End of Days for Iran

[rhodescholar]

I have reached my breaking point, no more talk, negotiations thru the pacifistic europeans, no more BS.

It is time to send in the army to remove this dreadful, awful regime of sc-mbag criminals and give democracy a chance in the middle east.

All the jihadist, brainwashed theocratic dogs that actually believe in living under this type of regime can have a small section of the country carved out where they can live like the backwards animals they are and the rest of the world can live without having to worry that iran has given an atomic bomb to hezbollah to use in a western city.

This regime is the world's NUMBER ONE problem - and it must be dealt with RIGHT NOW - before they reach "n korean nuclear status" and can no longer be threatened with a military option against them.

Bush must act now, and unlike the iraq war, which i was on the fence about, any leftwing trash that even THINKS of arguing/protesting against a war to remove the dictatorship had better HEAVILY arm themselves. Iraq was a gray area - this is not.

[defari]

The Iran youth is rebelling, they'll take care of their governemnt themselves.

[tandem]

the entire democratic world needs to empower the youth movements in iran who are sick and tired of living under a theocracy ran by a bunch of deranged islamists. the iranian regime must be toppled from within, the same way the syrians and their puppet government are being driven out by the people of lebanon.

[Sumud]

I have reached my breaking point, no more talk, negotiations thru the pacifistic europeans, no more BS.

It is time to send in the army to remove this dreadful, awful regime of sc-mbag criminals and give democracy a chance in the middle east.



But long live Saudi Arabia, the home of moderation!

[KettleWhistle]

I have faith in the Iranians for being able to sort out their political mess and to bring the democracy to fruition themselves.

As for Saudi Arabia, there is some progress. But the key difference between them and Iran would be the compliance with the UN resolutions. I don't know of any binding resolutions against the SA, while there are a number of issues IAEA has with Iran in addition their governments direct support for terrorist organizations.

[rhodescholar]

I have faith in the Iranians for being able to sort out their political mess and to bring the democracy to fruition themselves.

As for Saudi Arabia, there is some progress. But the key difference between them and Iran would be the compliance with the UN resolutions. I don't know of any binding resolutions against the SA, while there are a number of issues IAEA has with Iran in addition their governments direct support for terrorist organizations.

Unfortunately, many people when confronted with complex, difficult situations liek this just put their head in the sands and say: "lets hope for the best."

That will not work here, as the regime has thousands of imported pal arab thugs who it uses to attack democracy protestors at every demonstration. The regime is too entrenched and well-protected for internal forces to remove.

And given the time frame where iran will be nuclear-armed - preventing outside forces from removing the dictatorship - time is running out.

The US MUST attack iran NOW, and not wait like they did with n korea.

[philingraham]

... any leftwing trash that even THINKS of arguing/protesting against a war to remove the dictatorship had better HEAVILY arm themselves...Rhodes Scholar

I take it that you are referring to me, since there isn't anyone left on the IF that's willing to take you on...

[philingraham]

I have reached my breaking point...

It is time to send in the army...

Those that have reached their breaking point should go have their nervous breakdown elsewhere...

[Mediocrates]

I didn't hear anything resembling a plan. And frankly if Europe isn't worried that they will be underneath Iran's nuclear umbrella years before we will, then neither am I, too much. In just a few years - probably less than 3 Iran will have the ability to hit something from the eastern edge of Greenland to the Sea of Japan. I think the wildcard is India who already understands that it's been targeted by Russia, China and Pakistan but won't like Iran being added to that list. And I'm pretty sure that whatever Iran claims, in terms of being ready willing and able to absorb multiple strikes goes double for India.

[rhodescholar]

I have reached my breaking point...

It is time to send in the army...

Those that have reached their breaking point should go have their nervous breakdown elsewhere...

As expected, the reflexive but feeble minded leftwing makes a personal attack, devoid of substance or thought.

How about a shred of intelligence from anyone who believes a nuclear iran is not a good thing, and can actually think of a way to keep that from happening at all costs?

[MGB8]

rhodescholar, I was actually reaching a similar conclusion last week.

Only I don't think it is necessary to depose the Mullahs, and I do believe that will eventually happen on its own.

I DO, however, believe that the US, not Israel, since I don't think Israel can realistically do it, MUST DESTROY ALL OF IRAN'S NUCLEAR FACILITIES.

Right now, IMO, were are in the midst of WW4, which, sadly, has its origins in WW1/2 (Nazis) and WW3 (Communism). WW4 can be for all intents and purposes ended if none of the Jihadist powers becomes a nuclear threat before they become democracies. While we do have a problem in Pakistan, that theater seems more or less under control.

Iran is the real threat.

What is worse is a retrenchment to WW3. Putin and his KGB buddies are pretending that this is the cold war, despite the threat that Islamic terror poses to them, in large part because they think they can form an "energy axis" with Iran, Venezuela, etc., and regain much of their former Soviet glory. Alas, while the Soviet Union crumbled, it was never crushed, and like Germany seems to be making another go at it.

France is still a political whore, and Germany is confused.

In light of a political situation that is in many ways getting WORSE, not better, the US would be best nipping the "persian puzzle" in the bud, by striking only the nuclear facilities, killing as few as possible, and saying - "look, we weren't kidding when we said we weren't going to let you have the bomb. We have no problems otherwise, well, except for terrorism, etc., but no bomb for you, we will not allow you to go from nuisance to threat."

The negative consequences of such a strike, and there will be many, are far outweighed by the negative consequences of a Nuclear Iran.


I have reached my breaking point, no more talk, negotiations thru the pacifistic europeans, no more BS.

It is time to send in the army to remove this dreadful, awful regime of sc-mbag criminals and give democracy a chance in the middle east.

All the jihadist, brainwashed theocratic dogs that actually believe in living under this type of regime can have a small section of the country carved out where they can live like the backwards animals they are and the rest of the world can live without having to worry that iran has given an atomic bomb to hezbollah to use in a western city.

This regime is the world's NUMBER ONE problem - and it must be dealt with RIGHT NOW - before they reach "n korean nuclear status" and can no longer be threatened with a military option against them.

Bush must act now, and unlike the iraq war, which i was on the fence about, any leftwing trash that even THINKS of arguing/protesting against a war to remove the dictatorship had better HEAVILY arm themselves. Iraq was a gray area - this is not.

[Mira]

To follow up on MGB8's post, Russia is launching what are believed to be two spy satellites for Iran this year. At least one of them will be in space by around May.

http://www.missilethreat.com/news/200502021445.html

Iran has aligned itself with Russia, and so any attack on Iran would cause problems with Russia.

[Mediocrates]

Interesting. Plesetsk


Has ESA (European Space Agency) permanent mission presence.
Is designed for high azimuth polar orbital insertions (in lieu of sub orbital over the pole lobs at North America.) for scientific and spy payloads
Has well developed support facilities
Is scheduled to begin supporting Angara booster systems
Has a horrendous saftey record (almost as bad as Baikonur)
Has no practical benefit for comm sats.

Kosmos-3M has not been built since 1995 but there is believed to be 15 of these still available. It can hoist loads of 500-1500kg depending on orbit. This means that an Iranian launch would have to be part of a multipackage launch which the ESA is working hard to perfect. The booster has about a 5.2% failure rate on launch (23/444). And the location of Plesetsk 400 miles ne of St. Petersburgh in the Arkhangel Oblast means that launch failures come down on neighboring towns and villages.

[takeo]

I have reached my breaking point, no more talk, negotiations thru the pacifistic europeans, no more BS.

It is time to send in the army to remove this dreadful, awful regime of sc-mbag criminals and give democracy a chance in the middle east.

All the jihadist, brainwashed theocratic dogs that actually believe in living under this type of regime can have a small section of the country carved out where they can live like the backwards animals they are and the rest of the world can live without having to worry that iran has given an atomic bomb to hezbollah to use in a western city.

This regime is the world's NUMBER ONE problem - and it must be dealt with RIGHT NOW - before they reach "n korean nuclear status" and can no longer be threatened with a military option against them.

Bush must act now, and unlike the iraq war, which i was on the fence about, any leftwing trash that even THINKS of arguing/protesting against a war to remove the dictatorship had better HEAVILY arm themselves. Iraq was a gray area - this is not.

How are you going to achieve this? Invading Iran from Iraq? I don't think Al-sistani nor the current Iraqi leader will buy it. From the sea? it's possible of course, but who is going to help you? Blair already excluded Brittish assistance to any operation in Iran... and will Russia accept an American military operation near its borders? I think their opposition will be a lot heavier compared to Iraq, such an operation will undoubtely reinstall the cold war. France and Europe, as much as we have our differences with Iran, will not accept this invasion and Bush will be once again and more than ever isolated if he pushes trough. And will the Iranians wellcome the US-invasion? Many don't agree with the regime but very few would accept a us-military invasion, and unlike Iraq there aren't etnic or religious guerilla's to rely upon. (except the communist Hesbollah) Also Iran fought against Al-Quaida but once the Americans will create civil war and chaos nothing will prevent them from entering Iran and contributing to the resistance and it is the missing link between the insurgeancy in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
Of course Iran isn't the number one world problem, the regime is quite moderate compared to Saoudi Arabia. Yes, there is a lot of corruption and many people don't like the Ayatollah regime, especially the young, but don't underestimate Iranian nationalism, as during the war with Iraq the whole population will rally against the occupiers, there isn't etnic and religious fragmentation as in Iraq, where only the sunni's ruled the country.

And how will the Iraqi's react? the current iraqi strongmen have religious, cultural and political links to Iran and if one thing is sure in life it is that they will never accept ac US-invasion in Iran. Invading Iran means loosing the only force in Iraq which isn't fighting you.


Last question, how will the US public opinion react? Undoubtely the war will be much more costly than the war in Iraq, both in blood and in money, since Iran is a bigger and better armed country. As in Iraq you will give a free ticket to extremists who will win popularity under the barrier of fighting or opposing the occupiers, and the ayatollah themselves can save their image by presenting themselves as hero's fighting American occupation.
More than likely this war will, like Iraq, result in bloodshet and serious impoverishment. But of course no price is too high to expand your petrol-interests in the middle East...


Of course any reasonable people know that the only option for Iran is one like in Ukrain, especially since some parts of the regime are very moderate and especially since there's a strong civic society in Iran. I even think the Bush-regime has changed its strategy concerning Iran, if not they wouldn't have sought reappraochment to europe and the world, it would have been useless effort if he planned to invade Iran anyway. Bush also seems to have accepted European (including Brittish) strategy to offer to Iran economic cooperation in return for ceasing their nuclear program.


this kind of arguments give moral autorisation to Iranians who want a nuclear program, since indeed it's the only way to exclude a US-military invasion. (wow, do you consider this a breach of your rights, not being able to invade a country, life sucks, no? )

Iran so far has only obtained technology for producinf their own nuclear energy-producing installations, and according to Russia that's the only goal of their nuclear assistance.

[rhodescholar]

rhodescholar, I was actually reaching a similar conclusion last week.

Only I don't think it is necessary to depose the Mullahs, and I do believe that will eventually happen on its own.

I DO, however, believe that the US, not Israel, since I don't think Israel can realistically do it, MUST DESTROY ALL OF IRAN'S NUCLEAR FACILITIES.

I strongly disagree.

Since iran has wisely hidden many of its facilites in places the rest of the world doesnt know about - and has buried them so far underground in some cases, or placed them next to populated areas - so that military strikes alone are not an option.

Only regime change can end the nuclear threat. An iraq-style mass invasion with the goal of capturing and killing the leadership is a necessity. I dont buy the bullsh-t that the people there will rise up to defend their country from all and any invaders.

The iranians are not arabs - meaning they think before the respond with outsized emotions. The US has shown next door how they work, remove the dictatorship, let the people take over. Now that the US has proven itself under the bush administration, that it is genuinely interested in peace and spreading democracy, the people there will rally behind the US - as they have in iraq, except the media prefers to focus on the few animals making everyone else's life difficult.

[rhodescholar]

How are you going to achieve this? Invading Iran from Iraq? I don't think Al-sistani nor the current Iraqi leader will buy it.

Sistani is not a friend or ally of the iranian dictatorship.

From the sea? it's possible of course, but who is going to help you? Blair already excluded Brittish assistance to any operation in Iran...

The US has 150,000 troops in iraq, and another 50 - 75,000 nearby. The aussies, as usual, will help, but noone else is needed. And here in the US, the support for attacking the iranian dictatorship, who has admitted its nuclear aims, is far greater. The public support for this is much greater than it was before iraq, since the iranian dogs are so brazen in their hatred for the US, and memories of the hostages runs deep.

and will Russia accept an American military operation near its borders? I think their opposition will be a lot heavier compared to Iraq, such an operation will undoubtely reinstall the cold war.

Ugh, the marxist speaks. And the Arab Street will Rise. Any more novels to sell us? The threats made every time the US does something is tired beoynd belief.

Of course Iran isn't the number one world problem, the regime is quite moderate compared to Saoudi Arabia.

Are you for real?

Yes, there is a lot of corruption and many people don't like the Ayatollah regime, especially the young, but don't underestimate Iranian nationalism, as during the war with Iraq the whole population will rally against the occupiers, there isn't etnic and religious fragmentation as in Iraq, where only the sunni's ruled the country.

See my post above.

Last question, how will the US public opinion react? Undoubtely the war will be much more costly than the war in Iraq, both in blood and in money, since Iran is a bigger and better armed country.

Crushing this govt will do more to end worldwide terrorism than any other action thinkable. Iran has used terrorism against others for 25+ years, and is using hizbollah and other groups to ensure continued violence with the pal arabs/israel. End this regime, and many good things will happen. Then syria...

As in Iraq you will give a free ticket to extremists who will win popularity under the barrier of fighting or opposing the occupiers, and the ayatollah themselves can save their image by presenting themselves as hero's fighting American occupation.

You must be in a cave. Every major european paper in the last few months has recognized that things are changing in iraq. The public opinion in europe at this point is probably more favorable than even the american, and the only people supporting the jihadists in iraq are hardcore anti-american marxists like you, and their mothers.

More than likely this war will, like Iraq, result in bloodshet and serious impoverishment. But of course no price is too high to expand your petrol-interests in the middle East...

Falling back on the old "oil interests" line. Iraq would have to have 10x the amount of oil it has to pay back america for the amount the US has spent - and will spend - over the next several years. This idiotic line has been exhausted long ago.

Of course any reasonable people know that the only option for Iran is one like in Ukrain, especially since some parts of the regime are very moderate and especially since there's a strong civic society in Iran.

I guess reading wasnt fundamental in your family. The dictatorship has protected itself from internal uprisings with imported pal arab thug vigilantes who attack demonstrators, and throw them out windows while they sleep.

How many college students in iran, the usual demonstrators, are in prisons right now?

If there was a possibility of a velvet revolution, i wouldnt support the military option so heavily. But it isnt a possibility.

[MGB8]

Its a matter of military intelligence. If we have a decent idea, or are capable of obtaining a decent idea, of where the nuclear sites are (and I was under the impression that the cites necessary for bomb making, as opposed to bomb design, did require some significant degree of space, so as not to be so easily hidden), then I would far prefer simply striking the nuclear facilities and giving support to dissidents. Frankly, I think that the Iranian government would have a decent chance of falling after a strike on their nukes, as it would seem weak and impotent, and if they did crack down on dissidents tienamin square style, THEN the US could intervene.

As for Russia, if russia hadn't agreed to sell so much enriched uranium and centrifuges in the next 6 months, we might not be under such pressure to act.

I also think that Bush should apologize on Arab TV to Iran for the US involvement in installing the Shah and overthrowing the PM. That is one of the great strengths of the Mullahs, that they can say - the US hurt Iran and is opposed to allowing the will of the people, all they want is a puppet like the Shah. By apologizing and distancing ourselves from the idea of overthrowing an ELECTED official, we can kick one of the support legs of the Mullah's legitimacy.

[takeo]

Sistani is not a friend or ally of the iranian dictatorship.

perhaps not an ally, but he is certainly closer to Iran, a country which supported and harbored him during decades, than to the US, and they will never accept an American invasion from Iraq... watch my words...




The US has 150,000 troops in iraq, and another 50 - 75,000 nearby. The aussies, as usual, will help, but noone else is needed. And here in the US, the support for attacking the iranian dictatorship, who has admitted its nuclear aims, is far greater. The public support for this is much greater than it was before iraq, since the iranian dogs are so brazen in their hatred for the US, and memories of the hostages runs deep.

I don't think so, people are not ready for another useless war in wich many Americans will be killed, even support for the war in Iraq is in the US quite low.



Ugh, the marxist speaks. And the Arab Street will Rise. Any more novels to sell us? The threats made every time the US does something is tired beoynd belief.

I think once the option of a military invasion comes closer Russia WILL sell them the bomb (as the Chinese probably did in the case of North- Korea), the only efficient way to prevent an American invasion. What are you going to do to stop Russia? The reality is you don't have any controll over Russia or China, and the war in Iraq, which ended the joint war against terror, made the division wider than ever.




Are you for real?

yes, women are in parliament in Iran, can drive cars, have rights Saoudi women can only dream of, there's a quite critical press. (but they always push the borders of what's admitted)




See my post above.

Iranians aren't Arabs indeed, they are even more nationalist, more determined and less divided.




Crushing this govt will do more to end worldwide terrorism than any other action thinkable. Iran has used terrorism against others for 25+ years, and is using hizbollah and other groups to ensure continued violence with the pal arabs/israel. End this regime, and many good things will happen. Then syria...

BS, Iran has no connections with Al-Quaida and doesn't target US or Western European targets. Organisations like Hamas have closer ties with Saoudi Arabia than with Iran. You said the same about Iraq, but the only consequence was more terrorism, not less.




You must be in a cave. Every major european paper in the last few months has recognized that things are changing in iraq. The public opinion in europe at this point is probably more favorable than even the american, and the only people supporting the jihadists in iraq are hardcore anti-american marxists like you, and their mothers.

in your dreams, Europeans are more convicted than ever the war in Iraq was a mistake, and Bush' approachment can't conceal the differences, even in Italy these day, the last remaining European ally in Iraq next to GB, a majority wants a pull-out. But of course we accept transatlantic relations are important and Iraq isn't important enough to spoil those relations forever. But as even Bush himself said the differences over Iraq continue.




Falling back on the old "oil interests" line. Iraq would have to have 10x the amount of oil it has to pay back america for the amount the US has spent - and will spend - over the next several years. This idiotic line has been exhausted long ago.

American planners are looking on the long term.




I guess reading wasnt fundamental in your family. The dictatorship has protected itself from internal uprisings with imported pal arab thug vigilantes who attack demonstrators, and throw them out windows while they sleep.

BS, the regime doesn't have any Arab thugs, those are also Iranians. And while the uprisings were dissolved indeed, critical newspapers continue to publish and even within the regime itself (khatami) reformers still occupy important positions.




If there was a possibility of a velvet revolution, i wouldnt support the military option so heavily. But it isnt a possibility.

you didn't learn from your experience in Iraq, did you?

[MGB8]

Actually, Iran has pretty well documented ties to Al-queda, and are harboring many top leaders as we speak. Just because they didn't like the taliban....

Or are we going to hide behind the Shiite-Sunni divide...which has been so evidence in Iran's relationship with Syria the past decade or so, and the involvement in lebanon, with now Shiite Hezbollah coming to Sunni-Baathist Syria's defense??

Where is your foundation for China selling NK the bomb? More making things up, takeo? Ditto Russia, I don't think even Putin is that brazen and stupid.

Oh, and European papers are asking many questions, including "maybe Bush was right." What planet are you on, takeo, that you have no clue as to reality.

[Mediocrates]

I rather like the idea of Paris having to think twice about a Shahab-4 coming over the horizon at them. The fact is that Iran aspires to be a regional superpower but it is not one yet and honestly it could never be unless Russia and France practically gave them the weapons at bargain basement prices because ideologically driven insular theocratic regimes who have openly espoused a non rational course of action would never on their own be able to garner the brain power or tools or initiative to do something like this on their own. But they do have going for them is unpredictability. The fact that they have no compunction to making statements like "We will nuke Tel Aviv" ought to raise the stakes and the general level of terror and mutual assured destruction in the area quite a bit. At that point the Frankenstein that France and Russia created will be a large threat to them. Iran will begin to make incredible demand on Russia to break off several areas from the South of Russia where Iran is already covertly involved in fomenting shiia islamic revolutions. Iran will push for an anschluss of part of Iraq and they will move to leap over Syria into Lebanon or perhaps simply occupy Syria itself as an 'invited party' just as Syria moved on Lebanon. With nuclear weapons this will all be possible since the power of such weapons is the threat not they use and because Iran is so unpredictable the threat is that much greater.

[takeo]

Actually, Iran has pretty well documented ties to Al-queda, and are harboring many top leaders as we speak.

Proves, links, documents, anything?


Or are we going to hide behind the Shiite-Sunni divide...which has been so evidence in Iran's relationship with Syria the past decade or so, and the involvement in lebanon, with now Shiite Hezbollah coming to Sunni-Baathist Syria's defense??

Syria and Iran are allies since the late 70's, both had common ennemies: Israel, the US, Saddam Houssein. Both have established good relations with the new government in Iraq. Shiites in Lebanon represent the majority of the Lebanese population, if the Lebanese elect a pro-Syrian government it's noone's but Lebanon's internal affair. What right do you have to demand their withdrawel as long as you are still in Iraq?






Where is your foundation for China selling NK the bomb? More making things up, takeo? Ditto Russia, I don't think even Putin is that brazen and stupid.

It was a suggestion, not a fact, but many observers doubt North Korea would be able to make them without Chinese assistance. And it's in China's interest that North-Korea doesn't get invaded.




Oh, and European papers are asking many questions, including "maybe Bush was right."

Really, can you give me an example? ( a paper that wasn't already in favor of the war)



you have no clue as to reality.

idem ditto

[takeo]

I rather like the idea of Paris having to think twice about a Shahab-4 coming over the horizon at them. The fact is that Iran aspires to be a regional superpower but it is not one yet and honestly it could never be unless Russia and France practically gave them the weapons at bargain basement prices because ideologically driven insular theocratic regimes who have openly espoused a non rational course of action would never on their own be able to garner the brain power or tools or initiative to do something like this on their own. But they do have going for them is unpredictability. The fact that they have no compunction to making statements like "We will nuke Tel Aviv" ought to raise the stakes and the general level of terror and mutual assured destruction in the area quite a bit. At that point the Frankenstein that France and Russia created will be a large threat to them. Iran will begin to make incredible demand on Russia to break off several areas from the South of Russia where Iran is already covertly involved in fomenting shiia islamic revolutions. Iran will push for an anschluss of part of Iraq and they will move to leap over Syria into Lebanon or perhaps simply occupy Syria itself as an 'invited party' just as Syria moved on Lebanon. With nuclear weapons this will all be possible since the power of such weapons is the threat not they use and because Iran is so unpredictable the threat is that much greater.

a lot of
Iran isn't involved in southern Russia, Saoudi Arabia was and still is, the ideology of the Chechen terrorists is wahabism. Some Russians suspect the US and Turkey might be in it as well, they clearly had a hand in the situation in Georgia. Iran has always referred to Chechnia as "internal affairs"
Iran also isn't very unpredictable, the war with Iraq was caused by Saddam Houssein, Iran cooperated in the war on terror against the taliban and Al-quaida (not that they should expect any gratitude) and its support for the hesbollah isn't a secret since many years, so this didn't change either.
Iran however has established good relations with India, Pakistan, Turkey, Syria, Russia, Armenia, the new Iraqi government, even the new government of Ukrain paid one of its first foreign visits to Tehran.

