006 |
tulip- My Iranian friends would love to have the USA liberate their country from the mullahs. Shows how much you know. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 144 Registered: 4-2006 |
Bob K- No. Conventional strikes. Mofaz's family is from Iran and he speaks Farsi. He knows his stuff. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3483 Registered: 3-2004 |
Bombing the hell out of a region is not liberation. Ask again if they want nukes down on 'em. This is not Cuba where the ancien regime wants to wipe out the current one. I had friends whose parents were in the Shah's government. They left Iran, and said to hell with it. I don't agree. You can't just blast good behavior out of people, no matter how much you don't like their policies. It's true in politics, as it's true in life. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1224 Registered: 10-2004 |
tulip - thanks for keeping up the truth. Fact is interested in perpetual war around the world and is afraid of his neighbor because he cannot or will not try to speak with them. No fact I am just telling it like it is. I care about people, and I care about our troops. War is not good for this country and certainly is not good for the world. Conventional war against Iran could prove to be a very difficult proposition. In waging this conventional war you create more terrorists willing to do anything to get back at the US aggressor. Being a nuclear power is not a reason to attack, being an agressor is. Right now you are on the wrong side of the 'right' thing to do. No war for oil, no preemptive war to stop nuclear expansion, no war for political advantage, no war to please the military industrial complex. tulip is 100% correct. We did not wage war on Libya even though Qadafy supported terrorism, and we did not wage war on Syria even though they supported terrorism and we did not wage war on Egypt etc. Iran has a spokesman in place who is speaking loud with no clout behind him. We should be busy rallying diplomatic support to use sanctions and show the world that Iran has a fool as its figure head but has no followers. Comparisons to Hitler are foolish. Your statement about the mushroom cloud being in New York was suspiciously similar to Condolezzas statement and just as frankly stupid. If you want to reduce the possibility of a nuclear attack in the US you need to protect our ports and we need to reconstitute the ability to find the 'loose nukes' that are all over the former USSR. Pointing the finger and calling the Iranians fanatics is moronic as well. It was the Saudis that invented wahabism and it is they and the Pakistanis who are propagating it. Right now with the US in Iraq we are giving great credance to their call for resisting the 'crusaders'. fvf - your arguments are false. | ||
| Darryl Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7110 Registered: 10-2001 |
Hoops is now using Tulip's points to validate his.... Who's next, Jimmy Piersal?  | ||
| Elgato Citizen Username: Elgato Post Number: 39 Registered: 2-2004 |
This is all very interesting but everyone seems to be assuming that apart from Israel, no one else has an interest in this war of words...I doubt very much that the rest of the world is going to stand idly by and let Bush get away with bombing another country (years away being able to develop it's own nuclear bomb) and once again creating the mess and suffering that is Iraq without getting involved and bringing the war to our shores. Russia and China could well side with Iran. Democracy cannot and never will be forced on the Middle East by the USA or anyone else and Bush and co. are quite well aware of that. It is just a smokescreen for their ulterior motives. | ||
| Darryl Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7112 Registered: 10-2001 |
holy ignorance. | ||
| Elgato Citizen Username: Elgato Post Number: 42 Registered: 2-2004 |
Read some history. WWII started when Germany tried it's luck the second time around. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4833 Registered: 5-2001 |
Ignorance would be thinking that Russia and China are run by card-carrying members of the R.N.C. They have their own realpolitik interests and toadying to the Bush-is-always-right line is not among them. Remember, nations don't have friends. They have interests. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 154 Registered: 4-2006 |
Be About Common Sense I am glad some of you are not policymakers for this country | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4834 Registered: 5-2001 |
--Josh Marshall, TPM. Emphasis added. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1243 Registered: 9-2004 |
SO lets say Iran is attacked, Maybe Isreal takes out the leadership. Maybe we hit the Nuke installations. Now what? What do 1.6 billion Muslims do? Part of the problem with the Bush Regime is they don't think things thru. SO lets think things thru, does the US get attacked in retaliation? Or does Isreal get hit in retaliation? If the Persian Gulf shipping is shut down, does oil go to $100 or $150 a barrel? And does that cripple the US economy? AT what point does the world decide they wont tolerate a US Hegemon? And do something about it (us). If this scenario doesn't get played out carefully- does NYC get hit? Or DC? At what point is the Bush Regime Foriegn Policy considered a failure? Before or after 10 million Americans die? The Bush Regime must be removed cleanly and legally before they screw anything else up. | ||
| Darryl Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7113 Registered: 10-2001 |
So we should overthrow our Government, not Iran's??  | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 160 Registered: 4-2006 |
Straw- Relative to Foj's post: Next democratic presidential candidate in 2008: Ahmadinejad ! Campaign slogan : " A Burkha in Every Pot " | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4836 Registered: 5-2001 |
you know what they say, regime change starts at home. | ||
| Twokitties Citizen Username: Twokitties Post Number: 431 Registered: 8-2004 |
Fact: "What is tremendously sad is reading these posts and seeing people in the presence of and facing true evil, equivocate or bury their heads in the sand with rationalizations. This is no doubt how Hitler was successful." How thoughtful of you to compare someone questioning preemptive war to a Nazi. |