[philingraham]

The US has 150,000 troops in iraq, and another 50 - 75,000 nearby. The aussies, as usual, will help, but noone else is needed. And here in the US, the support for attacking the iranian dictatorship, who has admitted its nuclear aims, is far greater. The public support for this is much greater than it was before iraq, since the iranian dogs are so brazen in their hatred for the US, and memories of the hostages runs deep.

The US has no army available to attack Iran.

There is no support in the US for attacking Iran.

The only threat this regime poses is to Israel and they will very likely attack Iran if they can't talk us into doing so ourselves.

So what you're really suggesting here is a preemptive nuclear strike by Israel on Teheran. Forget about bunker busters and daisycutters.

Here's hoping the Israeli leadership is made of sterner stuff than you, Roadkill...

[rhodescholar]

The US has 150,000 troops in iraq, and another 50 - 75,000 nearby. The aussies, as usual, will help, but noone else is needed. And here in the US, the support for attacking the iranian dictatorship, who has admitted its nuclear aims, is far greater. The public support for this is much greater than it was before iraq, since the iranian dogs are so brazen in their hatred for the US, and memories of the hostages runs deep.

The US has no army available to attack Iran.

There is no support in the US for attacking Iran.

The only threat this regime poses is to Israel and they will very likely attack Iran if they can't talk us into doing so ourselves.

So what you're really suggesting here is a preemptive nuclear strike by Israel on Teheran. Forget about bunker busters and daisycutters.

Here's hoping the Israeli leadership is made of sterner stuff than you, Roadkill...

Post no more repolies, idiiot, you will get no response from me. If you are such a child you can only throw personal attacks, then you are ignored.

[philingraham]

Cecil must be turning in his grave...

[rhodescholar]

perhaps not an ally, but he is certainly closer to Iran, a country which supported and harbored him during decades, than to the US, and they will never accept an American invasion from Iraq... watch my words...

You dont follwo events there 2 wel.. he has resisted iran's influence almost completely.

I don't think so, people are not ready for another useless war in wich many Americans will be killed, even support for the war in Iraq is in the US quite low.

Quite low? According to who?

I think once the option of a military invasion comes closer Russia WILL sell them the bomb (as the Chinese probably did in the case of North- Korea), the only efficient way to prevent an American invasion. What are you going to do to stop Russia? The reality is you don't have any controll over Russia or China, and the war in Iraq, which ended the joint war against terror, made the division wider than ever.

The US and EU has plenty of influence over russia. Deal with it.

yes, women are in parliament in Iran, can drive cars, have rights Saoudi women can only dream of, there's a quite critical press. (but they always push the borders of what's admitted)

And unlike the saudi regime, the iranians regularly imprison and kills their own citizens, and others like the canadian female reporter last year. No comparioson. SA is awful, but is not in the league of iran.

Iranians aren't Arabs indeed, they are even more nationalist, more determined and less divided.

Which will help in the aftermath, since iran doesnt have the factions iraq does.

BS, Iran has no connections with Al-Quaida

Just the ones it harbored after the taliban fell.

and doesn't target US or Western European targets.

Just the ones in lebanon it can hit with truck bombs.

Organisations like Hamas have closer ties with Saoudi Arabia than with Iran.

Hamas' weapons come from iran (see karine A and Hizbollah).

You said the same about Iraq, but the only consequence was more terrorism, not less.

Israel and the US have faced less terroism in the last 2 years. Interestingly, Europe, who prostrated itself before the arab thugs by pressing against the war, have experienced MORE terrorism. Hmmm, i wonder why...

in your dreams, Europeans are more convicted than ever the war in Iraq was a mistake,

Read something beside Marxism Today and you will see that the european attitudes, esp since the election, and given the lebanese developments, ahve changed. Nonne of which would have happened if the US didnt invade iraq.

BS, the regime doesn't have any Arab thugs, those are also Iranians.

Read any iranian newspaper or blog. Its imported pal arabs.

And while the uprisings were dissolved indeed, critical newspapers continue to publish and even within the regime itself (khatami) reformers still occupy important positions.

When they are allowed to run for election. I notice how you say "ok, but" constantly, as if you are trying to win brownie points. You're out of your league here, and unless you start reading other sources, that wont change.

[rhodescholar]

Somebody tell the rocket scientist philly i cant see his posts, he is ignored, so he can stop wasting thread space. Thank you.

[rhodescholar]

Proves, links, documents, anything?

The NY Times for one. The AP and CNN for another.

And if lebanon is majority shiite now, its becuase of the ethnic cleansing by syria of arab christians, who WERE the majority. And over 1 million syrian citizens were illegally - under the geneva conventions - transplanted into lebanon to take jobs from the lebanese. But why let full disclosure get in the way of your agenda, please, continue:

Really, can you give me an example? ( a paper that wasn't already in favor of the war)

Read German? Try Der Spiegel.

[danholo]

America doesn't have the money or the power to invade another country unless money'll be diverted from other essential domestic services "for the war effort". And of course everybody in fear of terrorism will accept that their school might not have any classes next semester.

If America does something, it'll go as far as destroying the reactor a la Israel in Iraq 1981. It's not useful to get into another mess and, as takeo said, while the young people don't like the regime, they will defend against an invading/attacking army. The homogenous character of Iran makes Iran different from Iraq.

[MGB8]

While it would certainly cost a lot, I'm not sure given Iran's military history that its resistance would be less like Iraq's 3 week war, and more like Afghanistan, although certainly not as feable and requiring a more Iraq sized force.

[Mira]

How many reactors is Iran trying to build? I heard upwards of 20. The first one is a heavy water reactor being built with Russia's help, but what about the rest? Are they buying what they need for their other facilities through illicit channels?

[Mediocrates]

As we have discovered, we are great at warfare and not so great at post warfare or transitional non-war states as they're called now. I think it's a fantasy to imagine that anyone can credibly put that Iranian Atomic Genie back in the bottle. Short of using it on them, of course.

The basic failures of the entire world wide NPT ethos are:

You can't uninvent something.
You can't stop a sufficiently motivated state from procuring them if they really want to.
Eveyone cheats and points to everyone else cheating.
Agreements are only as useful as your willingness to enforce them.

So pick an abitrary date in the near future. I use 2017. Here are the states that will also have nuclear weapons or be close to them:


Japan
Tawian
North Korea
South Korea
Saudi Arabia
Egypt
Iran
Nigeria
Bangladesh
Indonesia

BTW few people realize that Japan and Germany today, right now, are allowed under international agreement and their own laws to develop nuclear weapons up to the point where they are 3 months away from completing a weapon.

So in twelve years its entirely plausible to think that the nuclear club will have ~18 nuclear countries. You also can't discount the wealthy Arab effect of getting what your neighbor has so Kuwait and the UAE may go nuclear as well. One plausible scenario is that Russia, no longer able to manage their own stockpiles according to their treaty agreements and hungry for the cash, begin to sell it off. Remember these are just laws, they can change.

[philingraham]

Mediocrates, How do you figure Bangladesh into that scenario ?

[Mediocrates]

They are very poor and literacy is not good, they do have lots of people, a strategic location, an English speaking education system and about half of the workforce in services not agriculture. I think you will see Indian companies outsource their own lower tech to Bangladesh soon and in a decade or two they will start to grow economically. Their population, economy and PPP are about half that of Indonesia. Just a guess really.

[rhodescholar]

As we have discovered, we are great at warfare and not so great at post warfare or transitional non-war states as they're called now. I think it's a fantasy to imagine that anyone can credibly put that Iranian Atomic Genie back in the bottle. Short of using it on them, of course.

The basic failures of the entire world wide NPT ethos are:

You can't uninvent something.
You can't stop a sufficiently motivated state from procuring them if they really want to.
Eveyone cheats and points to everyone else cheating.
Agreements are only as useful as your willingness to enforce them.

So pick an abitrary date in the near future. I use 2017. Here are the states that will also have nuclear weapons or be close to them:


Japan
Tawian
North Korea
South Korea
Saudi Arabia
Egypt
Iran
Nigeria
Bangladesh
Indonesia

BTW few people realize that Japan and Germany today, right now, are allowed under international agreement and their own laws to develop nuclear weapons up to the point where they are 3 months away from completing a weapon.

So in twelve years its entirely plausible to think that the nuclear club will have ~18 nuclear countries. You also can't discount the wealthy Arab effect of getting what your neighbor has so Kuwait and the UAE may go nuclear as well. One plausible scenario is that Russia, no longer able to manage their own stockpiles according to their treaty agreements and hungry for the cash, begin to sell it off. Remember these are just laws, they can change.

Which is exactly why the missile defense shield reagan proposed in the 1980s is so crucial.

[Mediocrates]

Those odds are poor at best. The original thought behind deterrence is that your opponent may get a few through but he doesn't know which few so he is compelled to overbuild massively in order to project meaningful force in relation to the 'shoot down' rate. That's why the US has 8700+ warheads and Russia has about 4900+ warheads. That's why a credible 2nd strike capability depends on stealth not numbers. But those equations don't play against the crackpot cannibal kings who don't care what they hit or how they have to hit it. So the entire philosophy of deterrence have to be rethought.

[Illuminatus]

A Baathist forum Saddamite asks:
[..Really, can you give me an example? ( a paper that wasn't already in favor of the war)..]

ok

1) " Could George W. Bush Be Right? " Der Spiegel (Frankfurt)

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,343378,00.html

[..When the voter turnout in Iraq recently exceeded that of many Western nations, the chorus of critique from Iraq alarmists was, at least for a couple of days, quieted. Just as quiet as the chorus of Germany experts on the night of Nov. 9, 1989 when the Wall fell...]

"a paper that wasn't already in favor of the war" ....heh heh heh.....Der Spiegel?

2) " Was Bush right after all? " The Independent (London)

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=617840

Rupert Cornell, who wrote the cover story, says [..As Syria pulls out of Lebanon, and the winds of change blow through the Middle East, this is the difficult question that opponents of the Iraq war are having to face...]

Sorry, I don't mean to gloat - but I think their star reporter, Robert Fisk is having a heart attack over what his employers have done - put this article and headline on the front page:
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/images/independent-050805.jpg

3) and last but not least....

A grudging nod to W from Le Monde's Saddam Hussein loving editorialists.

[..Mais ce "printemps arabe", selon l'expression des médias américains, doit être encouragé et au besoin défendu par tous ceux qui voient dans le respect des droits de l'homme une valeur universelle.

Le mérite de George W. Bush est d'avoir tenu ce discours dès le lendemain des attentats du 11-Septembre - mis àpart quelques écarts de langage sur "la nouvelle croisade". Il a développé l'idée que les peuples musulmans avaient le droit àla liberté, àla démocratie, àla prospérité. Il ne l'a pas fait seulement par altruisme mais parce qu'il est convaincu qu'une telle évolution correspond aux intérêts de sécurité des Etats-Unis...]

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3208,36-400795,0.html

Translation: "Arab Spring"

[.. But this "Arab Spring", per the expression of the American media, must be encouraged and if needed defended by all those who see respect for human rights as a universal value.

The merit of George Bush is to have held firm to his discourse from the day after 9/11--apart from some unfortunate language about "the new crusade."

He developed the idea that the Muslim peoples have the right to freedom, to democracy, to prosperity. He didn't do this only out of altruism but because he is convinced that such evolution corresponds to the security interests of the United States. ..]
----

True, France is not our ally (never was), and a massive "unofficial" boycott of French products and services continues in earnest in the USA that helps to contribute to their 10+ percent unemployment rate and economic decline. So this editorial from Le Monde should only be read with mild amusement.

[philingraham]

A Baathist forum Saddamite asks:
[..Really, can you give me an example? ( a paper that wasn't already in favor of the war)..]

ok

1) " Could George W. Bush Be Right? " Der Spiegel (Frankfurt)

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,343378,00.html

[..When the voter turnout in Iraq recently exceeded that of many Western nations, the chorus of critique from Iraq alarmists was, at least for a couple of days, quieted. Just as quiet as the chorus of Germany experts on the night of Nov. 9, 1989 when the Wall fell...]

"a paper that wasn't already in favor of the war" ....heh heh heh.....Der Spiegel?

2) " Was Bush right after all? " The Independent (London)

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=617840

Rupert Cornell, who wrote the cover story, says [..As Syria pulls out of Lebanon, and the winds of change blow through the Middle East, this is the difficult question that opponents of the Iraq war are having to face...]

Sorry, I don't mean to gloat - but I think their star reporter, Robert Fisk is having a heart attack over what his employers have done - put this article and headline on the front page:
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/images/independent-050805.jpg

3) and last but not least....

A grudging nod to W from Le Monde's Saddam Hussein loving editorialists.

[..Mais ce "printemps arabe", selon l'expression des médias américains, doit être encouragé et au besoin défendu par tous ceux qui voient dans le respect des droits de l'homme une valeur universelle.

Le mérite de George W. Bush est d'avoir tenu ce discours dès le lendemain des attentats du 11-Septembre - mis àpart quelques écarts de langage sur "la nouvelle croisade". Il a développé l'idée que les peuples musulmans avaient le droit àla liberté, àla démocratie, àla prospérité. Il ne l'a pas fait seulement par altruisme mais parce qu'il est convaincu qu'une telle évolution correspond aux intérêts de sécurité des Etats-Unis...]

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3208,36-400795,0.html

Translation: "Arab Spring"

[.. But this "Arab Spring", per the expression of the American media, must be encouraged and if needed defended by all those who see respect for human rights as a universal value.

The merit of George Bush is to have held firm to his discourse from the day after 9/11--apart from some unfortunate language about "the new crusade."

He developed the idea that the Muslim peoples have the right to freedom, to democracy, to prosperity. He didn't do this only out of altruism but because he is convinced that such evolution corresponds to the security interests of the United States. ..]
----

True, France is not our ally (never was), and a massive "unofficial" boycott of French products and services continues in earnest in the USA that helps to contribute to their 10+ percent unemployment rate and economic decline. So this editorial from Le Monde should only be read with mild amusement.


"...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..."

[Illuminatus]

.
" The Iraq effect? Bush may have had it right "


During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, President Bush said that "a liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region."

He may have had it right.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0304/p09s03-cods.html

Those poor Losing Lefties and Saddamites

Daniel ("I hate Boooosh") Schorr? BWAHAHAHAHAhahahaha.........

(stop that....no gloating : )

g'nite

[takeo]

christian science monitor: please stop copying arguments of rightwing propaganda websites with zero credibility and think for yourself.




A Baathist forum Saddamite asks:
[..Really, can you give me an example? ( a paper that wasn't already in favor of the war)..]

ok

1) " Could George W. Bush Be Right? " Der Spiegel (Frankfurt)

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,343378,00.html

[..When the voter turnout in Iraq recently exceeded that of many Western nations, the chorus of critique from Iraq alarmists was, at least for a couple of days, quieted. Just as quiet as the chorus of Germany experts on the night of Nov. 9, 1989 when the Wall fell...]

"a paper that wasn't already in favor of the war" ....heh heh heh.....Der Spiegel?

2) " Was Bush right after all? " The Independent (London)

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=617840

Rupert Cornell, who wrote the cover story, says [..As Syria pulls out of Lebanon, and the winds of change blow through the Middle East, this is the difficult question that opponents of the Iraq war are having to face...]

Sorry, I don't mean to gloat - but I think their star reporter, Robert Fisk is having a heart attack over what his employers have done - put this article and headline on the front page:
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/images/independent-050805.jpg

3) and last but not least....

A grudging nod to W from Le Monde's Saddam Hussein loving editorialists.

[..Mais ce "printemps arabe", selon l'expression des médias américains, doit être encouragé et au besoin défendu par tous ceux qui voient dans le respect des droits de l'homme une valeur universelle.

Le mérite de George W. Bush est d'avoir tenu ce discours dès le lendemain des attentats du 11-Septembre - mis àpart quelques écarts de langage sur "la nouvelle croisade". Il a développé l'idée que les peuples musulmans avaient le droit àla liberté, àla démocratie, àla prospérité. Il ne l'a pas fait seulement par altruisme mais parce qu'il est convaincu qu'une telle évolution correspond aux intérêts de sécurité des Etats-Unis...]

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3208,36-400795,0.html

Translation: "Arab Spring"

[.. But this "Arab Spring", per the expression of the American media, must be encouraged and if needed defended by all those who see respect for human rights as a universal value.

The merit of George Bush is to have held firm to his discourse from the day after 9/11--apart from some unfortunate language about "the new crusade."

He developed the idea that the Muslim peoples have the right to freedom, to democracy, to prosperity. He didn't do this only out of altruism but because he is convinced that such evolution corresponds to the security interests of the United States. ..]
----

True, France is not our ally (never was), and a massive "unofficial" boycott of French products and services continues in earnest in the USA that helps to contribute to their 10+ percent unemployment rate and economic decline. So this editorial from Le Monde should only be read with mild amusement.

Yes, but this was only the discours, the propaganda, but the reality in Iraq was very different, as concluded the article. This editorial doesn't say "Bush was right", it says that the Arab world needs democratisation (which also France has always mauntained), but nowhere is mentioned bush actually accomplished this or the war in Iraq was the right way to accomplish it. Of course it wasn't, as we can see every single day on the news. You should also mention the last part of the article, and the new editorial:


Des choses bougent dans le monde arabe, mais en déduire qu'un vent de liberté souffle sur cette région serait aller un peu vite en besogne. Ces frémissements - réels - sont d'autant plus remarquables qu'ils sont concentrés dans le temps et qu'ils concernent - hormis le Liban - des pays-clés. Mais ils ne sont pas les premiers du genre. Ces changements s'apparentent plus àune modernisation des systèmes politiques qu'àun partage réel du pouvoir. Ils n'occultent pas les obstacles sur lesquels continue de buter une véritable libéralisation de la vie politique. Les pays concernés, en dépit d'une communauté de langue, d'une très large homogénéité confessionnelle et de causes communes, ont vécu des évolutions historiques différentes qui pèseront sur le rythme et le type des réformes àvenir. Enfin, la quasi-totalité des pays arabes, y compris ceux qui ont engagé des réformes, sont gouvernés par des pouvoirs néo-patriarcaux

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3218,36-400755,0.html

which basically says that in reality it is not democratisation but just modernisation of the dictatorships in place or new regimes.

Iraq: the sunnites are not represented democratically, while the entire Iraq is now divided by two political parties: the Kurds in the north and the shiites in the rest of Iraq, who already governed most of Iraq trough their militia's ruling the streets of shiite neighbourhoods and cities. What happened in Iraq is one regime replacing the other, and opposers are already harrassed and censored. It is true of course that it wasn't the regime desired by the US, but the insurgeancy forced the US to limit their expectancies. Nowadays shiites rule Iraq and have replaced US-puppets, and it's only a matter of time before the new government will clash with the occupying powers.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3218,36-400756,0.html

so what did the US really achieve in the middle East?
Lebanon: a democratic country destabilising
SA and Egypt: more of the same dictatorships
Iran: democratisation in Iran was reversed (among other reasons) as a result of US-policy in the region.
Iraq: civil war between the different etnic and religious groups and a country still under occupation.
Every day in Iraq shows the adversaries of the war were right, there were no WMD in Iraq, Saddam was not a danger to the world and actually just a third-class dictator, and one has to wait and see if the next regime will be any better. Yes they are certainly supported by the majoritarian group, but so was the ayatollah during his first days in power, so was Hitler as well. religious fanatics have taken over and are reestablishing shariah in Iraq, christians are fleeing Iraq in numbers, terrorism has increased instead of decreased, etc.

Besides, concerning Lebanon: 100's of 1000's of people of all etnic and religious origin, including young, christian and non-religious people, took to the streets to defend Syrian presence. They could freely express their opinion as well as the anti-syrian demonstrators. In SA or Egypt (or Syria) it wouldn't be possible, in Iraq too it's no longer possible in areas controlled by the shiites, the kurds. In Lebanon as well as in Iraq it's clear your idea of democratisation only goes as far as it corresponds with American interests. By the way, why didn't you respond to my article of Yuchtchenko visiting Iran as one of the first foreign countries he visited as a president, while also announcing once again his plan to withdraw troops from Iraq, installed there by the previous regime which collaborated very closely with the US (untill very recently)?

Palestine and Israel: nothing changed really, except that Israel now once again agrees to talk to the PA, because Arafat died and because even hardcore men as Sharon realise Israel continued war is very destructive for Usraelu economy and society. Which is of course a positive devellopment, but not the achievement of G. W. Bush. The palestinians on their side maintain exactly the same position as before the death of Arafat, and Abbas even agreed to negociate with hamas and allow them to participate in the elections.

However in the middle East there's one illuminating example: Turkey which used to be one of the dictatorships with the worst human rights records in the region is turning itself quickly into a real democracy, widening itself from the US and embracing the EU. Today there was an issue in the EU-parliament over the police beating leftist demonstrators, a few years ago it happened every day, and the demonstrators were also imprisoned and tortured, which has now become, according to human rights organisations, rare.

[takeo]

" When you start to compare [permanent UN Security Council members], America is the eagle, China is the tiger, Russia is the bear, Britain is the lion and in my view France is the vulture," he said in an interview to ABC Radio. "It circles around and does nothing for itself, waiting for the opportunity to go and pick the benefits of other people's hard work."

and Australia is the loyal chihuahua on the side of the king of the jungle Bush and his big dog (the days GB was a lion are long over) Blair.

[takeo]

While it would certainly cost a lot, I'm not sure given Iran's military history that its resistance would be less like Iraq's 3 week war, and more like Afghanistan, although certainly not as feable and requiring a more Iraq sized force.

Iran has gained a lot of strength ever since, but even in the 80's they were able to stop Saddam, which was during those days at his zenit of military power, unlike during the last war were all that remained of Iraqi military force were antiquated Soviet tanks and artillery, much of which has been destroyed by the successive waves of destructive wars Iraq had to face ever since.

[Illuminatus]

[...so what did the US really achieve in the middle East? ..] asks the Left

The question is not what the US is doing, but what the people of the Middle East are doing for themselves. I suppose its only natural for a declining and failed colonial Loser like the French to wonder out loud about the achivements of outsiders to the region.

The Arab world is littered with autocracies that various European countries (mostly French and British) put in place. It is one the root causes of Islamo-Terrorism.

Lebanon: The Baathist, pro-Syrian government fell and the country will hold parlimentary elections on May 29th to re-establish one united, sovereign nation with one united army. Hizbollah currently has only 13 seats in parliament - 10 percent.

Saudi Arabia: Just held municipal elections. It's a small step, but it's a start. Will the House of Saud be democratically replaced in the next few years? Another generation? Did the Soviet Empire fall?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4313761.stm

Egypt: Just made a surprise announcement of plans to hold competitive presidential elections in Egypt could prove even more historic. Egypt is the Arab world's most populous country and one of its most politically influential. In more than five millenniums of recorded history, it has never seen a truly free and competitive election.
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=59661&d=28&m=2&y=2005

Iran: has no one to blame (and doesn't want to) but itself.

Iraq: Is rising. Much to the dismay of those who wanted Saddam Hussein to remain in power, It's economy is growing at a 22 percent rate. (I hear that there's a reason for this success, there are _NO_ French in Iraq)

more great news and in detail:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006351

Democracy in the Middle East is in its infancy. The "purple revolution" in Iraq, which produced such elating scenes of voters holding up an ink-stained finger, was only the first step to a peaceful settlement. Voting was not an end in itself.

Only a couple of generations ago, Europeans produced fascism out of democracy: Mussolini and Hitler swept to power on popular votes, before they banned their rivals. Not until there was permanent presence of the US Army enforcing civilized bahavior through NATO did the Zeropeans finally accept democratic reforms.

Economic development, human freedom, full property rights and a pluralistic political culture are the conditions for democracy. They can grow, but, without them, any democracy project will fall. Like Europe two generations ago, we are still at stage one in the Middle East.

Spreading democracy is the only way to win the war on terror. The Coalition of the Willing are still a long way from this victory.

ps, no nation wants Turkey to join EUtopia or has push harder than the USA over the past 10 years. This one is definetely in our best national interests.
--------------

Was Bush right? Two more

1) French essayist Guy Sorman asked last month in the Paris daily Le Figaro.

"And If Bush Was Right?"

http://www.lefigaro.fr/debats/20050226.FIG0105.html (by subscription),

Translated here (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://forum.subversiv.com/34096.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3DGuy%2BSorman%2B%2BBush%26hl%3Den%26lr %3D%26sa%3DG)

2) In Canada, anti-war columnist Richard Gwyn of the Toronto Star answered: "It is time to set down in type the most difficult sentence in the English language. That sentence is short and simple. It is this: Bush was right."

"Admit it: Bush was right on Iraq" (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1107172866652&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795)
.

[SteveMetch]

First Move (America): American places Iran into Land, Sea, Air Embargo. Our condition for removal of the embargo will be the certification that Iran is not (as it has said multiple times) developing WMD.

Pretext is the concern over terrorist delivery of WMD (container ship etc.) i.e. nations that engage in both activities are already in an unannounced war with US (Bush Doctrine, Terrorism sponsors and WMD don’t mix).

People with brains don’t need millions of dead to prove the point, three thousand is more than enough. Besides missiles always come with a return address, a very dumb way to attack the US or Israel.

Second Move (Iran) Variant 1: Iran attacks the forces imposing the embargo

Third Move (America) Variant 1: America destroys all Iranian air and sea forces and forms defensive land positions i.e. (Iraq, Afghanistan). B52’s are very effective against massed land attack in plain view with no air cover.

Second Move (Iran) Variant 2: Iran allows full inspections and off site interviews of any persons of interest (including families).

Third Move (America) Variant 2: Destroy the WMD capabilities. O' by the way you need to have full and open democratic elections.


Or we could just use the Terrorism sponsoring WMD pretext in combination with a deadline to Iranian stonewalling. We then take out entire the Iranian parliament (rats nest) in one strike with a stealth bomber attack. We then hold truly free elections composed primarily of the Iran dissidents in jail or abroad right now. Bingo a free and democratic Iran in two moves.

[takeo]

First Move (America): American places Iran into Land, Sea, Air Embargo. Our condition for removal of the embargo will be the certification that Iran is not (as it has said multiple times) developing WMD.

Pretext is the concern over terrorist delivery of WMD (container ship etc.) i.e. nations that engage in both activities are already in an unannounced war with US (Bush Doctrine, Terrorism sponsors and WMD don’t mix).

People with brains don’t need millions of dead to prove the point, three thousand is more than enough. Besides missiles always come with a return address, a very dumb way to attack the US or Israel.

Second Move (Iran) Variant 1: Iran attacks the forces imposing the embargo

Third Move (America) Variant 1: America destroys all Iranian air and sea forces and forms defensive land positions i.e. (Iraq, Afghanistan). B52’s are very effective against massed land attack in plain view with no air cover.

Second Move (Iran) Variant 2: Iran allows full inspections and off site interviews of any persons of interest (including families).

Third Move (America) Variant 2: Destroy the WMD capabilities. O' by the way you need to have full and open democratic elections.


Or we could just use the Terrorism sponsoring WMD pretext in combination with a deadline to Iranian stonewalling. We then take out entire the Iranian parliament (rats nest) in one strike with a stealth bomber attack. We then hold truly free elections composed primarily of the Iran dissidents in jail or abroad right now. Bingo a free and democratic Iran in two moves.

Iran borders Russia, which will never go along with an embargo, neither will Pakistan, Iraq, India, turkmenistan or any other neghbour of Iran.

[takeo]

[...so what did the US really achieve in the middle East? ..] asks the Left

The question is not what the US is doing, but what the people of the Middle East are doing for themselves. I suppose its only natural for a declining and failed colonial Loser like the French to wonder out loud about the achivements of outsiders to the region.

The Arab world is littered with autocracies that various European countries (mostly French and British) put in place. It is one the root causes of Islamo-Terrorism.

Lebanon: The Baathist, pro-Syrian government fell and the country will hold parlimentary elections on May 29th to re-establish one united, sovereign nation with one united army. Hizbollah currently has only 13 seats in parliament - 10 percent.

Saudi Arabia: Just held municipal elections. It's a small step, but it's a start. Will the House of Saud be democratically replaced in the next few years? Another generation? Did the Soviet Empire fall?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4313761.stm

Egypt: Just made a surprise announcement of plans to hold competitive presidential elections in Egypt could prove even more historic. Egypt is the Arab world's most populous country and one of its most politically influential. In more than five millenniums of recorded history, it has never seen a truly free and competitive election.
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=59661&d=28&m=2&y=2005

Iran: has no one to blame (and doesn't want to) but itself.

Iraq: Is rising. Much to the dismay of those who wanted Saddam Hussein to remain in power, It's economy is growing at a 22 percent rate. (I hear that there's a reason for this success, there are _NO_ French in Iraq)

more great news and in detail:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006351

Democracy in the Middle East is in its infancy. The "purple revolution" in Iraq, which produced such elating scenes of voters holding up an ink-stained finger, was only the first step to a peaceful settlement. Voting was not an end in itself.

Only a couple of generations ago, Europeans produced fascism out of democracy: Mussolini and Hitler swept to power on popular votes, before they banned their rivals. Not until there was permanent presence of the US Army enforcing civilized bahavior through NATO did the Zeropeans finally accept democratic reforms.

Economic development, human freedom, full property rights and a pluralistic political culture are the conditions for democracy. They can grow, but, without them, any democracy project will fall. Like Europe two generations ago, we are still at stage one in the Middle East.

Spreading democracy is the only way to win the war on terror. The Coalition of the Willing are still a long way from this victory.

ps, no nation wants Turkey to join EUtopia or has push harder than the USA over the past 10 years. This one is definetely in our best national interests.
--------------

Was Bush right? Two more

1) French essayist Guy Sorman asked last month in the Paris daily Le Figaro.

"And If Bush Was Right?"

http://www.lefigaro.fr/debats/20050226.FIG0105.html (by subscription),

Translated here (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://forum.subversiv.com/34096.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3DGuy%2BSorman%2B%2BBush%26hl%3Den%26lr %3D%26sa%3DG)

2) In Canada, anti-war columnist Richard Gwyn of the Toronto Star answered: "It is time to set down in type the most difficult sentence in the English language. That sentence is short and simple. It is this: Bush was right."

"Admit it: Bush was right on Iraq" (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1107172866652&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795)
.

So many people opposed the war, millions, perhaps one or two dumbasses changed their opinion it doesn't matter, in France some intellectuals who supported the war have changed their opinion.

Lebanon IS already a united nation with one army and one elected parliament, there are political divergencies over Syrian presence. Hesbollah has 10% of the seats but together with other pro-syrian parties they have a majority, since a majority of Lebanese voted for pro-syrian parties, even if they had the possibility to vote for anti-syrian parties... that's democracy, you have to accept it or abandon the idea of democracy if you can't respect the choice of the people.
SA and Egypt: you're a funny guy, the saoudi have organised elections in Riyad only for men only and they can only elect candidates approved by the royals.... even Saddam was more democratic than Saoudi Arabia. Egypt likewise: Mubarak has announced it will be possible to vote for more than one person, yet he'll still determine who will be able to present himself and he'll still controll the electoral process and the media.

In Iran at least the people really had the choice between two very different sides, of course the conservatives didn't play the game fair by not allowing many reformist candidates to participate yet the game isn't over yet, while in Egypt and saoudi arabia there is no game at all, everyone knows already who's going to win the so-called elections...
Democracy in the middle-east is not in its infancy, it has been brutally oppressed for many decades, by both pro- and anti-US regimes alike. Bush, a close friend of the Saoudi royals, didn't change this fact, not even slightly, as usual the Us abused democracy to justify their imperialist policy, but they didn't bring democracy, only "regime-change" and geo-political games.

[tandem]

don't forget the paleostinians. they just held their first, true democratic elections without being grappled by the arafat's iron fist.

these are small steps considering there is zero democracy in arab states. the ruling monarchies and despots are still very much in control but their influence in some places is starting to diminish.

[takeo]

don't forget the paleostinians. they just held their first, true democratic elections without being grappled by the arafat's iron fist.

these are small steps considering there is zero democracy in arab states. the ruling monarchies and despots are still very much in control but their influence in some places is starting to diminish.

Palestine has been democratic since the 1990's elections, which were democratic by all international standards. Of course there's one strong party and one strong leader, Abbas, that is, he is the successor of Arafat, and his only serious contender is Hamas, the only serious contender of Arafat as well.

I also think we should find a definition for the term democracy... is the US really so democratic, if you can't get elected without the propper funds and industrial support, and where a basic part of society doesn't vote? Is it more democratic than lebanon where all social, religious and etnic groups have their electorates, except the palestinians? What about democracy in countries where more than half of the population doesn't enjoy healthy water, education, enough food, etc, should democracy be a priority in those countries? A lot of questions and it's time we answer them.

[rhodescholar]

and Australia is the loyal chihuahua on the side of the king of the jungle Bush and his big dog (the days GB was a lion are long over) Blair.

France is a sh-thole of a rat's nest.

Given what they did in algeria - and what they are doing TODAY in the ivory coast - is insane and worse than anyhting america has ever done.

Stealing the natural resources from a country, and using its advanced military to attack and undermine a democratically elected govt?!? DISGRACEFUL.

Except the leftwing world press give france a pass on this, and therefore few see it on the news.

And the people who are complaining the most about this to me? French expats living in the US, by the hundred.

[rhodescholar]

Palestine has been democratic since the 1990's elections, .... swer them.

You are an idiot, plain and simple.

Arafat ran against a 75 year old woman, and was supposed to be in power 6 years. Somehow, his term magically extended itself with noone complaining.

All opposition to him found themselves shot in the streets or worse.

I think you are a failure of a human being, and i post this merely to help those who might not know better, but read ths board and are trying to learn from it. I avoided this board for months becuase of the low intelligence of the arab supporters like yourself, and moved on to other boards, which have much more intelligent posters than you. Perhaps i should just go back...

[SteveMetch]

Iran borders Russia, which will never go along with an embargo, neither will Pakistan, Iraq, India, turkmenistan or any other neghbour of Iran.

Iran is currently very isolated based on current and active US allies. The only power we might have difficult in bending over would be Russia. Good News, Russia doesn’t’ boarder Iran and they can’t even control Ukraine anymore. The other Good News is that over 98% of material into and out of Iran goes through Persian Gulf.

Bottom-line we can shut down Iran in short order. Our Navy and Airforce have little to do right now anyway.

[Illuminatus]

[..So many people opposed the war, millions, perhaps one or two dumbasses changed their opinion it doesn't matter, in France some intellectuals who supported the war have changed their opinion...]

As expected - when cornered and having lost the debate, note how the goal posts are suddenly changed.

Recalling post # 21 he wrote:
[..Really, can you give me an example? ( a paper that wasn't already in favor of the war)..]

just did,

but when shown the goal posts suddenly become...."millions".... and the "papers" were tossed out... heh heh heh... this is rich

and btw, what about your millions of Saddamites who opposed the war? It doesn't matter how many "millions" marched or burned American flags in Paris or wrote graffiti on US military cemetaries in France (time to disentern and bring them home). The only "millions" that really matter are the following:

* Voted for Bush in 2004: 64,200,000 million
total population of France: 60,424,213 million (July 2004 est.)

looks like you're a few million short....what, you didn't vote ?

awww...my sincere sympathies : )

[takeo]

France is a sh-thole of a rat's nest.

Given what they did in algeria - and what they are doing TODAY in the ivory coast - is insane and worse than anyhting america has ever done.

Stealing the natural resources from a country, and using its advanced military to attack and undermine a democratically elected govt?!? DISGRACEFUL.

Except the leftwing world press give france a pass on this, and therefore few see it on the news.

And the people who are complaining the most about this to me? French expats living in the US, by the hundred.

Today in Ivoery Coast France is reestablishing peace according to the wishes of the entire international community and without killing 1000's of people, quite on the contrary of the US adventure in Iraq. Algeria was long ago, longer ago and certainly not any worse than your atrocities in Vietnam. American expats in Paris tend to be the greatest criticisers of president bush, and Americans living in France voted overwelmingly against Bush.

[takeo]

You are an idiot, plain and simple.

Arafat ran against a 75 year old woman, and was supposed to be in power 6 years. Somehow, his term magically extended itself with noone complaining.

All opposition to him found themselves shot in the streets or worse.

I think you are a failure of a human being, and i post this merely to help those who might not know better, but read ths board and are trying to learn from it. I avoided this board for months becuase of the low intelligence of the arab supporters like yourself, and moved on to other boards, which have much more intelligent posters than you. Perhaps i should just go back...

my god, you are quite something aren't you compared to all the lowlife you just described...
Arafat was elected democratically, elections approved by all international organisations. Which opposition, except traitors who cooperated with the killing of palestinians, were shot in the streets?
Arafat's rule certainly wasn't ideal nor was oslo but there isn't much difference between the current and previous PLO-rulers, Abbas had been one of the architects of oslo and of the 1990's elections himself. And palestine still is deinately a more democratic society compared to Iraq.
perhaps you can't accept my views but resorting to personal insults is the lowest you can do and it doesn't particularly enhance your own image. This shows very much what an intolerant mediocre person you are incapable even of hiding your true totalitarian nature and unconcious of any irony, fairplay or subtlety. people who pretend to be the smartest are often the dumbest a$$holes.

[philingraham]

my god, you are quite something aren't you compared to all the lowlife you just described...
Arafat was elected democratically, elections approved by all international organisations. Which opposition, except traitors who cooperated with the killing of palestinians, were shot in the streets?
Arafat's rule certainly wasn't ideal nor was oslo but there isn't much difference between the current and previous PLO-rulers, Abbas had been one of the architects of oslo and of the 1990's elections himself. And palestine still is deinately a more democratic society compared to Iraq.
perhaps you can't accept my views but resorting to personal insults is the lowest you can do and it doesn't particularly enhance your own image.

This guy's a mental case...

[takeo]

[..So many people opposed the war, millions, perhaps one or two dumbasses changed their opinion it doesn't matter, in France some intellectuals who supported the war have changed their opinion...]

As expected - when cornered and having lost the debate, note how the goal posts are suddenly changed.

Recalling post # 21 he wrote:
[..Really, can you give me an example? ( a paper that wasn't already in favor of the war)..]

just did,

but when shown the goal posts suddenly become...."millions".... and the "papers" were tossed out... heh heh heh... this is rich

and btw, what about your millions of Saddamites who opposed the war? It doesn't matter how many "millions" marched or burned American flags in Paris or wrote graffiti on US military cemetaries in France (time to disentern and bring them home). The only "millions" that really matter are the following:

* Voted for Bush in 2004: 64,200,000 million
total population of France: 60,424,213 million (July 2004 est.)

looks like you're a few million short....what, you didn't vote ?

awww...my sincere sympathies : )

millions opposed the war in the streets of washington LA, SF, NY as well, altough american pro-Bush media didn't cover it as much as the demonstrations in europe (the bigest were in London, Madrid and Roma, capitals of countries which cooperated with Bush, very much against the wish of their populations).
But indeed many people in backwards American states (the so-called bible belt for example) voted for the most covered candidate and were especially vulnerable for the Bush-propaganda. In more progressive states the majority voted for Kerry. (altough I agree not much of an opposer he was)
In Brazil more people voted for socialist Lula, in China more people are member of the communist party than americans voted for Bush, in Russia putin received 60% of votes, (the rest going to the communist party) etc. etc. what are you trying to prove? I don't care much for whom you vote, you can vote for Buchananas far as I'm concerned or for the Aryan society or for ralph Nader (the only cadidate I would ever vote for), what you're doing in the US doesn't interest me, but leave the world alone, stop meddling and interfearing all over the world, or pay for it in hard cash and blood.
We want your movies, your hamburgers (some of us) and your music, but we don't like your special prisons, your president,nor your army, unless we ask them to help us. But noone likes uninvited guests.

More numbers: already almost 1500 americans have lost their life as a consequence of the WMD-lies of Bush

[takeo]

Iran is currently very isolated based on current and active US allies. The only power we might have difficult in bending over would be Russia. Good News, Russia doesn’t’ boarder Iran and they can’t even control Ukraine anymore. The other Good News is that over 98% of material into and out of Iran goes through Persian Gulf.

Bottom-line we can shut down Iran in short order. Our Navy and Airforce have little to do right now anyway.

Shutting down an international waterway is in violation of international law, I know you don't give a damn but I'll still mention it.
But both Iraq, nor pakistan nor India would ever cooperate to such an embargo, nor would Turkmenistan, Armenia or other societ-states. And there's another waterway trough to Caspian sea to Russia. In case of urgency Iran can still use other ways to export its natural resources, unlike Iraq during the last decade (at least officially, the black market is always an option but a lot more expensive). The current Iraqi government will never agree to either an embargo or invasion of their Iranian former and current allies, watch my words...


Frankly I don't know why you're so obsessed with Iran, it is not a regime close to my heart but it's certainly not worse than your close allies the Saoudi's or other medieval gulfstates. to make a mistake, Iran is much stronger and certainly not as isolated as Iraq was.
Iran signed agreements with India, Pakistan, Iraq (recent visit of prime minister Allawi) Russia, turkmenistan, Turkey, European nations, China, etc.

Anyhow I don't think the american public opinion will accept another senseless war that will be even more bloody and cost more american lifes and taxpayer money. Bush has subscribed the European policy of offering them economic assistence in return for cooperation, the same way which changed western relations with Libia fundamentally without a drop of blood spilled.

Today in syria 100's of 1000's of enthousiastic people supported in defense of Assad, you may say all you want, but invading Iran or Syria will be like the invasion of Iraq, but even worse because there aren't large marginalised etnic and religious minority groups as in Iraq. Today Iran and Syria are peacefull countries, you would like to turn them into a living hell exactly like Iraq.

[takeo]

Bush was able to mend just few fences in Europe

President, allies can't agree on best way to keep Iran from nuclear table.

By Bill Straub / Scripps Howard News Service

Comment on this story
Send this story to a friend
Get Home Delivery


WASHINGTON -- President Bush returned to the White House from his five-day swing through Europe, having repaired relationships with some of his sharpest critics among America's old allies but without agreements he coveted on several issues.

Although the president exchanged warm greetings with French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, a switch from the icy relations of the recent past, the Europeans continued to differ with Bush over key topics like Iraq and whether the 15-year-old arms embargo against China should be allowed to lapse. The United States wants it continued.

While almost all of Europe is in agreement with Washington over the desire to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons, the sides dickered over the best way to achieve that goal.

Bush eventually expressed limited support for an effort under way by France, Germany and Great Britain to offer Iran incentives to abandon its uranium-enrichment program. But he shied away from participating directly in any negotiations, saying that the best way to force Tehran's hand would come through U.N. sanctions.

Bush also sought to allay growing concerns that Iran is next on the U.S. hit list.

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous," Bush said during a visit to European Union headquarters in Brussels on Tuesday, before quickly adding, "And having said that, all options are on the table."

Despite the remaining differences the White House considered the trip a success, noting that the primary objective was to strengthen relations between the United States and what Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once called "old Europe" -- traditional allies who felt alienated by what was perceived as Bush's unilateral foreign policy. That endeavor, officials agree, went well.

"We have agreed that we are not going to constantly emphasize where we're not agreeing, but we want to focus on where we do agree," Schroeder said. Chirac, who had a private dinner with the president in Brussels Monday night, told reporters that "our relations are, indeed, excellent."

"Now, of course, that doesn't mean that because we share common values we don't -- we necessarily agree on everything all the time," Chirac said. "Of course, we can have our differences, our divergence of opinion. Recently, this was the case -- we didn't share the same view over Iraq. But this in no way affects or in no way undermines the bedrock of our relations, namely, our common values and our common vision."

Schroeder and Bush touched on another sensitive topic -- Washington's refusal to embrace the Kyoto accord on global warming. But rather than criticize Bush for failing to support the treaty, Schroeder expressed hope other avenues could be taken to address the problem.

"The Kyoto Protocol was not appreciated by everybody, and that is something that has continued to exist," Schroeder said. "But I would like to emphasize that, despite that, we would like to see practical cooperation with the reduction of problems in this area. And we think that there could be room for maneuver, particularly in the field of technology, where the United States of America and Germany both have tremendous know-how, and we would like to deepen cooperation in this field, irrespective of the question of whether Kyoto is the right tool to be going about things, or not."

http://www.detnews.com/2005/nation/0502/25/A03-100351.htm

[minusthejihad]

This guy's a mental case...

Finally you are right! Takeo is crazy and apparently even you agree.

[rhodescholar]

Finally you are right! Takeo is crazy and apparently even you agree.

Minus, alot of people left this board a few months back when they named andak as a moderator, which i actually didnt have a problem with. But i did understand their frustrations, as it seemed they spent much more time conversing with him than i did, so i couldnt fairly judge him one way or the other.

But i have pulverized the moderators at length to ban takeo, who i still believe to an extent might be one of the moderators posing as "the other side", and they have refused to do so.

He degrades the quality of the board severely, which is why i and a bunch of others had left for a while. I checked in just to see whether things had improved, and clearly they havent much.

This board truly sucks - so long as he is allowed to post, and its not a question that i dont enjoy heated debates with "the other side", its that it needs to be done at a certain level of intelligence and respect, which this piece of turd doesnt possess.

My first contempt is for the a-hole moderators, who have allowed him to post for so long, and they deserve the cr-p state this board is in given their actions. They have achieved exactly the board they wanted.

[Illuminatus]

post #53
Today in Ivoery Coast France is reestablishing peace according to the wishes of the entire international community and without killing 1000's of people, quite on the contrary of the US adventure in Iraq.The true judge of France's catastrophic mess in Africa, are the Africans them selves.

Today's Ici Cemac News (of Cameroon) asks its fellow Africans:

" Is France the curse of Africa ? "

It describes official French remarks as:

[.. typical racist mentality of a former colonizer..]

It details France's failures not only in Africa and throughout history, but around the world.

The history of France clearly disqualifies Jacques Chirac as a well-wisher in Ivory Coast.

It does explain however why France will do all within its power to sabotage the efforts of president Mbeki. Jacques Chirac knows that the prosperity of his country depends not on the hard work of its people (who work only 35 hours a week), but on the continued exploitation of former colonies in Africa. Without them, France would weight no more than Portugal on the international scene.

( heh heh heh.......OUCH! )

Unfortunately for Chirac, Africa has come of age. Gone are the days when Africa’s fate was being determined in Berlin, Paris or London. Africa has set its own institutions to address its own problems. The African Union has appointed president Mbeki as the mediator in the crisis in Ivory Coast. The mediator has the confidence of the Government and of the rebels. Africans are satisfied his progress.

To the contrary, French troops were neither invited nor appointed by panafrican institutions. The Ivorians do not welcome them. They must leave Ivory Coast immediately.It's a must read (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Is+France+the+curse+of+Africa+%3F%22&btnG=Search+News)

So is France the curse of Africa (if not the world) ?

the answer is....... (http://www.goodolddogs2.com/Ivory%20coast.jpg)

[rhodescholar]

millions opposed the war in the streets of washington LA, SF, NY as well, altough american pro-Bush media didn't cover it

Pro bush moron? Like CNN? They are pro-bush in your puny brain?

But indeed many people in backwards American states (the so-called bible belt for example) voted for the most covered candidate and were especially vulnerable for the Bush-propaganda.

You are a despicable, disgraceful -------------------------- How dare you paint millions of people as "backwards"? You stupid, intolerant -----------

[medkorp]

Hi,

Please, remember how you talk about more than 1.200.000.000 muslims...

So...

Medkorp

millions opposed the war in the streets of washington LA, SF, NY as well, altough american pro-Bush media didn't cover it

Pro bush moron? Like CNN? They are pro-bush in your puny brain?

But indeed many people in backwards American states (the so-called bible belt for example) voted for the most covered candidate and were especially vulnerable for the Bush-propaganda.

You are a despicable, disgraceful -------------------------- How dare you paint millions of people as "backwards"? You stupid, intolerant -----------

[Reffo]

Shutting down an international waterway is in violation of international law, I know you don't give a damn but I'll still mention it.But.....but....but Takeo, when you and I were discussing the 1967 war which was provoked by Nasser shutting down the Straits of Tiran (an international waterway) to Israel, you seemed to think that was OK. So, please explain to me how was it OK for the Egyptians to do it against Israel, but not for the Americans against Iran ?

[danholo]

Don't diss takeo! He actually brings some life to this board with his opposing views. It gives a nice change when you have a challenge to debate. Debating with somebody that agrees with you isn't really that productive.

[rhodescholar]

Don't diss takeo! He actually brings some life to this board with his opposing views. It gives a nice change when you have a challenge to debate. Debating with somebody that agrees with you isn't really that productive.

Ahhhhh, now i see who has been arguing to keep this piece of garbage on this board.

You are absolutely clueless.

And in dire need of some fresh air, if you think that this idiot represents an "opposing viewpoint."

Go to some web boards besides this one for a change, and see how people "on the other side" actually can discuss inteligently their viewpoints. They actually:

1-know what they are talking about, as they read news media/books beside arch-marxist trash
2-know when they are in the wrong, and can admit to it
3-admit they might need to read additional information on a specific area, as opposed to trying to come across as all-knowing
4-acknoweldge the other person's viewpoint has validity
5-stay ON TOPIC, as opposed to changing the thread focus or area under discussion when caught in a lie/mistake
6-dont make up stories or lie about well-known facts
7-are thoughtful in their statements, which jive with history and the truth

The dog you are defending is the VERY REASON this board has emptied out as of late. Even those "on the other side" who i have privately conversed with have said he degrades this board terribly, and they prefer to go elsewhere becuase the participants are more intelligent.

When there are 3 people left, you, the web admin, and the a--hole, will that be enough for you to finally grasp what has happened?

[MGB8]

Don't diss takeo! He actually brings some life to this board with his opposing views. It gives a nice change when you have a challenge to debate. Debating with somebody that agrees with you isn't really that productive.

Its not about point of view or challenge to debate. It is about consistently mis-stating facts. If this was a person who said "as I understood it.... so and so and so...." that would be one thing. But especially given months and months of mistatements of fact. Actually, I have him on ignore but get the email updates sometimes. So, to me, he adds nothing, because his posts, because they are often based on falsehoods, aren't worth reading.

There are others who I vehemently disagree with, for example Luke, who at least has the decency to not make up things, so we can talk, argue, debate. There are other europeans on the board who represent the European attitude towards Israel and the Palestinians, and I can't tell you how angry I am with that European attitude, since I think it shows that they haven't learned anything from the holocaust, but, as long as they don't start making things up as fact, you don't see the same hostility that I and others give to takeo.

The reason is simple...its not about opinion, which can certainly cause angry language, but about repeating lies.

[Justcurious]

There are other europeans on the board who represent the European attitude towards Israel and the Palestinian...

Dont't forget there are quite a few of us, with different opinions perhaps.

http://www.europa.admin.ch/eu/expl/staaten/e/

[golani]

The Iran youth is rebelling, they'll take care of their governemnt themselves.


Kamenei is leading an army of 2 millions loyal and fanatic passardans(revolution guardians)
Tough nut to crack for peaceful students
These 2 millions scumbags don't give a damn about human rights (especially women's) and democracy

[MGB8]

True enough. There is a trend, though, of Europeans not really believing that the Arabs would follow through on their words and committ genocide on the Jews. europe doesn't seem to care that Israeli's suffer from daily terrorism, and they really believe that if Israel went back to the 49 lines, then everything would be great. They don't care about the impact of the right of return on Israel. They don't care about the fact that peace treaties can be broken, even with long European history proving just that point. They, in reality, don't seem to care if Israel is destroyed and 6 million more Jews die, because Israel is an inconvenience, like the free existence of austria when the Nazi's decided they wanted it.

The fact that Europeans in general seem to be willing to allow, or at least significantly risk, another genocide of 6 million Jews. Keeping the Jews alive makes oil more expensive, and makes the already crazy Jihadists more crazy. And that European attitude makes me so very angry. Instead of taking a side for what is right, for those morals they claim to be protecting, Europe only looks for the path of least resistance. The highest European value seems to be avoiding discomfort to themselves, at any cost to everyone else.

[rhodescholar]

Paul Klebnikov, 07.21.03

A looming nuclear threat to the rest of the world, Iran is robbing its own people of prosperity. But the men at the top are getting extremely rich.

It's rumble time in Tehran. At dozens of intersections in the capital of Iran thousands of students are protesting on a recent Friday around midnight, as they do nearly every night, chanting pro-democracy slogans and lighting bonfires on street corners. Residents of the surrounding middle-class neighborhoods converge in their cars, honking their horns in raucous support.

Suddenly there's thunder in the air. A gang of 30 motorcyclists, brandishing iron bars and clubs, roars through the stalled traffic. They glare at the drivers, yell threats, thump cars. Burly and bearded, the bikers yank two men from their auto and pummel them. Most protesters scatter. Uniformed policemen watch impassively as the thugs beat the last stragglers.

These bikers are part of the Hezbollah militia, recruited mostly from the countryside. Iran's ruling mullahs roll them out whenever they need to intimidate their opponents. The Islamic Republic is a strange dictatorship. As it moves to repress growing opposition to clerical rule, the regime relies not on soldiers or uniformed police (many of whom sympathize with the protesters) but on the bullies of Hezbollah and the equally thuggish Revolutionary Guards. The powers that be claim to derive legitimacy from Allah but remain on top with gangsterlike methods of intimidation, violence and murder.

Who controls today's Iran? Certainly not Mohammad Khatami, the twice-elected moderate president, or the reformist parliament. Not even the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei--a stridently anti-American but unremarkable cleric plucked from the religious ranks 14 years ago to fill the shoes of his giant predecessor, Ayatollah Khomeini--is fully in control. The real power is a handful of clerics and their associates who call the shots behind the curtain and have gotten very rich in the process.

The economy bears more than a little resemblance to the crony capitalism that sprouted from the wreck of the Soviet Union. The 1979 revolution expropriated the assets of foreign investors and the nation's wealthiest families; oil had long been nationalized, but the mullahs seized virtually everything else of value--banks, hotels, car and chemical companies, makers of drugs and consumer goods. What distinguishes Iran is that many of these assets were given to Islamic charitable foundations, controlled by the clerics. According to businessmen and former foundation executives, the charities now serve as slush funds for the mullahs and their supporters.

Iran has other lethal secrets besides its nuclear program, now the subject of prying international eyes. Dozens of interviews with businessmen, merchants, economists and former ministers and other top government officials reveal a picture of a dictatorship run by a shadow government that--the U.S. State Department suspects--finances terrorist groups abroad through a shadow foreign policy. Its economy is dominated by shadow business empires and its power is protected by a shadow army of enforcers.

Ironically, the man most adept at manipulating this hidden power structure is one of Iran's best-known characters--Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who has been named an ayatollah, or religious leader. He was the speaker of parliament and Khomeini's right-hand man in the 1980s, president of Iran from 1989 to 1997 and is now chairman of the powerful Expediency Council, which resolves disputes between the clerical establishment and parliament. Rafsanjani has more or less run the Islamic Republic for the past 24 years.

He played it smart, aligning himself in the 1960s with factions led by Ayatollah Khomeini, then becoming the go-to guy after the revolution. A hard-liner ideologically, Rafsanjani nonetheless has a pragmatic streak. He convinced Khomeini to end the Iran-Iraq war and broke Iran's international isolation by establishing trade relations with the Soviet Union, China, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. In the 1990s he restarted Iran's nuclear program.

He is also the father of Iran's "privatization" program. During his presidency the stock market was revived, some government companies were sold to insiders, foreign trade was liberalized and the oil sector was opened up to private companies. Most of the good properties and contracts, say dissident members of Iran's Chamber of Commerce, ended up in the hands of mullahs, their associates and, not least, Rafsanjani's family, who rose from modest origins as pistachio farmers. "They were not rich people, so they worked hard and always tried to help their relatives get ahead," remembers Reza, a historian who declines to use his last name and who studied with one of Rafsanjani's brothers at Tehran University in the early 1970s. "When they were in university, two brothers earned money on the side tutoring theological students and preparing their exam papers."

The 1979 revolution transformed the Rafsanjani clan into commercial pashas. One brother headed the country's largest copper mine; another took control of the state-owned TV network; a brother-in-law became governor of Kerman province, while a cousin runs an outfit that dominates Iran's $400 million pistachio export business; a nephew and one of Rafsanjani's sons took key positions in the Ministry of Oil; another son heads the Tehran Metro construction project (an estimated $700 million spent so far). Today, operating through various foundations and front companies, the family is also believed to control one of Iran's biggest oil engineering companies, a plant assembling Daewoo automobiles, and Iran's best private airline (though the Rafsanjanis insist they do not own these assets).

None of this sits well with the populace, whose per capita income is $1,800 a year. The gossip on the street, going well beyond the observable facts, has the Rafsanjanis stashing billions of dollars in bank accounts in Switzerland and Luxembourg; controlling huge swaths of waterfront in Iran's free economic zones on the Persian Gulf; and owning whole vacation resorts on the idyllic beaches of Dubai, Goa and Thailand.

But not much of the criticism makes its way into print. One journalist who dared to investigate Rafsanjani's secret dealings and his alleged role in extrajudicial killings of dissidents is now languishing in jail. He's lucky. Iranian politics can be deadly. Five years ago Tehran was rocked by murders of journalists and anticorruption activists; some were beheaded, others mutilated.

Some of the family's wealth is out there for all to see. Rafsanjani's youngest son, Yaser, owns a 30-acre horse farm in the superfashionable Lavasan neighborhood of north Tehran, where land goes for over $4 million an acre. Just where did Yaser get his money? A Belgian-educated businessman, he runs a large export-import firm that includes baby food, bottled water and industrial machinery.

Until a few years ago the simplest way to get rich quick was through foreign-currency trades. Easy, if you could get greenbacks at the subsidized import rate of 1,750 rials to the dollar and resell them at the market rate of 8,000 to the dollar. You needed only the right connections for an import license. "I estimate that, over a period of ten years, Iran lost $3 billion to $5 billion annually from this kind of exchange-rate fraud," says Saeed Laylaz, an economist, now with Iran's biggest carmaker. "And the lion's share of that went to about 50 families."

[rhodescholar]

One of the families benefiting from the foreign trade system was the Asgaroladis, an old Jewish clan of bazaar traders, who converted to Islam several generations ago. Asadollah Asgaroladi exports pistachios, cumin, dried fruit, shrimp and caviar, and imports sugar and home appliances; his fortune is estimated by Iranian bankers to be some $400 million. Asgaroladi had a little help from his older brother, Habibollah, who, as minister of commerce in the 1980s, was in charge of distributing lucrative foreign-trade licenses. (He was also a counterparty to commodities trader and then-fugitive Marc Rich, who helped Iran bypass U.S.-backed sanctions.)

The other side of Iran's economy belongs to the Islamic foundations, which account for 10% to 20% of the nation's GDP--$115 billion last year. Known as bonyads, the best-known of these outfits were established from seized property and enterprises by order of Ayatollah Khomeini in the first weeks of his regime. Their mission was to redistribute to the impoverished masses the "illegitimate" wealth accumulated before the revolution by "apostates" and "blood-sucking capitalists." And, for a decade or so, the foundations shelled out money to build low-income housing and health clinics. But since Khomeini's death in 1989 they have increasingly forsaken their social welfare functions for straightforward commercial activities.

Until recently they were exempt from taxes, import duties and most government regulation. They had access to subsidized foreign currency and low-interest loans from state-owned banks. And they were not accountable to the Central Bank, the Ministry of Finance or any other government institution. Formally, they are under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Leader; effectively, they operate without any oversight, answerable only to Allah.

According to Shiite Muslim tradition, devout businessmen are expected to donate 20% of profits to their local mosques, which use the money to help the poor. By contrast, many bonyads seem like rackets, extorting money from entrepreneurs. Besides the biggest national outfits, almost every Iranian town has its own bonyad, affiliated with local mullahs. "Many small businessmen complain that as soon as you start to make some money, the leading mullah will come to you and ask for a contribution to his local charity," says an opposition economist, who declines to give his name. "If you refuse, you will be accused of not being a good Muslim. Some witnesses will turn up to testify that they heard you insult the Prophet Mohammad, and you will be thrown in jail."

Other charities resemble multinational conglomerates. The Mostazafan & Jambazan Foundation (Foundation for the Oppressed and War Invalids) is the second-largest commercial enterprise in the country, behind the state-owned National Iranian Oil Co. Until recently it was run by a man named Mohsen Rafiqdoost. The son of a vegetable-and-fruit merchant at the Tehran bazaar, Rafiqdoost got his big break in 1979, when he was chosen to drive Ayatollah Khomeini from the airport after his triumphal return from exile in Paris.

Khomeini made him Minister of the Revolutionary Guards to quash internal dissent and smuggle in weapons for the Iran-Iraq war. In 1989, when Rafsanjani became president, Rafiqdoost gained control of the Mostazafan Foundation, which employs up to 400,000 workers and has assets that in all probability exceed $10 billion.

Theoretically the Mostazafan Foundation is a social welfare organization. By 1996 it began taking government funds to cover welfare disbursements; soon it plans to spin off its social responsibilities altogether, leaving behind a purely commercial conglomerate owned by--whom? That is not clear. Why does this foundation exist? "I don't know--ask Mr. Rafiqdoost," says Abbas Maleki, a foreign policy adviser to Ayatollah Rafsanjani.

A picture emerges from one Iranian businessman who used to handle the foreign trade deals for one of the big foundations. Organizations like the Mostazafan serve as giant cash boxes, he says, to pay off supporters of the mullahs, whether they're thousands of peasants bused in to attend religious demonstrations in Tehran or Hezbollah thugs who beat up students. And, not least, the foundations serve as cash cows for their managers.

"It usually works like this," explains this businessman. "Some foreigner comes in, proposes a deal to the foundation head. The big boss says: ‘Fine. I agree. Work out the details with my administrator.' So the foreigner goes to see the administrator, who tells him: ‘You know that we have two economies here--official and unofficial. You have to be part of the unofficial economy if you want to be successful. So, you have to deposit the following amount into the following bank account abroad and then the deal will go forward.'"

Today Rafiqdoost heads up the Noor Foundation, which owns apartment blocks and makes an estimated $200 million importing pharmaceuticals, sugar and construction materials. He is quick to downplay his personal wealth. "I am just a normal person, with normal wealth," he says. Then, striking a Napoleonic pose, he adds: "But if Islam is threatened, I will become big again."

Implication: He has access to a secret reservoir of money that can be tapped when the need arises. That may have been what Ayatollah Rafsanjani had in mind when he declared recently that the Islamic Republic needed to keep large funds in reserve. But who is to determine when Islam is in danger?

As minister of the Revolutionary Guards in the 1980s, Rafiqdoost played a key role in sponsoring Hezbollah in Lebanon--which kidnapped foreigners, hijacked airplanes, set off car bombs, trafficked in heroin and pioneered the use of suicide bombers. According to Gregory Sullivan, spokesman for the Near Eastern Affairs Bureau at the U.S. State Department, the foundations are the perfect vehicles to carry out Iran's shadow foreign policy. Whenever suspicion of complicity in a terrorist incident turns to Iran, the Tehran government has denied involvement. State Department officials suspect that such operations may be sponsored by one of the foundations and semiautonomous units of the Revolutionary Guards.

Iran's foundations are a law unto themselves. The largest "charity" (at least in terms of real estate holdings) is the centuries-old Razavi Foundation, charged with caring for Iran's most revered shrine--the tomb of Reza, the Eighth Shiite Imam, in the northern city of Mashhad. It is run by one of Iran's leading hard-line mullahs, Ayatollah Vaez-Tabasi, who prefers to stay out of the public eye but emerges occasionally to urge death to apostates and other opponents of the clerical regime.

The Razavi Foundation owns vast tracts of urban real estate all across Iran, as well as hotels, factories, farms and quarries. Its assets are impossible to value with any precision, since the foundation has never released an inventory of its holdings, but Iranian economists speak of a net asset value of $15 billion or more. The foundation also receives generous contributions from the millions of pilgrims who visit the Mashhad shrine each year.

What happens to annual revenues estimated in the hundreds of millions--perhaps billions--of dollars? Not all of it goes to cover the maintenance costs of mosques, cemeteries, religious schools and libraries. Over the past decade the foundation has bought new businesses and properties, established investment banks (together with investors from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) and financed big foreign trade deals.

The driving force behind the commercialization of the Razavi Foundation is Ayatollah Tabasi's son, Naser, who was put in charge of the Sarakhs Free Trade Zone, on the border with the former Soviet republic of Turkmenistan. In the 1990s the foundation poured hundreds of millions of dollars into this project, funding a rail link between Iran and Turkmenistan, new highways, an international airport, a hotel and office buildings.

Then it all went wrong. In July 2001 Naser Tabasi was dismissed as director of the Free Trade Zone. Two months later he was arrested and charged with fraud in connection with a Dubai-based company called Al-Makasib. The details remain murky, but four months ago the General Court of Tehran acquitted him.

Iran's most distinguished senior clerics are disgusted by the mullahcrats. Ayatollah Taheri, Friday prayer leader of the city of Isfahan, resigned in protest earlier this year. "When I hear that some of the privileged progeny and special people, some of whom even don cloaks and turbans, are competing amongst themselves to amass the most wealth," he said, "I am drenched with the sweat of shame."

Meanwhile the clerical elite has mismanaged the nation into senseless poverty. With 9% of the world's oil and 15% of its natural gas, Iran should be a very rich country. It has a young, educated population and a long tradition of international commerce. But per capita income today is 7% below what it was before the revolution. Iranian economists estimate capital flight (to Dubai and other safe havens) at up to $3 billion a year.

No wonder so many students turn to the streets in protest. The dictatorship has been robbing them of their future.

[golani]

No wonder so many students turn to the streets in protest. The dictatorship has been robbing them of their future.[/QUOTE]

BIS REPETITAT
Kamenei is leading an army of 2 millions loyal and fanatic passardans(revolution guardians)
Tough nut to crack for peaceful students
These 2 millions scumbags don't give a damn about human rights (especially women's) and democracy

These students would need the help of some marine divisions to prevail and us forces are alredy overstretched...

[Justcurious]

The fact that Europeans in general seem to be willing to allow, or at least significantly risk, another genocide of 6 million Jew.....

Hahhahhaa, do you try to live in this century?

[Illuminatus]

Better late than never, the Dubya administration is finally making a concerted effort to change the status quo in Iran. The EUtopians may calculate they can live with a nuclear Islamic Republic of Iran. That's good, becuase they can then spend the $2 Trillion plus or a quarter of it's GDP needed to clean up the nuclear fallout and the destruction of their economy - as soon as Iran detonates a atomic weapon anywhere within 300 miles of the EUroLand mass.

Since the current regime will go nuclear (with Europe's help), Iran will unleash a new and potentially devastating wave of fear and terror which will end any hope for stabilization in the Middle East or Europe for that matter -- the EUtopians will get to reap what they sowed.

Meanwhile, life goes on as usual in Iran:
Violent clashes rocked, today, the City of Oshnovieh as brutal militiamen attacked the youth who were showing joy due to the approach of the traditional "Tchahr Shanbe Souri" (Fire Fiest).

Islamic regime forces attacked tens of young who were soon supported by hundreds of residents who retaliated to the regime use of clubs and Tear-gas with powerful hand made grenades and Molotov Cocktails. Overwhelmed official forces had to pull back at several occasions while the streets' initiative felt into residents hands.

Women were seen throwing stones and even eggs on the security forces which resulted in heavy damages made to several patrol cars and injured several militiamen.Link: Violent clashes rock Oshnovieh (http://www.daneshjoo.org/smccdinews/article/publish/article_4365.shtml)

The today's peaceful protest action of workers of the "Bahman Plastic Co." turned into clashes as the elite forces of the Islamic regime forces attacked them in front of the Ministry of Employment located in the center of Capital.

Clubs were used against the protesters who shouted: "Regim be in bi edalati, harguez nadide mellati" (Such Unjust regime, has never been seen by any people) or "Kar, Nan, Edalat!" (Work, Bread, Justice).

Most accesses to the area had been closed before the start of the brutal attack.

Several workers were injured or arrested.
Discontentment is high..... Link: Workers peaceful protest turns into clash with security forces (http://www.daneshjoo.org/smccdinews/article/publish/article_4364.shtml)

Hundreds of Iranian teachers gathered again in front of the regime's parliament for requesting better conditions and the Islamic republic's fullfilment of its empty promises.

The teachers who were carrying placards condemning the existing discrimination and huge amount of incentives given to the regime's MPs warned of a radicalisation of their mouvement.Link: Iranian Teachers Protest Again (http://www.daneshjoo.org/smccdinews/article/publish/article_4363.shtml)

[golani]

Better late than never, the Dubya administration is finally making a concerted effort to change the status quo in Iran. The EUtopians may calculate they can live with a nuclear Islamic Republic of Iran. That's good, becuase they can then spend the $2 Trillion plus or a quarter of it's GDP needed to clean up the nuclear fallout and the destruction of their economy - as soon as Iran detonates a atomic weapon anywhere within 300 miles of the EUroLand mass.

Since the current regime will go nuclear (with Europe's help), Iran will unleash a new and potentially devastating wave of fear and terror which will end any hope for stabilization in the Middle East or Europe for that matter -- the EUtopians will get to reap what they sowed.

Meanwhile, life goes on as usual in Iran:Link: Violent clashes rock Oshnovieh (http://www.daneshjoo.org/smccdinews/article/publish/article_4365.shtml)
Link: Workers peaceful protest turns into clash with security forces (http://www.daneshjoo.org/smccdinews/article/publish/article_4364.shtml)
Link: Iranian Teachers Protest Again (http://www.daneshjoo.org/smccdinews/article/publish/article_4363.shtml)


Pity that Persians did not keep their national religion (Zarahustra) and were forced to adopt islam by his peace loving followers (arabs as always,sigh ...)

[danholo]

Ahhhhh, now i see who has been arguing to keep this piece of garbage on this board.

Actually I haven't been on this board much after I entered the army. Since I got out, I've been coming here from time to time, but I haven't been "arguing" for takeo to stay here. I don't recall him violating the rules of the board so there is no reason to kick him out. The fact that you don't like his opinions, I don't either, is not a reason to smoke him out. That's just censorship.


The dog you are defending is the VERY REASON this board has emptied out as of late. Even those "on the other side" who i have privately conversed with have said he degrades this board terribly, and they prefer to go elsewhere becuase the participants are more intelligent.

A person with a very critical and even hostile attitude towards Israel can empty the site of Israel advocates? Now that is ridiculous. Either he's producing text that can not be refuted or people really have weak nerves.
I haven't been frequenting the board lately but I've been here as long as takeo, and many people that have been here still are, so... ?


When there are 3 people left, you, the web admin, and the a--hole, will that be enough for you to finally grasp what has happened?

I am not intimidated by people who do not hold different viewpoints than I do. It's not really not a personal problem of mine if the board dies down. Sure, it would be a dissappointment, but I don't frequent this board as much as I used to and I believe you come here more than I.

[MGB8]

You make my point.

You dismiss the real possibility that the Arabs or Iranians would kill every single Jew in Israel if they had the chance. Even though that's what they say in their media and mosques. Even though Iran has said they'd "gladly trade 100 million muslims for 5 million Jews."

Instead, Europe, to line its greedy pockets, sells the Arabs more and more weapons (sadly so to does the US) but Europe's support, financial and political, constantly putting the Arabs in a stronger position and Israel in a weaker one, makes another genocide of the Jews more and more possible.

Your reaction makes me sick. Its just shows how amoral the European position is. The Holocaust itself was "unthinkable" at the time, Europe was "civilized." Europe doesn't consider the Arabs civilized, in reality, but its inconvenient for the Europeans to consider what the Arabs want to do and might do - it gets in the way of their comfort.

So if it does come to pass, and this time Israel would, even in death, be able to take millions and millions with them, as well as complicate access to oil (radiation and destruction of facilities), (they do call it the Sansom option for a reason), it will be Europe, as much as any other party, who allowed it to happen. The blood will be on European hands. And what's sad is that you all haven't learned a darn thing from WW2 and the Holocaust.

For all that European superiority complex, you show less ability to learn than any group in the world.


Hahhahhaa, do you try to live in this century?

[takeo]

Ahhhhh, now i see who has been arguing to keep this piece of garbage on this board.

You are absolutely clueless.

And in dire need of some fresh air, if you think that this idiot represents an "opposing viewpoint."

Go to some web boards besides this one for a change, and see how people "on the other side" actually can discuss inteligently their viewpoints. They actually:

1-know what they are talking about, as they read news media/books beside arch-marxist trash
2-know when they are in the wrong, and can admit to it
3-admit they might need to read additional information on a specific area, as opposed to trying to come across as all-knowing
4-acknoweldge the other person's viewpoint has validity
5-stay ON TOPIC, as opposed to changing the thread focus or area under discussion when caught in a lie/mistake
6-dont make up stories or lie about well-known facts
7-are thoughtful in their statements, which jive with history and the truth

The dog you are defending is the VERY REASON this board has emptied out as of late. Even those "on the other side" who i have privately conversed with have said he degrades this board terribly, and they prefer to go elsewhere becuase the participants are more intelligent.

When there are 3 people left, you, the web admin, and the a--hole, will that be enough for you to finally grasp what has happened?

Nice to see I have such an enthousiastic criticiser, it makes me feel special... :) Your obsession with me is quite interesting.



But anyway I think phil meant you were the mental case, if I'm not mistaking?

You say I'm disrespectfull because I call some american states "backwards" you call me and many other people and even whole countries morons, backwards, and even much worse terms I'm not going to write here.
I think I admit when I'm wrong, at least more than usually on this board, I'm not always well informed nor are you nor are many other people on this board, but at least I try to give links to sources which are acceptable to all sides, with some exceptions.(on the contrary to for example illumus).
I might not be the most intelligent poster on this site but I'm not the dumbest poster either, in fact what's your problem, except the fact that you can't deal with my views?

And about changing the subject, this thread is about Iran, you started to stir the debate towards insulting me as a person... you're really pathetic I pity you. You can't come to grips with the fact other people don't agree with your obsession to ban me and in turn you start insulting them as well, personally. You can put me on ignore if you wish, but please don't constantly poison this site with personal vendetta's and personal insults, which are strictly forbidden on this site. (the rules of this site)
Actually I could make a case to ban you, based on your constant vicious off-topic personal attacks against me.


and mgb give me a precise list of things I made up which are lies... (not interpretations but facts!)

I know for a start your president lied about Iraq's WMD's, and that's a fact the whole world has noticed. If you wish I can quote you before the start of the war in Iraq and all the lies (misguided or deliberate) you and others said to defend this war.

And blaming me for the fact that less people watch this site is really ridiculous, I don't post very often on this site because I lack time and I don't post on most of the threads either. Perhaps it's due to the fact that many posters as well as most moderators, like you, have views which aren't mainstream at all but quite radical rightwing, which scares off a lot of people and some friends of mine do not want to participate and tell me "why do you bother"? And of course there's also the fact Israel has been replaced by Iraq and other places as main hotspot of international newscoverage.

[rhodescholar]

I don't recall him violating the rules of the board so there is no reason to kick him out. The fact that you don't like his opinions, I don't either, is not a reason to smoke him out. That's just censorship.

When a person is here trolling, that doestn eXACTLY violate the board rules, but they damage the quality of the board nonetheless, and its up to the moderators to fix that, or people will leave en masse, which they have done. I attribute that to filth like who you are defending.

A person with a very critical and even hostile attitude towards Israel can empty the site of Israel advocates? Now that is ridiculous.

Hardly. This board, if i understand it correctly, is to discuss issues facing israel. If animals like this get what they want, the end of israel, then what will be the topic of the board? "Israel's Fondest Memories?"

If someone has a position that is against israel's existence, then they have no business being here. A person going to a muslim board stating muslims should be killed will probably not last to long there either. There are plenty of sites for jewwhaters and anti-israel viewpoints. They are welcome to go there.

Either he's producing text that can not be refuted or people really have weak nerves.

Is reading NOT fundamental in your family? He does not acknowledge when he is shown to be wrong, he avoids direct refuations of his points, and repeats lies made in other threads, hijacks threads, and tries to change the thread subject when proven false. Thats not the caliber of member i seek when i participate on a board.

Repreatedly correcting a troll is NOT why i come hre, and it is not my responsibility to do so, nor is it that of the other members. The admins are supposed to do that, and they have failed miserably.

I haven't been frequenting the board lately but I've been here as long as takeo, and many people that have been here still are, so... ?

See the volume of members and posts compared to a few years back. Its a small fraction.

I am not intimidated by people who do not hold different viewpoints than I do.

Neither do i, but i would like to converse with an adult who is able to utter the words on occasion, "gee i didnt realize that" or "i see, is that what really happened, i stand corrected." Not "thats what you say" or "you made that up" or "...but but but" and try to switch the subject." That's for idiots and children. If thats the level of political discourse you are comfortable with, then i am wasting my time with you as well.

It's not really not a personal problem of mine if the board dies down.

It is of mine, especially since it was a jew hating turd that brought it down, and the moderators didnt have the will do remove this cancer.

[takeo]

When a person is here trolling, that doestn eXACTLY violate the board rules, but they damage the quality of the board nonetheless, and its up to the moderators to fix that, or people will leave en masse, which they have done. I attribute that to filth like who you are defending.

You are damaging the quality of this board with this off-topic very uninteresting discussions. Most posts of yours at least mention me once, as much as I'm honoured by this I don't think it contributes to the quality of this board.



Hardly. This board, if i understand it correctly, is to discuss issues facing israel. If animals like this get what they want, the end of israel, then what will be the topic of the board? "Israel's Fondest Memories?"

You are a lier, I've never said I want the end of Israel. If I did, quote me and prove it, if you can't you have to admit you lied or that you were wrong, if you don't you're just a poor bastard who uses two different standards, one for himself and one for others. I would be hurt if it was an intelligent poster insulting me but you're just a piece of ****.




If someone has a position that is against israel's existence, then they have no business being here. A person going to a muslim board stating muslims should be killed will probably not last to long there either. There are plenty of sites for jewwhaters and anti-israel viewpoints. They are welcome to go there.

So basically what you want is a site without people criticising the policy of the Israeli government. Well, I think the current Israeli policy is going in the right direction, what about you?



Is reading NOT fundamental in your family?

I think insulting people is your nature, or perhaps only on internet, since you're probably too scared to say such things in real life.



He does not acknowledge when he is shown to be wrong

I do, I did on many occasions, perhaps more than the average poster here (very few people on this board seem to be ready to admit they made mistakes, for example concerning Iraq, nowadays "WMD was never the real issue", while before the war it was the main topic on this board concerning Iraq). You don't even answer my posts or refute my arguments, the only thing you're good at is insulting and sickening discussions.


he avoids direct refuations of his points, and repeats lies made in other threads, hijacks threads, and tries to change the thread subject when proven false. Thats not the caliber of member i seek when i participate on a board.

whatever you say my dear. You don't have to discuss with me yet I must admit reading your venin touches me somehow... there are more sick and frustrated people in the world than one would think.



Repreatedly correcting a troll is NOT why i come hre, and it is not my responsibility to do so, nor is it that of the other members. The admins are supposed to do that, and they have failed miserably.

Whatever man continue BS'ing around, and perhaps you can try once more to ban me. If that's what keeps you occupied...


See the volume of members and posts compared to a few years back. Its a small fraction.

yep and that's all because of me. Actually I was paid by the government of Syria to destroy this site and I succeeded.
or who knows, I post much less on this site than I used to, perhaps that's the reason it deteriorated so much? Honestly many intelligent people and excellent posters of every political conviction posted on this site but most vanished because of intolerant, insulting bastard such as you who constantly insulted leftwing or even liberal posters or in fact everyone who didn't completely agree with the Israeli/American ultra-rightwing point of view. Being french and/or European was and still is enough to receive loads of unbased insults from people like you and many posters on this site are not able to discuss in a polite way as human beings and can't cope with differences. It scared off many valuable and moderate posters I think. I came to participate on this forum because the level was quite high and there are still enough interesting posters with opposing views who are nevertheless able to conduct a decent debate based on arguments, counterarguments and not on personal insults and threats.




Neither do i, but i would like to converse with an adult who is able to utter the words on occasion, "gee i didnt realize that" or "i see, is that what really happened, i stand corrected."

me too, that's why I don't like to discuss with your kind, the fanatical rightwing who constantly misrepresent my positions and make constantly false accusations they can't prove.




Not "thats what you say" or "you made that up" or "...but but but" and try to switch the subject." That's for idiots and children.

well that's the way the majority of posters react. I have not experienced you to admit you were mistaken, not once...





If thats the level of political discourse you are comfortable with, then i am wasting my time with you as well.



It is of mine, especially since it was a jew hating turd that brought it down, and the moderators didnt have the will do remove this cancer.

So now I'm jewhating, another false accusation you can't possibly prove, indeed one you made up because it serves your own rethoric. can you quote me, which post proves I'm "Jewhating"? I think this is really the last post I'm dedicating to my stalker, since this kind of personal discussions really degrade to thread. Let's continue about Iran, a country where you have, I bet, never been and your knowledge is limited to what you read in the American press. But, anyway, I'm waisting my time with you, I'm off to Damas with my jewhating stormfront.com (or what's the name of that site?) friends and we'll going to celebrate soon enough hitler's birthday. :rolleyes:

[Reffo]

Takeo, have you anything to say about my earlier post to you ?Click Here. I am somewhat intrigued about your seeming inconsistency in interpreting international law !

[takeo]

But.....but....but Takeo, when you and I were discussing the 1967 war which was provoked by Nasser shutting down the Straits of Tiran (an international waterway) to Israel, you seemed to think that was OK. So, please explain to me how was it OK for the Egyptians to do it against Israel, but not for the Americans against Iran ?

I didn't say it was OK I think, I said it wasn't a casus belli... perhaps I'm wrong, and it really is a casus belli, altough I didn't find any prove for this claim, but attacking Egypt wasn't the wisest reaction, as attacking the US wouldn't be the wisest reaction of Iran in such a similar case. The best Iran could do in this case is going to the UN to get an international condemnation of the US, and look for alternative ways of transport, while at the same time pressuring the US to lift the embargo. The Iranians have already taken this possibility in consideration, after years of war in the Gulf and continued hostility of the US.
I'm sure such an embargo would also enrage countries who consider Iran as a vital supplier of energy such as India and Pakistan and some European nations as well.

Anyhow concerning Iran I think Bush learned his lesson in Iraq and is not going to engage in a unilateral adventure anymore, that's why he is trying to reconvile with europe at all costs, his love-declarations adressed to France are even embarrassing.

[Reffo]

What you said was this:


The arabs started the 1948 war but Israel started the 1967 war and both committed bad mistakes and violations. You can't only blame one side.Israel started the 1967 war ? when you admit that Egypt instituted an illegal blockade of an international waterway (the strait of Tiran). But that's not all, as I said before he also:


Ordered the UN peace keepers to vacate the border
Massed his troops along the border
Made specific threats to attack and destroy Israel
Initiated border incursions and terrorism against Israeli civilians


but you are still saying:

....but attacking Egypt wasn't the wisest reactionI suppose you would have wanted Israel to wait till they were fully destroyed or at least had tens of thousands of dead people before they should have reacted ? Takeo, I would respect you more, and I am sure others as well in this forum would also give you credit if you would acknowledge that you were mistaken with your earlier statements regarding the 1967 war.

[tandem]

takeo: if israel wouldn't have launched the pre-emptive strike against in the egyptians in 1967, there would have been no israel today. at the time egypt had almost 500,000 troops on the border with israel. you don't just send 500,000 elite troops in the middle of june to the desert unless you're preparing something big. and something big is exactly what the arabs had in mind. add to that the illegal blocking of the straits of tiran to israeli shipping and the countless terrorist attacks against israeli civilians that were launched from neighbouring egypt and syria.

of course, nothing better conveys the arabs' true intentions at that time than their own words:

"Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united ... I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."
- syrian defense minister and future dictator hafez al-assad

"The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear: to wipe Israel off the map."
- abdur rahman aref, president of iraq

"The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel ... to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations."
- gamal nasser, president of egypt

so you see, takeo, israel basically beat them in their own game. the arabs and their supporters never acknowledged this, that they were preparing a united front to invade and destroy israel. this could have ended very differently. when israeli fighters destroyed the egyptian airforce, israel had control of the skies over cairo. israeli bombers could have just carpetbomb the city out of existence and kill hundreds of thousands of people. they didn't do it because their purpose was to defend themselves and their homeland and not kill civilians indiscriminately.

[Mediocrates]

Ah I see we've regressed for the 12 hundreth time to Mr. Anime's favorite revisionist lie.

In either case the Bush adminstration announced last week that it would not object to Iran entering the WTO and would not, or probably would not bloc the sales of non military technology (in a narrow sense - non aerospace technology) sales from the US to Iran. Considering the Republicans have maintained low level backdoors to Iran since the days of Iran-Contra this should not amaze anyone.

[takeo]

=Reffo]What you said was this:

Israel started the 1967 war ? when you admit that Egypt instituted an illegal blockade of an international waterway (the strait of Tiran). But that's not all, as I said before he also:

If it is a casus belli, Israel had the right to invade Egypt (and Iran would have the right to attack the US in case of a blockade) if it isn't, it didn't have this right.

But apart from this, I think attacking was not the smartest reaction, israel could have pressured Egypt and mobilised the international community, but by attacking Israel started a war with farreaching consequences for the whole region and for israel especially.



[list]

Ordered the UN peace keepers to vacate the border
Massed his troops along the border
Made specific threats to attack and destroy Israel

These aren't reasons for war. As I said Israel could have prepared for war but by taking the first step it made itself the aggressor.




I suppose you would have wanted Israel to wait till they were fully destroyed or at least had tens of thousands of dead people before they should have reacted ?

as I said I srael could have prepared for war, could have mobilised its troops along the border but attacking Egypt first was not a right decision.


Takeo, I would respect you more, and I am sure others as well in this forum would also give you credit if you would acknowledge that you were mistaken with your earlier statements regarding the 1967 war.

I am willing to admit I was wrong if anyone can give me international treaties or laws which proves a blockade of an international waterway is a casus belli, but I stick to my point that attacking Egypt preemptively, even if there were indications Egypt could be preparing for war (but it could also have been hot air, as nasser used to do quite often) was a mistake which costed israel a lot of international sympathy, destroyed its image and relations with Europe, and left Israel with a huge hangover.

[danholo]

It is of mine, especially since it was a jew hating turd that brought it down, and the moderators didnt have the will do remove this cancer.

Calling someone a turd is an insult and labeling someone as a Jew hater is libeling. Funny thing is, this person is Jewish himself.

Takeo, as far as I know, is not a Jew hater but, IMO, has totally misunderstood this conflict to fit his own world view. He does not percieve Israel to be a state that actually has been continually conserned about it well being and very existance as he has demonstrated with his opinion on the 1967 war.

[danholo]

It's funny to start moralizing actions of the Middle East according to today's standards. Israel and its leaders were genuinely concerned that it was going to be attacked in 1967. The actions and rhetoric both implied that this would be the case. Being so small that Israel is, taking the first step was the best defense. It was quite a ride but decisions are made in real time; You can't save and load your game! Probably, considering the sitution today, Israel's leaders would've taken a different path but winning the war was in Israel's favour at that time. It showed the whole world it wouldn't be intimidated and even a super power was impotent on dealing with the issue.

Takeo is saying that if a kid is being teased in school, pushed around, his movement being blocked by big kids in the hallway, his lunch tray shoved in his face and finally, one day, he decides to punch the bullies, he's the "aggressor". This logic is quite ridiculous, I must say. Well, Nasser didn't expect Israel to attack. I believe he was trying to show his people what he "was made of". But the Israelis didn't know this. They did know, however, that they were militarily superior but if they didn't attack pre-emptively, anything could've happened, as we saw in 1973.

If people start discussing about the Six-Day War without having read Michael Oren's extraordinary book about it, I would not suggest engaging in discussion at all. It is the most objective and reference filled book on this subject.

[Reffo]

But apart from this, I think attacking was not the smartest reaction, israel could have pressured Egypt and mobilised the international community, but by attacking Israel started a war with farreaching consequences for the whole region and for israel especially.Well...actually Israel did mobilize the international community and guess what, Takeo......there was the usual months of wrangling (going nowhere), thanks to the mischief of the Soviet Union to sabotage any compromise by it's client states (Egypt and Syria). In the meanwhile, the Arabs were tightening the noose around Isrel's neck. If Israel allowed the Arabs to have the additional advantage of having the initiative, it would have been attacked simultaneously on three fronts and what chance do you think it would have had ? Remember that Tel Aviv at that time was in a narrow strip of land (only few kilometers wide), Israel had no strategic hinterland into which it could withdraw to absorb the initial blows, the country would have been cut into two halves very quickly! Takeo, I really do suggest that you take Danholo's advice and read Michael Oren's book on the 6 Day War, you might just learn something.

By the way, all of the above adds up to self preservation (self defense) and I think that any impartial interpretation of the situation at that time and international law would list it as self defense and consequently as causis belli.

[Reffo]

which costed israel a lot of international sympathy, destroyed its image and relations with Europe, and left Israel with a huge hangover.You know Takeo, the type of sympathy you are talking about is the one that was briefly displayed towards Jews after they lost 6 million souls in the holocaust. If you want that kind of sympathy you can keep it. Unlike you lots who endlessly blame Israel for defending itself, Israel learned the lesson of the holocaust. They learned that if they must choose between death together with sympathy OR life and being criticised, they choose life.

On the other hand your philosophy can be illustrated by the following little imaginary story, as an analogy:

You live in a bad neighbourhood but you need to go to the shop to buy food. As you open the door, you are confronted by three fully armed thugs who know you and hate you because they claim that you stole their property. They start swearing at you and their threats gradually escalate until they specifically tell you that they will kill you and your family. Just to emphasize their point, one of them draws a knife and inflicts a nasty cut to your youngest son. However, unknown to them, you actually have a high powered automatic gun concealed under your coat. Nevertheless, because you are such a good citizen, you decide not to attack because they haven't provoked you enough (and besides, its against the law isn't it?). So you attempt to negotiate. In the meanwhile, five more thugs join up with your tormentors and they too make very specific threats. You then ask your wife to ring the police but it turns out that the local police station is under the thumb of your attackers who have very influential friends (from Soviet Russia). So, instead of getting help from the police, they just tell your wife on the phone to continue to negotiate and be patient. They also tell her that in any case you are at fault because you did wrong the thugs. your wife then rings some of your friends who are very sympathetic to you but tell you not to use force unless the thugs attack you in full force. So you heed their advice and act peacefully even though another thug inflicts a nasty cut to the face of your middle daughter. The situation then turns really ugly and they tell you that you and your family will be confined to your house until you run out of food and you starve to death, they add slyly though that they may instead decide to attack you and kill all of you after you become weak enough from starvation. This goes on for a few weeks with more and more thugs joining the originals and your kids are being hurt and are bleeding on a daily basis. In the meanwhile, your friends talk to you on the phone and are very sympathetic but tell you not to even think about being agressive and break the law. After a few weeks of this, the thugs suddenly break into your house in the middle of the night, while you are asleep. They kill all your kids and badly wound your wife. However, miraculously eventually you overcome them, kill about 5 of your attackers and the rest flee. Takeo, you are very pleased with yourself, despite your heavy losses, you were true to your strong peaceful principles and did not carry out any pre-emptive attack even though you might have saved most of your family had you been prepared to use the element of surprise instead of allowing your attackers to get the initiative. You are a very good person indeed Takeo , you should be proud ! Your friends too are very proud of you and what's even more important.....they are very sympathetic to you and feel your loss heavily....they tell you how sad they are for you every day....

[michaelove]

Am I right in thinking that when Iran have their nuclear bombs finally formulated then they will aim their weapons at Israel :( God help us all ?

[takeo]

Am I right in thinking that when Iran have their nuclear bombs finally formulated then they will aim their weapons at Israel :( God help us all ?

They certainly won't, those weapons are solely for self-defense, it will protect Iran in case of an American aggression. Iran already has the capacity to attack Israel with longrange rockets, but it's not a suicidal regime unlike the Taliban.

i'll be back soon.

[Mediocrates]

Am I right in thinking that when Iran have their nuclear bombs finally formulated then they will aim their weapons at Israel :( God help us all ?

They'll be used like all other strategic weapons, as a threat. They will be held aside and 'aimed' wherever they need them to be to exploit the greatest leverage. The key really is their missile systems. Not even Iran would seriously consider tactical or theater or battlefield use, aka nuclear warfare. So the greatest import of a nuclear missile armed Iran is not, as some would say, defensive, but instead to be used a political gambit to do something else. Iran could rankle Turkey to back down and allow greater confederacy between Syria and Iran. They could pressure Pakistan into making their own borders more porous to allow more Shiite militias in. They could extend regional power by threatening India unless India makes some grand gesture to 'free the peaceful peaceloving people of peace of Kashmir from Indian oppresion. They could threaten the Saudis into any number of actions. They could extend their regional missile umbrella to Europe, Russia, North Africa and use that as a potent lever to force economic concessions out of the EU and Russia and Egypt. The could put the US Mediterranean and Indian ocean fleets under an additional nuclear threat. They could use the very utility of their own nuclear weapons to force a breakup of the NPT and allow other states to begin their own programs under the auspices of Iran. Indonesia comes to mind.

[MGB8]

That's assuming that they are even modestly rational, which is questionable, and also taking out (I believe, I only had time to skim your post) the terrorist nuke option... Also, if they think they can get away with a first strike, no response (and Israel is a "one nuke" country...)

[Mediocrates]

That's always possible but from the PoV of doctrine, it's rational to believe that an attack on Israel would come from only one place. So the terrorist nuclear moving van option would still lead rational people back to Iran. Israel's doctrine could be that they naturally will act on the supposition that if there is a nuclear armed Iran then any real or potentional threat or use of atomic WMD would come from Iran and the response would be along those lines. Other states have far less to gain. What I think is interesting though is that all the other states like KSA & Egypt, should they also pursue nuclear weapons seem to be oblivious to the escalation that will result. They can pretend at that point that ringing little Israel with 3 or 4 hostile nuclear neighbors is purely defensive, like our resident propagandist says, but that's ridiculous on its face. Of course what will result is nuclear escalation from Israel, the US and India and probably a reintroduction of IRBMs into Turkey if NATO is still around.

[Sumud]

If it is logical that Iran becoming a nuclear power is a likely cause of proliferation in the region, than it must aslo be true that Israel is a cause of Iranian proliferation.

The solution then, must be regional disarmament.

The fans of the Iraqi invasion have been very selective about the importance of enforcing UN resolations, that they claim is their justifcation. The same UN resolution called for a ME free of WMD. This aspect of the resolution is mysteriously less popular.


The reports of 'End of Days for Iran' seem a little premature.

[MGB8]

That's a joke. Given Iran's admitted lying, and Pakistan's lying, despite being signatories as the NPT (as opposed to Israel's non-signature and purposefull vagueness), as well as Iran's clear beligerance and refusal to recognize the Jewish state, the best solution is actually for Israel to develop a meaningful 2nd strike capacity, which it probably already has to a large extent (submarines and bunkers), that would target not only Iran but major Muslim holy sites in the event of an Iranian attack - by by Mecca, Medina, Najaf, the big Shi'ite holy city in Iran,... in addition to some large Arab/Islamic sites that are sources of historical pride - Baghdad, Damascus, Ciaro, Beirut... M.A.D.

[Mediocrates]

That's nonsense. You cannot uninvent something and you cannot enforce rules that purport to do that. It's simply softheaded thinking. The fact is that the NNPT really hasn't worked and it never will and the only thing that prevents countries who want atomic weapons from procuring them is that it is damned expensive and complicated even 60 years after their first appearance.

What is the 'region' of Iran? Iranian missiles from North Korea will have the technical ability to reach a sphere of coverage from Greenland to the Sea of Japan around 2007-8. Is that their 'region' because if it is than China, France, Russia, UK, India, Pakistan, probably Israel have landbased and seabased weapons there and the US could rotate them in almost immediately. In other words, Iran's 'region' is the entire community of nuclear armed states. so if the only resolution to the middle east is to have every single nation on earth disavow nuclear arms, and do it in a way that is enforeceable then I'm afraid you will never get that and your solution starts to sound like the typical radical Islamic "Lower the moon, boil the oceans then we will talk" kind of solution.

[takeo]

They'll be used like all other strategic weapons, as a threat. They will be held aside and 'aimed' wherever they need them to be to exploit the greatest leverage. The key really is their missile systems. Not even Iran would seriously consider tactical or theater or battlefield use, aka nuclear warfare. So the greatest import of a nuclear missile armed Iran is not, as some would say, defensive, but instead to be used a political gambit to do something else. Iran could rankle Turkey to back down and allow greater confederacy between Syria and Iran. They could pressure Pakistan into making their own borders more porous to allow more Shiite militias in. They could extend regional power by threatening India unless India makes some grand gesture to 'free the peaceful peaceloving people of peace of Kashmir from Indian oppresion. They could threaten the Saudis into any number of actions. They could extend their regional missile umbrella to Europe, Russia, North Africa and use that as a potent lever to force economic concessions out of the EU and Russia and Egypt. The could put the US Mediterranean and Indian ocean fleets under an additional nuclear threat. They could use the very utility of their own nuclear weapons to force a breakup of the NPT and allow other states to begin their own programs under the auspices of Iran. Indonesia comes to mind.

i don't think Iran's ambitions go that far, yet they want to be a regional superpower and having nukes helps them in this aim, but they will not blackmail other countries with nuclear power, it would be as suicidal as actually using them, even the US doesn't resort to blackmailing nations with nukes. Of course anyone having plans to bomb or attack Iran, or even imposing a blockade, should be warned, but that's not blackmail just self-defense. The Iranian regime is quite reasonable and isn't any longer the regime it was during the first days of Khomeini (and even he was quite realistic, Iran never attacked any of its neighbours or Saoudi Arabia even at the height of the gulfwar with Iraq). Khatami is a very reasonable man who wants to correct some of the extremities of the islamic revolution, such as the exaggerated power of the mullahs, and altough more radical elements hold a lot of power in iran, even they agree Iran needs good relations with its neighbours. Iran cooperated with the elections in Iraq (I posted a thread about this), Iraq's "governing council" paid a visit to Tehran, he wouldn't do so if they tought Iran is supporting the insurgeants as the US claims, it devellopped excellent relations with both Pakistan and India (which could put it in a position of mediator), with Armenia, with Russia, and a number of other ex-Soviet states. Women in Iran are represented in parliament, some are businesswomen and active feminists (such as the daughther of former conservative leader Rafsanjani), women can drive cars, can own restaurants, can ski (north of Tehran there are some very fashionable skying stations), alcohol is widely available on the black market, young people watch MTV, the UN praised Iran for its excellant anti-drugs and anti-AIDS program and application, Iran helped the US against the Taliban in 2001, actually Iran is a normal country except for some of the religious laws that remain and the lack of nightclubs, and except for the corruption and abuse of power of the ruling mollahs. Yet these problems certainly aren't any worse than the regime of Saoudi arabia for example, a staunch ally of president Bush. It means the arguments of the US against Iran are at best questionable. Yes perhaps Iran is trying to devellop WMD, but so did Pakistan and India, why haven't these states been punished harder? Everyone knows OBL is protected by the Pakistani ISI (secret service) his former friends and protectors and Pakistanc is a more fundamentalist country than Iran, and also supports terrorism.



In short: Iran is not the Taliban-like monster you make of it.

[takeo]

If it is logical that Iran becoming a nuclear power is a likely cause of proliferation in the region, than it must aslo be true that Israel is a cause of Iranian proliferation.

The solution then, must be regional disarmament.

The fans of the Iraqi invasion have been very selective about the importance of enforcing UN resolations, that they claim is their justifcation. The same UN resolution called for a ME free of WMD. This aspect of the resolution is mysteriously less popular.


The reports of 'End of Days for Iran' seem a little premature.

of course, Syria proposed nuclear disarmement in the entire region, Israel and the US were the first nations to ridiculise this idea.

[takeo]

That's a joke. Given Iran's admitted lying, and Pakistan's lying, despite being signatories as the NPT (as opposed to Israel's non-signature and purposefull vagueness), as well as Iran's clear beligerance and refusal to recognize the Jewish state, the best solution is actually for Israel to develop a meaningful 2nd strike capacity, which it probably already has to a large extent (submarines and bunkers), that would target not only Iran but major Muslim holy sites in the event of an Iranian attack - by by Mecca, Medina, Najaf, the big Shi'ite holy city in Iran,... in addition to some large Arab/Islamic sites that are sources of historical pride - Baghdad, Damascus, Ciaro, Beirut... M.A.D.

I think israel's nuclear arsenal and capacity is grossly underestimated, noone except Russia, France, GB, China or the US equals Israel in this field. Iran is NEVER going to nuke or even attack Israel without being targetted first.

[Mediocrates]

of course, Syria proposed nuclear disarmement in the entire region, Israel and the US were the first nations to ridiculise this idea.


Because the 'region' is the world and frankly, your friends make too much money selling the technologies to them.

[Mediocrates]

I think israel's nuclear arsenal and capacity is grossly underestimated, noone except Russia, France, GB, China or the US equals Israel in this field. Iran is NEVER going to nuke or even attack Israel without being targetted first.

How's the paranoia going? How many do they have? 1500? 4000? Any idea how much nuclear power it takes to refine down that much fuel?

[Mediocrates]

I think israel's nuclear arsenal and capacity is grossly underestimated, noone except Russia, France, GB, China or the US equals Israel in this field. Iran is NEVER going to nuke or even attack Israel without being targetted first.


What does targeted mean? The existence of atomic weapons represents targeting. Any country which in this day and age categorically denies they will ever have a first strike doctrine is lying to you.

[Mediocrates]

In short: Iran is not the Taliban-like monster you make of it.


Yeah yeah everyone's modern and reasonable. However you are the person claiming that modern US and Israel are literally and actively taking a hand to destroy the entire world and everyone in it. So what's your modernity worth?

[takeo]

You know Takeo, the type of sympathy you are talking about is the one that was briefly displayed towards Jews after they lost 6 million souls in the holocaust. If you want that kind of sympathy you can keep it. Unlike you lots who endlessly blame Israel for defending itself, Israel learned the lesson of the holocaust. They learned that if they must choose between death together with sympathy OR life and being criticised, they choose life.

Stop comparing the Holocaust to Israeli foreign policy,the Holocaust was against a defensless people, Israel is a powerfull nation supported by the most powerfull nation in the world. there's no analogy, none. Israel should have the right to defend itself, however making the first move, and keeping the occupied territories for decades on a row while colonising them somehow doesn't fit in this "self-defense" discours.


[QUOTE]On the other hand your philosophy can be illustrated by the following little imaginary story, as an analogy:
[indent][i]You live in a bad neighbourhood but you need to go to the shop to buy food. As you open the door, you are confronted by three fully armed thugs who know you and hate you because they claim that you stole their property. They start swearing at you and their threats gradually escalate until they specifically tell you that they will kill you and your family. Just to emphasize their point, one of them draws a knife and inflicts a nasty cut to your youngest son.

In would beat him up for cutting my son, but I've been threatened in my job, and threats alone are not a good reason to attack or kill someone and if you do so you'll go to jail, not the person who threated you.


However, unknown to them, you actually have a high powered automatic gun concealed under your coat. Nevertheless, because you are such a good citizen, you decide not to attack because they haven't provoked you enough (and besides, its against the law isn't it?). So you attempt to negotiate. In the meanwhile, five more thugs join up with your tormentors and they too make very specific threats. You then ask your wife to ring the police but it turns out that the local police station is under the thumb of your attackers who have very influential friends (from Soviet Russia)

The UN wasn't under the thumbs of the Soviets, that's nonsense. And Israel still has a big brother, the US, to help them in case of emergancy. And so far nothing but threats, the person could wait untill they actually start to fysically attack him, which would make it legitimate self-defense.



.
So, instead of getting help from the police, they just tell your wife on the phone to continue to negotiate and be patient. They also tell her that in any case you are at fault because you did wrong the thugs. your wife then rings some of your friends who are very sympathetic to you but tell you not to use force unless the thugs attack you in full force. So you heed their advice and act peacefully even though another thug inflicts a nasty cut to the face of your middle daughter. The situation then turns really ugly and they tell you that you and your family will be confined to your house until you run out of food and you starve to death, they add slyly though that they may instead decide to attack you and kill all of you after you become weak enough from starvation. This goes on for a few weeks with more and more thugs joining the originals and your kids are being hurt and are bleeding on a daily basis. In the meanwhile, your friends talk to you on the phone and are very sympathetic but tell you not to even think about being agressive and break the law. After a few weeks of this, the thugs suddenly break into your house in the middle of the night, while you are asleep. They kill all your kids and badly wound your wife.

BS, that's not comparable to what Egypt and Syria did.


Actually you can compare with another story: you live in a house which belonged to another man who lived there all his life however the house belonged to your family 6 generations ago, so you occupy some rooms of the house, a solution which has been legalised by court which was on your side since your family was just slaughtered by a conman in Germany, but the previous inhabitant doesn't accept it and calls his neighbours to beat you out. However, you are armed and instead you take the entire house, leaving only some dirty rooms and give them to the neighbours, who let the previous owner live there, the new situation is also confirmed by the court. But the man isn't happy neither are the neighbours, who continue to make your life miserable without actually doing something against the law. One day they decide to block your entrance, you react by shooting at them and taking the remaining parts of the house, and making the man a prisoner in his own house. The court however is no longer on your side and asks you to liberate the part of the house which they occupied. You just deny this request, since your big brother is a highshot in the court and police. The man is now really pissed off and tries to harm your children and becomes a very bad spirit in the house, and even bothers you outside. The neighbours try to take the entire house later but fail. You decide to give one of your children the room inhabited by the man to make his life miserable as well, of course there is constant fighting in the room and the court ordered you to evacuate the room, you just ignore this request since your big brother will prevent any real action on part of the autorities.

[Illuminatus]

[..Israel is a powerfull nation supported by the most powerfull nation in the world. there's no analogy, none...]

That's funny - at one time, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, the House of Saud, Tunisia and
a dozen other Arab countries were once supported by a "most powerfull nation in the world" The Soviets. Whatever happened to all those thousands of T-72 tanks?


" Since war is the continuation of politics by other means. Nothing settles a conflict like the military defeat of your adversary "
~Karl Von Clausewitz

[Sumud]

That's nonsense. You cannot uninvent something and you cannot enforce rules that purport to do that. It's simply softheaded thinking. The fact is that the NNPT really hasn't worked and it never will and the only thing that prevents countries who want atomic weapons from procuring them is that it is damned expensive and complicated even 60 years after their first appearance.

What is the 'region' of Iran? Iranian missiles from North Korea will have the technical ability to reach a sphere of coverage from Greenland to the Sea of Japan around 2007-8. Is that their 'region' because if it is than China, France, Russia, UK, India, Pakistan, probably Israel have landbased and seabased weapons there and the US could rotate them in almost immediately. In other words, Iran's 'region' is the entire community of nuclear armed states. so if the only resolution to the middle east is to have every single nation on earth disavow nuclear arms, and do it in a way that is enforeceable then I'm afraid you will never get that and your solution starts to sound like the typical radical Islamic "Lower the moon, boil the oceans then we will talk" kind of solution.
Then the talk of preventing Iran to get nukes is just hot air.

The US and others are signatories to the NNPT which requires that they rid themselves of their nuclear arms. They have no wish to do so, so what is all this chest beating about Iran?

What's clear is that those who moan loudest about Iran, have the least reason to be doing so.

[MGB8]

Another mischarecterization by Sumud (this time of the NNPT)! Whipee?

[Mediocrates]

Then the talk of preventing Iran to get nukes is just hot air.

That may be the case. Of course the real question is how does one tip the government to the point where it has no interest in developing nuclear weapons. Argentina, Brazil, South Africa all pursued atomic weapons programs. South Africa was successfull and had deployed weapons. All of them pulled the plug and completely de-nuked because they no longer saw the wisdom of pursuing that.


The US and others are signatories to the NNPT which requires that they rid themselves of their nuclear arms. They have no wish to do so, so what is all this chest beating about Iran?

First of the NNPT is in two parts. One is being a signatory and the other is ratifying it in one's own country. Most signatories have not ratified.

Secondly the NNPT says that nuclear states will not PROLIFERATE nuclear arms to non nuclear states. Something France and Russia are in blatant violation of. Pakistan is not a signatory which is why AQ Khan gets a pass selling nuclear secrets all over the world.

[Sumud]

That may be the case. Of course the real question is how does one tip the government to the point where it has no interest in developing nuclear weapons. Argentina, Brazil, South Africa all pursued atomic weapons programs. South Africa was successfull and had deployed weapons. All of them pulled the plug and completely de-nuked because they no longer saw the wisdom of pursuing that.
I agree. But saying that we can have them and you can't, will have a total of zero effect, in the direction that you advise.






First of the NNPT is in two parts. One is being a signatory and the other is ratifying it in one's own country. Most signatories have not ratified.

Secondly the NNPT says that nuclear states will not PROLIFERATE nuclear arms to non nuclear states. Something France and Russia are in blatant violation of. Pakistan is not a signatory which is why AQ Khan gets a pass selling nuclear secrets all over the world.
N Korea is neither, so it is in the clear?

The debate over signatories or not is a distraction.
While there are some countries that posess nuclear wepaons and find them useful, others will strive to do the same. And the mere existance of these weapons,and the trained people who posess that knowledge, make it a possibility for less advanced nations to have them too.

The idea that we can simply wag our fingers at others and say 'no', and expect this to work, is the real 'soft-headed thinking' around this thorny problem.

[MGB8]

Actually, saying "no" is qutie effective. Its all about costs and benefits. In reality, it is all about the world order. Those nations who do not mind a Western, and specifically United States, dominated World Order, do not develop Nukes unless under threat (Israel, India, maybe now Japan.) Those nations that want a different world order, on the other hand, want to develop nukes so that they have the power to change the world order (N. Korea, Iran, Iraq, etc.) France, and now Russia, plays both sides, they like the US world order, but their pride is injured by it, so they bite the hand that feeds them. Alone, having nukes in of itself isn't really economically worthwhile, unless it is a necessity. However, increasing the penalties for defying the world order, which is to some extent synonymous with defying the US, helps disuade some from developing Nukes (South Africa, Lybia, and others).

The question is, are you willing to accept an American dominated world order, even with the relative peace and prosperity it brings to all nations, and the advance of freedom. Jihadists say no, and want an alternate world order. So do communists and wacko leftists. So do pan-Arabists. To an extent so do the French and Belgians. Certainly the Chineese also don't want it, but they are powerful enough not to agitate to forcefully, they are biding their time.

In essence, its those nations that really want to change the status quo (and not in a good direction, given Sharia law or Communisms track record) that are aggressors, and part of that aggression is trying to develop nukes, and the other parties of the status quo are saying "we're not going to let you change it, and if you try to, their will be consequences." Too bad the west didn't do the same thing with Hitler.

[Mediocrates]

The idea that we can simply wag our fingers at others and say 'no', and expect this to work, is the real 'soft-headed thinking' around this thorny problem.


As opposed to what? The IAEA fulfills its charter and we are free to follow that or ignore it, I guess. There is no way to uninvent something. And again, the reason that Chem-Bio weapons are called the poor man's nuclear bomb is because nuclear bombs are hellaciously difficult to make. But that in no way removes anyone's ability or desire to make these things. No one seriously believes that simply reminding Iran to obey the law will do anything but what it may lead to is at least the underpinnings of applying some other pressure whether that's diplomatic or economic or something else. Countries have a clear choice and that choice is more stark for emerging states: build atomic weapons or clothe and feed your own people. And if you build atomic weapons you may be islolated in the world. That all these other countries already have them is not really relevant to this discussion.

[Mira]

The most vivid historical illustration of this problem was captured by the exchange between Cuban and Soviet leaders during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. We now know what we did not even suspect at the time. Fidel Castro and Che Guevara encouraged the Soviet leadership to start a nuclear war using the missiles stationed in Cuba. Castro and Che demanded that the Soviets use their nuclear weapons against the United States, with an apparent willingness to accept Cuban national martyrdom as an acceptable price for destroying capitalism. Soviet Vice Premier Mikoyan, his response to these Cuban demands offers an important lesson for thinking about deterrence in the post-Cold War period. Mikoyan's response to Che Guevara was, and I quote, "We see your willingness to die beautifully, but we do not think it's worth dying beautifully." Shown here are the different, the very different types of calculations of a relatively cautious Soviet leadership, and Cuban ideological zealots. Both were rational, but they had different priorities, and only one was deterrable. In 1962, the deterrable Soviet leadership was in control of the networks. In the future, however, the zealots willing to die beautifully may be in control of the weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.ifpafletcherconference.com/oldtranscripts/2003/payne.htm

[rhodescholar]

Can someone explain to me here who has 1/4 of a brain why they are still talking to the resident a*sh*l*? As if his points are worth responding to?

And the person above discussing iran's abilities to threaten the region once it has missile launching capabilities is clueless.

Iran has no need whatsoever for missiles, simply the weapon itself. It has proxy terror groups such as hezbollah and others that can deliver an atomic strike into another country's citi(es) while declaring itself guilt-free, the precise game the arabs have played with israel for 60 years.

Dont send in unifomred soldiers to attack which will bring sanctions and world condemnation (i.e., grudging complaints from the European trash) - no send in guerilla fighters under the banner of freedom fighters defending their "homeland/rights/womens' ability to sing in A minor or whatever horse excuse they can come up with.

All iran needs is the bomb, period, to threaten the US and every other country into doing whatever iran wants.

1,000 israeli children killed in a hezbollah missile launch? Dont retaliate - or even declare - in your newspapers that israel was attacked - lest you want to face a nuke in your capital.

A few hundred US soldiers killed in a suicide bombing by teheran agents acting in iraq? Tough, swallow it - and your pride.

Get it now? I for one will not allow this toilet regime to blackmail the world, not for one second. STOP IRAN NOW.

[takeo]

The most vivid historical illustration of this problem was captured by the exchange between Cuban and Soviet leaders during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. We now know what we did not even suspect at the time. Fidel Castro and Che Guevara encouraged the Soviet leadership to start a nuclear war using the missiles stationed in Cuba. Castro and Che demanded that the Soviets use their nuclear weapons against the United States, with an apparent willingness to accept Cuban national martyrdom as an acceptable price for destroying capitalism. Soviet Vice Premier Mikoyan, his response to these Cuban demands offers an important lesson for thinking about deterrence in the post-Cold War period. Mikoyan's response to Che Guevara was, and I quote, "We see your willingness to die beautifully, but we do not think it's worth dying beautifully." Shown here are the different, the very different types of calculations of a relatively cautious Soviet leadership, and Cuban ideological zealots. Both were rational, but they had different priorities, and only one was deterrable. In 1962, the deterrable Soviet leadership was in control of the networks. In the future, however, the zealots willing to die beautifully may be in control of the weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.ifpafletcherconference.com/oldtranscripts/2003/payne.htm

This is a misrepresentation of history, the Cubans didn't want the Soviets to use them for offensive reasons, but only in case the US would attack Cuba.
The Soviets however used this weapons as tactical strategy, as they obtained the removal of American rockets near the Soviet border in Turkey as well as the American promis not to attack Cuba. They were right of course, if the US can station rockets near the Soviet border Soviets could do the same. Castro felt used by the Soviets, as a py in a coldwar chessgame, which was true of course, he would have preferred to keep them in Cuba as extra protection, but by the American engagement not to attack Cuba the soviets saved his a$$ anyway, so he soon backed down and reconciled with the Soviets. The mutual assured destruction worked perfectly in the case of the cold war, and saved the world from zealots like the current Bush-administration, who would never have actually invaded Iraq if Saddam really had nukes. If Stalin didn't devellop nukes it would have been a matter of time before NATO would have attacked the eastern block. Nukes are an assurance against war. Yet of course they can never get in the hands of terrorists which would be a dangerous devellopment, but in this respect pakistan, with its well established links with Al-Quaida, is a lot more dangerous than Iran.

"freedom fighters (terrorists he means) invading Iran"? Tried it already in pig's bay and in Nicaragua , not really a great succes was it?

The only consequence of Iran possessing the bomb would be that all rumours about invading or bombing Iran would stop, and that the Bush-administration would be obliged to restart the proces started by Clinton to reconcile with Iran.

And any moron who said Iran and Saddam were good mates should reread his middleeastern history and refrain from participating in this forum alltogether.

[Mira]

This is a misrepresentation of history, the Cubans didn't want the Soviets to use them for offensive reasons, but only in case the US would attack Cuba.

That's not true. That's what we thought, but we now know that Cuba wanted the Soviets to engage in a pre-emptive strike. We have wire cables to Kruschev from Castro where he said that they were willing to accept martyrdom in order to destroy capitalism. Watch the Fog of War, the documentary with Robert McNamara, US Secretary of Defense under Kennedy. He talks about it in that movie, or do some more searches on the topic and you will see just how close we came to nuclear war.

[takeo]

Actually, saying "no" is qutie effective. Its all about costs and benefits. In reality, it is all about the world order. Those nations who do not mind a Western, and specifically United States, dominated World Order, do not develop Nukes unless under threat (Israel, India, maybe now Japan.)

India doesn't like a western worldorder, it has always been one of the leading countries of the non-alligned movement. India also has an independant policy, it cooperates with Myanmar, has excellent relations with Iran, etc.


Those nations that want a different world order, on the other hand, want to develop nukes so that they have the power to change the world order (N. Korea, Iran, Iraq, etc.)


actually those countries only want nukes because they are on the frontline of American aggression, they are too small to want another worldorder. And besides your worldorder (a word invented by Hitler by the way) doesn't exist. China is completely independant and has its own sphere of influence in Asia, Russia is also completely independant and certainly doesn't want an american worldorder (as events made sufficiently clear), France too doesn't want an American worldorder but believes in the UN as representant of the world, not some western nation dictating the rest of the world. In reality the american worldorder doesn't even exist anymore in Latin America were leftist regimes have distanced themselves from the US political and ideological line (Brazil, Argentina under Kirchner, Uruguay, Venezuela of course, all of these nations have established renewed relations with Cuba which made Washington very angry)





France, and now Russia, plays both sides, they like the US world order, but their pride is injured by it, so they bite the hand that feeds them.


you are an arrogant bastard, the us isn't feeding France nor Russia, and we simply don't want an American worldorder. (Russia even less than France)




Alone, having nukes in of itself isn't really economically worthwhile, unless it is a necessity. However, increasing the penalties for defying the world order, which is to some extent synonymous with defying the US, helps disuade some from developing Nukes (South Africa, Lybia, and others).

It was the UN which prohibited the proliferation of nukes, and as far as I know the UN and US aren't one and the same. South Africa doesn't need nukes since it doesn't have a dangerous strong ennemy, Libia has changed its mind due to strong European and American pressure, economical prospectives and the promise it wouldn't be attacked.



The question is, are you willing to accept an American dominated world order, even with the relative peace and prosperity it brings to all nations, and the advance of freedom.

Noone wants an American dominated worldorder, least of all Europeans and Latin-Americans. And actually the American worldorder doesn't exist, the US has as much grip on China as China has grip on the US, Russia isn't within the sphere of influence of the US, even NATO isn't an instrument of the US as the war in Iraq made clear.




Jihadists say no, and want an alternate world order.

many want an alternative worldorder, only mine is not the same one of the jihadists.


So do communists and wacko leftists.

So do the majority of European nations, China (a communist nation) and many other nations around the world. Dream on about american worlddominance...




In essence, its those nations that really want to change the status quo (and not in a good direction, given Sharia law or Communisms track record) that are aggressors, and part of that aggression is trying to develop nukes, and the other parties of the status quo are saying "we're not going to let you change it, and if you try to, their will be consequences." Too bad the west didn't do the same thing with Hitler

You can't change what doesn't exist, China and Russia have nukes and they certainly don't belong to the American worldorder. Tell me which nations belong to it? If you take the "coalition of the willing" as a measure it's a small world, isn't it?
pre-WWII didn't have a worldorder either, the soviet-Union had nothing in common with the colonialist West.

But finally the stakes are on. What you dream about is a world dominated by the US. There's a word to describe this idea: imperialism.

[Illuminatus]

[.. why they are still talking to the resident a*sh*l*? As if his points are worth responding to? ..]

I think it's important to continue to respond -- the mind of a Leftist pro-Saddam, can be very interesting. They tried to win the Cold-War with their Losing communist ideology, did everything in their power to keep Saddam Hussein and their Ba'athist party commiting genocide, then they agree with HAMAS's charter about destroying Isarel, jump up and down with joy everytime a Islamo-terrorist detonates and kill innocents no matter where its done ---

-- come now rhodescholar, he serves an important function in understanding someone whose never built a house (or build anything for that matter) or completed a single endeavor but has enought self-hatred and loathing to come around and point " Look! that brick isn't straight! It's a poor and oppressed brick, you did it and it's all your fault. "

.....heh heh heh

chill rhodescholar : ) you're way too serious about Saddamites.

regards

[takeo]

That's not true. That's what we thought, but we now know that Cuba wanted the Soviets to engage in a pre-emptive strike. We have wire cables to Kruschev from Castro where he said that they were willing to accept martyrdom in order to destroy capitalism. Watch the Fog of War, the documentary with Robert McNamara, US Secretary of Defense under Kennedy. He talks about it in that movie, or do some more searches on the topic and you will see just how close we came to nuclear war.

I saw the same documentory and I think you misinterpreted it, as I understood it castro didn't want to remove them, but he never asked the Soviets to attack the Us "pre-emptively".

[Mira]

This is a misrepresentation of history, the Cubans didn't want the Soviets to use them for offensive reasons, but only in case the US would attack Cuba.
The Soviets however used this weapons as tactical strategy, as they obtained the removal of American rockets near the Soviet border in Turkey as well as the American promis not to attack Cuba. They were right of course, if the US can station rockets near the Soviet border Soviets could do the same. Castro felt used by the Soviets, as a py in a coldwar chessgame, which was true of course, he would have preferred to keep them in Cuba as extra protection, but by the American engagement not to attack Cuba the soviets saved his a$$ anyway, so he soon backed down and reconciled with the Soviets. The mutual assured destruction worked perfectly in the case of the cold war, and saved the world from zealots like the current Bush-administration, who would never have actually invaded Iraq if Saddam really had nukes. If Stalin didn't devellop nukes it would have been a matter of time before NATO would have attacked the eastern block. Nukes are an assurance against war. Yet of course they can never get in the hands of terrorists which would be a dangerous devellopment, but in this respect pakistan, with its well established links with Al-Quaida, is a lot more dangerous than Iran.

"freedom fighters (terrorists he means) invading Iran"? Tried it already in pig's bay and in Nicaragua , not really a great succes was it?

The only consequence of Iran possessing the bomb would be that all rumours about invading or bombing Iran would stop, and that the Bush-administration would be obliged to restart the proces started by Clinton to reconcile with Iran.

And any moron who said Iran and Saddam were good mates should reread his middleeastern history and refrain from participating in this forum alltogether.

...other comments...

MAD only works with rational State actors. I'm not suggesting that the Iranians are not rational; they may very well be, although any government that openly recruits their own citizens to be suicide bombers for the Palestinians is suspect when it comes to old models of deterance. Also, there is a strong possability that Iran could later funnel their knowledge and equipment through illicit channels like Pakistan has done. Also, as a nuclear power, they will have much more weight to throw around to support their henchmen, Hezbollah, in the region. If there is ever to be peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians we need all parties, including the EU and the Arab countries on board to support it. Third parties who act to thwart the process only make an extremely difficult problem harder to resolve and that is what both Syria and Iran do through Hezbollah as proxy.

[takeo]

[.. why they are still talking to the resident a*sh*l*? As if his points are worth responding to? ..]

I think it's important to continue to respond -- the mind of a Leftist pro-Saddam, can be very interesting. They tried to win the Cold-War with their Losing communist ideology, did everything in their power to keep Saddam Hussein and their Ba'athist party commiting genocide, then they agree with HAMAS's charter about destroying Isarel, jump up and down with joy everytime a Islamo-terrorist detonates and kill innocents no matter where it done ---

-- come now rhodescholar, he serves an important function in understanding someone whose never built a house (or build anything for matter) or completed a single endeavor but has enought seft-hatred to come around and point "look! that brick isn't straight! it's a poor and oppressed brick and it's all your fault"

.....heh heh heh

chill rhodescholar : ) you're way too serious about Saddamites.

regards


debating with you is also interesting to see how the mind of a simpleminded American works who was fed too much coldwar propaganda during his childhood. My mum visited the US in 83 and people were really scared of her because she had a Russian name (didn't even say she was communist, it would have been too much, altough she had quite some difficulties to enter the US, only support from the teacher exchange program could help her).

[Mira]

I saw the same documentory and I think you misinterpreted it, as I understood it castro didn't want to remove them, but he never asked the Soviets to attack the Us "pre-emptively".

I didn't misrepresent anything. Read the original link that I posted. The words are those of Dr. Keith B. Payne, President, National Institute for Public Policy, and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces Policy.

[Illuminatus]

[..simpleminded American(s) who (are) fed too much coldwar propaganda during his childhood...]

maintaining a 100,000 troops on your continent making sure you don't slaughter each other. Or -- 94 percent of all browsers used by Zeropeans, 98 percent of all internet servers use Apache, 90 percent of all your Operating Systems, 92 percent of your processors come from "simpleminded American(s)"

-- heh heh heh..... naturally I blame it all on that "coldwar propoganda"

Surely highly sophisticated, intellectually superior, well educated EUtopians are doing so much better -- INSEE puts the French unemployment at what rate?

[MGB8]

Oh, takeo,

You don't comprehend what a world order is, don't you?

The "world order" right now is based more or less on several things: (1) capitalism/free trade (Russia part of the G-8, part of American World Order, China also heavily involved), (2) Western values such as democracy, protection of minority rights, free press, "natural law", (Russia was going the right direction, now retrenching a little, while China headed slowly in the right direction), and (3) American/Anglo military hegemony (while Russia and China have nukes, they still can't challenge the US globally, only locally, and they, unlike Jihadists or other idiotic zealots, aren't willing to suffer massive casualties and possibly destroy the world in order to change the world order).

As for India, it was very anti-Western due to resentment of the British, and has decent (not great) relations with Iran, mostly due to energy, and was a leader of the non-aligned movement (see above resentment), but things are changing there, pretty fast, too.

As for the UN, the UN is the end result of the Allies winning WW2. While the GA has been hijacked, and France, who should never have been a permanent member of the SC anyway, likes to play double games, the political whore that France is, the entire point of the UN was to maintain the post WW2 status quo, more or less, specifically the Anglo-American dominance in world affairs. And, frankly, those under the Anglo-American sphere have fared much much better than those under the Soviet or Franco spheres...which says a lot about the motives and ideologies of those spheres.

[Sumud]

As opposed to what? The IAEA fulfills its charter and we are free to follow that or ignore it, I guess. There is no way to uninvent something. And again, the reason that Chem-Bio weapons are called the poor man's nuclear bomb is because nuclear bombs are hellaciously difficult to make. But that in no way removes anyone's ability or desire to make these things. No one seriously believes that simply reminding Iran to obey the law will do anything but what it may lead to is at least the underpinnings of applying some other pressure whether that's diplomatic or economic or something else. Countries have a clear choice and that choice is more stark for emerging states: build atomic weapons or clothe and feed your own people. And if you build atomic weapons you may be islolated in the world. That all these other countries already have them is not really relevant to this discussion.
Chemical weapons and biological weapons are relatively easy to make, but few countries do so. Why?

A serious and conssitent effort by the main powers does make a difference. Not just because of the absence of the kind of hypocrisy that surrounds the nuclear debate, but because the know-how is less readily available. This matters very much. Just look at how much trouble Iraq had constituting useful chemical wepaons. It's most effective was mustard gas, circa WWI.

The more countries that get nuclear weapons the easier it gets for others to follow suit. A nuclear supermarket is the current direction we head in.

It's very optimistic of you think that 'isolation' might be the result of possessing nuclear weapons. Where exactly does that work now? Pakistan and the US as closer than ever before. The Khan episode has had zero isolating effect.

This is exactly the kind of muddled thinking that is caused by the 'we´re OK, but you're completely mad' approach that pervades discussion of this issue.

[takeo]

Oh, takeo,

You don't comprehend what a world order is, don't you?

No, you said "American worldorder" but what you described here isn't an American worldorder but a western one, and the western worldorder dominates the world ever since industrialisation and colonisation, and it isn't a worldorder but a mainly economical worldsystem.




The "world order" right now is based more or less on several things: (1) capitalism/free trade (Russia part of the G-8, part of American World Order, China also heavily involved),

it has been since the 19th century, yet Europe is partly socialist while many countries are state-capitalistic like China. And if that's your definition, countries like Burma, Iran and Iraq belong firmly to the worldorder.




(2) Western values such as democracy, protection of minority rights, free press, "natural law", (Russia was going the right direction, now retrenching a little, while China headed slowly in the right direction),

you must be kidding, even the US is heading in the other direction (guantanamo, refusal to ratify the world court, etc.) and there are dozens of countries without any of these, some good allies of your own country. You should read the latest AI-report about Russia or Iraq, it's much bigger than the report about Iran...




and
(3) American/Anglo military hegemony

The US is the strongest military force on earth, yet it doesn't have hegemony over large parts of the world.



(while Russia and China have nukes, they still can't challenge the US globally, only locally, and they, unlike Jihadists or other idiotic zealots, aren't willing to suffer massive casualties and possibly destroy the world in order to change the world order).

They won't change the worldorder by force, but whenever the US challenges their vital interests they'll challenge the US, the current worldorder is a balance of power.
Yet nothing much changed since the cold war, the American sphere of influence has always been much wider than the Russian one, however the US lost of their influence in Asia, today it would be impossible to see the US attacking North-Korea, Burma or Vietnam since china has widened its sphere of influence. Russia's sphere has tightened, yet no sane strategist in the US would ever think of invading or bombing Belarus for example. in the Ukrain, Moldova or Georgia Russia has military bases (and their troops support insurgeants in georgia and Moldova) and Moscow could have military interphered there without challenging washington, but Russia is not ready for another war and there are other than military forces, likewise noone will stop the US if they decide to invade Venezuela, military it would be a piece of cake, but as in the case of Russia in the Ukrain it would have other consequences.








As for India, it was very anti-Western due to resentment of the British, and has decent (not great) relations with Iran, mostly due to energy, and was a leader of the non-aligned movement (see above resentment), but things are changing there, pretty fast, too.

Not so much, the socialist congress party is back in power and India didn't change fundamentally its independantist position.


As for the UN, the UN is the end result of the Allies winning WW2.

yes, and the allies were much more than the "Americans" .

]
While the GA has been hijacked, and France, who should never have been a permanent member of the SC anyway,

likes to play double games, the political whore that France is,

why is France a political whore, because they don't fit in your view of American hegemony over Europe?




the entire point of the UN was to maintain the post WW2 status quo, more or less, specifically the Anglo-American dominance in world affairs. And, frankly, those under the Anglo-American sphere have fared much much better than those under the Soviet or Franco spheres...which says a lot about the motives and ideologies of those spheres

you must be kidding, ever visited Guatemala or Honduras, which are entirely in the American sphere of influence? Africa was always dirt poor but those countries weren't. And about the Soviet sphere of influence: I would prefere living in Kirgizistan anyday over living in Pakistan witch was also in the American sphere of influence!

[takeo]

Chemical weapons and biological weapons are relatively easy to make, but few countries do so. Why?

A serious and conssitent effort by the main powers does make a difference. Not just because of the absence of the kind of hypocrisy that surrounds the nuclear debate, but because the know-how is less readily available. This matters very much. Just look at how much trouble Iraq had constituting useful chemical wepaons. It's most effective was mustard gas, circa WWI.

The more countries that get nuclear weapons the easier it gets for others to follow suit. A nuclear supermarket is the current direction we head in.

It's very optimistic of you think that 'isolation' might be the result of possessing nuclear weapons. Where exactly does that work now? Pakistan and the US as closer than ever before. The Khan episode has had zero isolating effect.

This is exactly the kind of muddled thinking that is caused by the 'we´re OK, but you're completely mad' approach that pervades discussion of this issue.

I can't blame iran: the lesson of the latest years are very clear: if you cooperate like Iraq did, you get invaded, if you devellop those nukes as fast as you can without bothering to cooperate with any internationa inspectors or whatever, as North Korea did, they get scared and threat you with utter care.

[Mediocrates]

Chemical weapons and biological weapons are relatively easy to make, but few countries do so. Why?


Many do make them. They just aren't very vocal about it.

[takeo]

...other comments...

MAD only works with rational State actors. I'm not suggesting that the Iranians are not rational; they may very well be, although any government that openly recruits their own citizens to be suicide bombers for the Palestinians is suspect when it comes to old models of deterance. Also, there is a strong possability that Iran could later funnel their knowledge and equipment through illicit channels like Pakistan has done. Also, as a nuclear power, they will have much more weight to throw around to support their henchmen, Hezbollah, in the region. If there is ever to be peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians we need all parties, including the EU and the Arab countries on board to support it. Third parties who act to thwart the process only make an extremely difficult problem harder to resolve and that is what both Syria and Iran do through Hezbollah as proxy.

Hesbollah isn't as much of a threat really, it's mainly a Lebanese militia and they have rarily targetted Israel during the last years. Even Bush himself said recently that if Hesbollah disarmed they would be considered a normal political force in Lebanon. Iran doesn't give all the arms they have at their disposal to the Hesbollah, if not the Hesbollah would be able to target even Eilat in the far south of Israel. there is no threat Iran will ever cooperate with the Taliban or Al-quaida, they are archennemies and were on the brink of war in 2000.

Personally I hope Iran will go for a settlement like the one offered to Libia, but of course it also means the US should stop threatening Iran and I don't know if the current zealots in the White House are ready to do so, altough the last indications go in the right direction. Seems like the second term Bush is a lot more moderate than Bush junior I.

[Sumud]

Many do make them. They just aren't very vocal about it.
Many fewer than previously.

This has been a relative success, but there is a regretable US-inspired hiccup in efforts to get a CBW Treaty in place.

[MGB8]

Links? (to the notion that countries make less chemical weapons).

Also, the issue of Pakistan is blatantly false and dishonest analogy. There is, you know, the whole taliban/al-queda thing the US is dealing with, but surely that can't make any difference?... North Korea likely has a couple to a half-dozen Nukes..... where has that gotten it?

[MGB8]

LIAR. That's really all that can be said. Hezbollahs shelling, and even moreso its opperations in the territories, are very well documented.

You are a liar takeo, and worse, you call others liars when they are telling the truth, you try to call out others when they state the truth. You are disgusting, and laughable, and kind of pathetic.

Oh, and Iran RIGHT NOW is sheltering several al-queda members.



Hesbollah isn't as much of a threat really, it's mainly a Lebanese militia and they have rarily targetted Israel during the last years. Even Bush himself said recently that if Hesbollah disarmed they would be considered a normal political force in Lebanon. Iran doesn't give all the arms they have at their disposal to the Hesbollah, if not the Hesbollah would be able to target even Eilat in the far south of Israel. there is no threat Iran will ever cooperate with the Taliban or Al-quaida, they are archennemies and were on the brink of war in 2000.

[MGB8]

takeo,

Not only did you not understand the concept of a world order, and then make a weak attempt at weaseling out of your position, but you have since then made many other silly statements, and I don't have your endless time (work much in france) to answer everyone (kind of pathetic, takeo, that you have so much time to write so many posts).

However, first, the Allies, during WWII, were really not much more than the US, UK and Russia. There was help from others, a little from China, a little from Australia, here, there.... but essentially we are talking the US and the UK, of which the US was the more dominant party by far. Between the US(UK) and Russia we had the cold war.

You also don't really understand the concept of "sphere of influence." In particular, Latin America has suffered mainly from COMMUNIST AGITATION, taking away individual ownership rights. The American reactions to the communist agitators, most in the height of the cold war, was at times very harsh, in terms of who the Americans supported. On the other hand, countries that have started to play by American world order rules - Mexico, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay.... have done very well. Those who tried to change the world order, or who had strong contingents who sided on the wrong side of the World Order in the Cold War... well, they haven't done so well. This "new world order", while it had its roots in WWII, really only took shape with the end of the Soviet Union. Before then you had two competing world orders. Anything associated with the Soviet sphere....well, until they got out.... then you look at French Africa (much more involvement than the US in Latin America...) and, well, the results speak for themselves.

Your talk about Guantanamo, etc., is really pretty meaningless in the scope. A prison, even one with abuses...well, lets put it this way, from what I understand, French Prisons would make it look like Disneyland (and Russian prisons...) But of course you make the stupid and ludicrous leftist argument...really amazing in its sheer stupidity, that everything must be totally perfect, utopian, to be good. Too bad imperfect humans don't allow that. If men were angels we'd have no need for government. A little limitation on "rights" of the few is necessary to protect the mass rights of the many, the question is where do you draw the line. You take the side of countries like Iraq, Iran or Communist Russia, who give rights to no one but the smallest few. Quite liberal...so left that you are almost far right (it's a circle)... there was very little difference between a Communist and a Nazi. What does that make you, takeo?

Oh, and the French are political whores because, while they say they stand for liberal western values, they will side with whoever pays them the most (ie. oil).

[takeo]

Links? (to the notion that countries make less chemical weapons).

Also, the issue of Pakistan is blatantly false and dishonest analogy. There is, you know, the whole taliban/al-queda thing the US is dealing with, but surely that can't make any difference?... North Korea likely has a couple to a half-dozen Nukes..... where has that gotten it?

I suspect China

[takeo]

LIAR. That's really all that can be said. Hezbollahs shelling, and even moreso its opperations in the territories, are very well documented.

I never said Hesbollah isn't targetting Israel, only hesbollah operations during last years killed very few Israeli's, didn't cause a lot of damage and Hesbollah is much less a concern for Israel than the palestinians are.
And I told you already you can't call people liers based on interpretations: you may say Hesbollah is the biggest threat to israel but than I want information, proves, links, etc. So unless you are able to do so YOU are the lier around.




You are a liar takeo, and worse, you call others liars when they are telling the truth, you try to call out others when they state the truth. You are disgusting, and laughable, and kind of pathetic.

you are pathetic, calling me a liar based on zero proves, just because I don't agree with your view on the Hesbollah.


Oh, and Iran RIGHT NOW is sheltering several al-queda members.

You are a liar, you can't claim so without proves, this last sentence is a clear indication you make things up to serve your own propaganda rubbish. Tell me where did you get this information, who are they, where are they? You seem to be pretty sure, while even Bush doesn't make such wild accusations, and we all know he's an experienced liar. (especially since Iran always cooperated to the US-efforts in Afghanistan and had a long history of hostility with the taliban- and al-Quaida regime)

[golani]

[QUOTE=Sumud]If it is logical that Iran becoming a nuclear power is a likely cause of proliferation in the region, than it must aslo be true that Israel is a cause of Iranian proliferation.

You really are a genius...
Should Israel have decent neighbours ( Holland or Switzerland for instance...), Jewish state would not need to retain such a deterrent ability
Israelis would rather use their precious money to solve israel social problems and expand their scientific research and development
Of course,neither Dutch or
swiss sacred books openly call for murders of Jews...

[Sumud]

Links? (to the notion that countries make less chemical weapons).

Also, the issue of Pakistan is blatantly false and dishonest analogy. There is, you know, the whole taliban/al-queda thing the US is dealing with, but surely that can't make any difference?... North Korea likely has a couple to a half-dozen Nukes..... where has that gotten it?

False and dishonest - How so?

Medio's proposition was that proliferation can be limited by the fact that countries striving to gain such wepaons will be internationaly isolated.

So Pakistan is in fact a perfect example to look at in this regard. Not only has it develoed nuclear weapons, one of it's top scientists was been found to be operating a virtual nuclear garage-sale. Al-Qaeda makes this a more pressing issue, not a lesser one(if this is what you are suggesting), as this is exactly how a small group is likely to gain access to such technology.

And what's the resulting effect on US-Pakistan relations - nothing.

While Mediocrates notion is a reasonable one, recent international relations demonstrate zero applicability (unfortunately).

[Sumud]

[QUOTE=Sumud]If it is logical that Iran becoming a nuclear power is a likely cause of proliferation in the region, than it must aslo be true that Israel is a cause of Iranian proliferation.

You really are a genius...
Should Israel have decent neighbours ( Holland or Switzerland for instance...), Jewish state would not need to retain such a deterrent ability
Israelis would rather use their precious money to solve israel social problems and expand their scientific research and development
Of course,neither Dutch or
swiss sacred books openly call for murders of Jews...

Yes, I realise that this simple logic is unthinkable.

Iranian profileration can lead to more of the same, but Israeli proliferation exists in a bubble isolated from the real world.

[Sumud]

...other comments...

MAD only works with rational State actors. .

A common misunderstanding.

In fact, MAD doesn't work and logically it can't work.

Rational states wouldn't use such weapons, therefore there is no deterrant.
The theoretical deterrant only exists if they are actually prepared to use them and if they are, then the safety of MAD is an illusion. Proponents of MAD were mad.

[Sumud]

LIAR. That's really all that can be said. Hezbollahs shelling, and even moreso its opperations in the territories, are very well documented.

You are a liar takeo, and worse, you call others liars when they are telling the truth, you try to call out others when they state the truth. You are disgusting, and laughable, and kind of pathetic.

Oh, and Iran RIGHT NOW is sheltering several al-queda members.
You're tilting at windmills MGB8.

Takeo's summary of Hizbollah is close enough to the mark. Their involvement in the territories has been quite limited.

The liklehood of Iran sheltering Al-Qaeda has got to be close to zero.
I'm sure you believe it though, but you probably believed in the Saddam\Al-Qaeda link too.

[Mediocrates]

False and dishonest - How so?

Medio's proposition was that proliferation can be limited by the fact that countries striving to gain such wepaons will be internationaly isolated.

So Pakistan is in fact a perfect example to look at in this regard. Not only has it develoed nuclear weapons, one of it's top scientists was been found to be operating a virtual nuclear garage-sale. Al-Qaeda makes this a more pressing issue, not a lesser one(if this is what you are suggesting), as this is exactly how a small group is likely to gain access to such technology.

And what's the resulting effect on US-Pakistan relations - nothing.

While Mediocrates notion is a reasonable one, recent international relations demonstrate zero applicability (unfortunately).



That's not actually what I said. What I said what that plausibly, the only rationale for having a treaty would be to use that treaty as a lever to exploit some other form of pressure. Short of passing endless mounds of paper, that's really the only applicability that these treaties have. The EU can fly in planeloads of IAEA investigators and, since they have no stick to beat them with, the only tool left in in the drawer is to withdraw their carrots. Countries would not be isolated as such; embargoed, sanctioned and whatnot. But would occur is that, since money is a coward it would go elsewhere. Those countries would still, essentially, be free to thumb their noses at us but it would come with the impressive cost of diverting huge portions of their own economies to doing that. Basically they become war economies. Now as we know, top down autocratic central planning type economies, if, placed on war footing long enough, they implode. They become North Korea. Pakistan is a good example actually. They spent billions trying to catch up to India. They have 160 million people sharing in a 320 billion dollar economy, 35 billion dollars in debt and still receiving 2.5 billion a year in foreign aid. Public debt is almost 3/4ths of the total GDP. They are clearly making a tradeoff between crucial civilian development and a multibillion dollar nuclear weapons development program.

[Mediocrates]

In fact, MAD doesn't work and logically it can't work.


It has worked since 1949.


Rational states wouldn't use such weapons, therefore there is no deterrant.

That is not true, or at best it's a hope. In fact the entire doctrine of 2nd strike requires you to be willing to use them.


The theoretical deterrant only exists if they are actually prepared to use them and if they are, then the safety of MAD is an illusion. Proponents of MAD were mad.

There are two doctrines. One is deterrence and the other is nuclear warfighting. The entire NATO strategy during the cold war was founded on theater nuclear deployment to confront the massive numerical superiority of the Warsaw Pact. This is nuclear warfighting and in military planning this is a real and credible doctrine. Moreover the US is also exploring the feasibility of theater nuclear weapons aka 'bunker busters'. Lastly it's important to remember that 'nuclear' is not an adjective. It's a technology. We today have 'conventional' weapons that have low-nuclear yield equivalents. F-A (MOAB), Thermobaric devices operate in the 5kt range. The Hiroshima bomb was 12-18kt and the Nagasaki bomb was 19-23kt by comparison. So we already have non nuclear weapons (and so do the Chinese and the Russians) that are 28-42% the size of the Hiroshima bomb.

[Sumud]

That's not actually what I said. What I said what that plausibly, the only rationale for having a treaty would be to use that treaty as a lever to exploit some other form of pressure. Short of passing endless mounds of paper, that's really the only applicability that these treaties have. .......

If treaties are based simply on maintianing the staus quo, they will fail.
It's the equivelant of wagging your finger and telling 'them' how naughty they are.

The lesson from the last 50 years is that possesion of these weapons inexorably leads to their spread. Any other proposition is fantasy.

[golani]

[QUOTE=golani]

Yes, I realise that this simple logic is unthinkable.

Iranian profileration can lead to more of the same, but Israeli proliferation exists in a bubble isolated from the real world.


Israelis have never threatened Iran
I am just reading everyday the glorious news coming from iranian representatives
Fascinating to see how this people respect the other's thinking (tovaritch stalin and herr hitler would be proud of their bearded heirs...)
Israel isolated from real world???
Look at all economic,intellectual,scientific,human exchanges between Israel and the rest of the world...
Israel is an open and vivid society (this tiny country has more tourists yearly ,despite terrorism whereas a tiny stream of tourists visit the "glorious"islamic republic)
Conversly,,look at Iran,so open to the rest of universe..
Pitty they ditched Zarahoustra for allah...

[Sumud]

It has worked since 1949.

Lady luck I'm afraid.





That is not true, or at best it's a hope. In fact the entire doctrine of 2nd strike requires you to be willing to use them.

Of course. There's no point having them if you aren't prepared to use them, so the talk of deterrant effects are fairytales.





Lastly it's important to remember that 'nuclear' is not an adjective. It's a technology. We today have 'conventional' weapons that have low-nuclear yield equivalents. F-A (MOAB), Thermobaric devices operate in the 5kt range. The Hiroshima bomb was 12-18kt and the Nagasaki bomb was 19-23kt by comparison. So we already have non nuclear weapons (and so do the Chinese and the Russians) that are 28-42% the size of the Hiroshima bomb.

There is simply no comparison of the two types of weapons. Efforts to do so seemed aimed at making their use less repugnant.

[Mediocrates]

There is simply no comparison of the two types of weapons. Efforts to do so seemed aimed at making their use less repugnant.


So what you're saying is that the effects don't matter, only the fear inspired by the name you call them. Make up your mind, either they'l never be used or they will, which is it? Weapons of fear or weapons of deed. See that's my point, WMD of any kind are strategic. Their import is that they might be used, not that they are.

[Mediocrates]

Of course. There's no point having them if you aren't prepared to use them, so the talk of deterrant effects are fairytales.


What does that mean? 'Deterrence' means what it means. It means the urge to use them is tempered by the knowledge that they may be used in kind against you. Look the French implored the US to use nukes in Indochina in 1954. Curtis LeMay agreed, Eisenhower said no. Goldwater, 10 years later ran on a platform that included the use of low yield nukes in VietNam. Mostly everyone disagreed. But the idea of deterrence only played a part in those decisions - it's more complicated than that. It's also why the French today abandoned land based nukes but not any of the other kinds. It's the idea that land based weapons are a deterrence and also an attractive target at the same time while airborne and ocean borne weapons are specifically for the purpose of nuclear warfighting or, 2nd strike capabilities (which are not specifically for warfighting - more of a doomsday deterrence)

[Mira]

Hesbollah isn't as much of a threat really, it's mainly a Lebanese militia and they have rarily targetted Israel during the last years. Even Bush himself said recently that if Hesbollah disarmed they would be considered a normal political force in Lebanon. Iran doesn't give all the arms they have at their disposal to the Hesbollah, if not the Hesbollah would be able to target even Eilat in the far south of Israel. there is no threat Iran will ever cooperate with the Taliban or Al-quaida, they are archennemies and were on the brink of war in 2000.

Personally I hope Iran will go for a settlement like the one offered to Libia, but of course it also means the US should stop threatening Iran and I don't know if the current zealots in the White House are ready to do so, altough the last indications go in the right direction. Seems like the second term Bush is a lot more moderate than Bush junior I.

I look at the way they are positioning themselves in the region (see article below). It is this that I base my worry on, since as I stated, my view is that for a meaningful peace to occur between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then it needs to be supported by the Arabs too, and not interferred with by the Persians. If outside parties involve themselves strategically to derail peace, as has been the case, then there won't be peace. As far as Bush's statements that Hezbollah could be legitimate if they lay down their arms, that is a reflection of, as you mention, Bush being more pragmatic this term. It is also a reflection of Bush's realization that Hezbollah has a lot of backers and is gaining steadily more and more influence in the region.

Hezbollah Enlists Palestinians
Associated Press

JERUSALEM - The Islamic group Hezbollah has become a key sponsor of Palestinian violence, funding suicide bombings that have killed dozens of Israelis in recent months, Israeli intelligence sources, Palestinian Authority officials and militants have told The Associated Press.

The Iranian-backed group, based in Lebanon, first earned a foothold in the 3¨-year-old Palestinian uprising by giving money to Hamas and Islamic Jihad, ideological allies that also seek the destruction of Israel.

In recent months, it has pulled off something akin to a hostile takeover of some cells of the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, wrenching them away from Yasser Arafat's secular Fatah movement and turning them into a proxy army.

Al Aqsa members in the West Bank city of Nablus say they speak with their Hezbollah handlers by phone almost daily. Israeli security officials say Hezbollah trains some Palestinian militants abroad, instructing them in weapons and bomb-making.

Hezbollah does not seem to be issuing specific instructions about targets or timing. One Al Aqsa member said his Hezbollah contact urges him to carry out attacks whenever the opportunity arises, in "any way possible."

Israeli officials say Hezbollah helps coordinate joint shootings and bombings by the three Palestinian militant groups and has been trying to spur Israel's Arab citizens - who have mostly stayed out of the uprising - to join in.

Israel's Shin Bet security service says since 2003, six Hezbollah cells have been discovered among Israeli Arabs.

Hezbollah doesn't elaborate on what support it gives, but after the assassination of Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin in March, it promised to do whatever possible to help Hamas exact revenge.

A senior Israeli military official, speaking on condition of anonymity, described Hezbollah's involvement in the Palestinian intefadeh, or uprising, as "immense."

"They are all over the place and they give a lot of money," the official said, adding Iran might be using Hezbollah to fund Palestinian militants.

Many Palestinians admire Hezbollah, crediting its 18-year guerrilla war with having forced Israel to withdraw from southern Lebanon in 2000. It's a model Palestinian militants would like to emulate.

In Lebanon, Hezbollah, meaning "Party of God," is seen not only as a militant group, but as an influential and legitimate political force, with schools, clinics, a TV station and members in Parliament.

Hezbollah still launches occasional attacks on Israel over a minor border dispute, but the issue inspires little passion. Its search for new relevance has led it to the Palestinians, said Ibrahim Bayram, an analyst with Lebanon's An-Nahar daily.

"Whether here or in Palestine, Hezbollah considers resisting the Israeli occupation to be part of its own struggle," he said. "If the intefadeh ends, the justification for its (military) existence ends too."

"This way, they can continue operating against Israel without really paying a price," Brom said.

Money is often funneled to the militants through money-changers, bank transfers and couriers coming in from abroad, Israeli officials said.

Israel says a Feb. 25 bank raid in the West Bank town of Ramallah netted more than $6.7 million sent by Iran, Syria and Hezbollah to fund attacks.

A high-level Palestinian security source said the Hezbollah money goes to just a few dozen Palestinians involved in planning attacks.

transfer money from Hezbollah to militants in the northern West Bank.

The Shin Bet says Hezbollah paid for several deadly attacks, including a double suicide bombing Jan. 5, 2003, that killed 23 people and an April 24, 2003, bombing at the Kfar Saba train station that killed one Israeli.

Palestinian security officials said Hezbollah helped finance the last two Jerusalem bus bombings, Jan. 29 and Feb. 22, which killed 19 people. Such attacks cost less than a few thousand dollars to carry out, according to militants and Israeli security officials.

The Shin Bet also accused Hezbollah of playing an important role in the March 14 bombing at the Israel port of Ashdod that killed 10 people.

Around the time of the Ashdod attack, Hezbollah transferred about $3,300 to Al Aqsa, a senior Israeli military official said. Al Aqsa later claimed joint responsibility with Hamas.

Israel responded to the Ashdod attack by killing Yassin.

Afterward, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal, based in Damascus, met with the Hezbollah chief, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, who affirmed "absolute solidarity" with Hamas and offered it all his resources.

Though Hezbollah has long supported Hamas and Islamic Jihad - two highly structured organizations with leaderships abroad - its ties have grown strongest with Al Aqsa, according to Palestinian and Israeli sources.

Al Aqsa was formed by activists in Arafat's Fatah movement shortly after the intefadeh broke out. It began as a group of chaotic, loose-knit cells spread throughout the West Bank and Gaza. Much of its funding came indirectly from Fatah coffers, though some came from Hezbollah, via Fatah leaders in Lebanon, the militants said.

But they said much of the Fatah money has dried up under Israeli pressure on Arafat and the Palestinian Authority to stop the attacks, the militants said.

Hezbollah stepped in with direct funding and general guidance, wresting many of the most active cells from Fatah's influence, the militants said.

"We are receiving funding from Hezbollah because we have no other option," said a Nablus Al Aqsa leader who goes by the name Abu Mujahed.

Hezbollah used to transfer $50,000 to a Nablus militant leader every two or three months for different cells, though the payments have decreased in recent months, according to one militant.

One cell in the Balata refugee camp near Nablus gets at least $1,000 a month for ammunition and cellular telephone calling cards, the militant said. When the group plans to carry out an attack, Hezbollah gives it $10,000 to $15,000.

Hezbollah audits the cells, rewarding those that kill large numbers of Israelis with more money for the next attack, militants said. Hezbollah only pays the militants, not the families of suicide bombers as deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein once did.

Recently, Fatah has tried to regain control of Al Aqsa. Former Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas began paying militants a few hundred shekels a month not to carry out attacks against Israeli civilians, said Abdel Fattah Hamayel, a Fatah lawmaker who acts as a liaison to Al Aqsa. About 4.5 shekels make a dollar.

While many Al Aqsa members have taken up the offer, some of the most militant cells rejected the deal and turned to Hezbollah instead, Hamayel said.

"They take funds from abroad and they are still carrying out attacks, and we are in contact with them, trying to get them to stop this outside funding and outside orders," he said.

Many Al Aqsa militants are furious with Fatah and feel let down by its leaders. Abu Mujahed called them "a disgrace."


http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/2004/April/April13/april13.html

[golani]

[QUOTE=takeo]I never said Hesbollah isn't targetting Israel, only hesbollah operations during last years killed very few Israeli's, didn't cause a lot of damage and Hesbollah is much less a concern for Israel than the palestinians are.
And I told you already you can't call people liers based on interpretations: you may say Hesbollah is the biggest threat to israel but than I want information, proves, links, etc. So unless you are able to do so YOU are the lier around.


See the current news,it is quite enough

Nasralla does not want to lay down weapons
Of course,his masters in teheran told him to go on threatening Israel in order to receive his monthly fees (in us dollars or euros,one could wonder...)

[Sumud]

So what you're saying is that the effects don't matter, only the fear inspired by the name you call them. Make up your mind, either they'l never be used or they will, which is it? Weapons of fear or weapons of deed. See that's my point, WMD of any kind are strategic. Their import is that they might be used, not that they are.
Are you trying to be obtuse? My whole point was that possessing them is pointless unless you would actually be prepared to use them.

The problem with nuclear weapons is one that goes for a variety of others which aren't considered WMD, which is that they are very indiscriminate weapons. At the other end of the same scale are land-mines. The not necessarily desired side effects of a nuclear explosion are another cause for concern.

[Mediocrates]

Are you trying to be obtuse? My whole point was that possessing them is pointless unless you would actually be prepared to use them.



And my point is that there are different doctrines that accept in varying degrees their use. The tactical battlefield approach is a lot closer to reality than the Soviet-city buster approach. One is more likely than the other. Ergo they serve a purpose because their use doctrines permit, albeit obscurely, their use.

[Sumud]

What does that mean? 'Deterrence' means what it means. It means the urge to use them is tempered by the knowledge that they may be used in kind against you. Look the French implored the US to use nukes in Indochina in 1954. Curtis LeMay agreed, Eisenhower said no. Goldwater, 10 years later ran on a platform that included the use of low yield nukes in VietNam. Mostly everyone disagreed. But the idea of deterrence only played a part in those decisions - it's more complicated than that. It's also why the French today abandoned land based nukes but not any of the other kinds. It's the idea that land based weapons are a deterrence and also an attractive target at the same time while airborne and ocean borne weapons are specifically for the purpose of nuclear warfighting or, 2nd strike capabilities (which are not specifically for warfighting - more of a doomsday deterrence)

The same logic was embraced by the states of Europe in the 19th and 20th C's. Large armies would be a protection from aggressive neighbours - that worked a treat didn't it?

All the talk of 'second strike capabilites' is the same old argument updated, and that is - if you pack enough punch, potential enemies will think twice.

The obvious flaw in this logic is it assumes an unchanging world - I'll get bigger/faster/stronger, but everyone else will stay the same. It just doesn't work that way.

[Sumud]

[QUOTE=Sumud]


Israelis have never threatened Iran
I am just reading everyday the glorious news coming from iranian representatives
Fascinating to see how this people respect the other's thinking (tovaritch stalin and herr hitler would be proud of their bearded heirs...)
Israel isolated from real world???
Look at all economic,intellectual,scientific,human exchanges between Israel and the rest of the world...
Israel is an open and vivid society (this tiny country has more tourists yearly ,despite terrorism whereas a tiny stream of tourists visit the "glorious"islamic republic)
Conversly,,look at Iran,so open to the rest of universe..
Pitty they ditched Zarahoustra for allah...
All that sabre-rattling about Iran's nuclear program must be my imagination.

I wasn't thinking of Israel when I said 'isolated', it was your proposition.

[Sumud]

And my point is that there are different doctrines that accept in varying degrees their use. The tactical battlefield approach is a lot closer to reality than the Soviet-city buster approach. One is more likely than the other. Ergo they serve a purpose because their use doctrines permit, albeit obscurely, their use.

I can't think of a more frightening prospect than the one proposed under the NPR - which is, as you suggest, that nuclear weapons be considered just another option in every thinking generals armoury.

If anything has constrained their use, it's that they have been generally considered a weapon of last resort, a special case where their use could only be warranted under extraordinary conditions. Clearly not everyone has viewed them this way, but it has been an extra constraint on their use.

Stepping away from this would be a very negative developement.

[MGB8]

Ummm... Sumud, you really are showing a lack of the ability to handle fairly simple concepts.

Large Armies were governed by "rules of war" to an extent, and could be counterbalance. An enemies large army DID serve as a deterrent, but only until your army was strong enough so that you could NEUTRALIZE the other army.

However, with Nukes, and specifically 2nd strike capabilities, that's the point - YOU CAN'T NEUTRALIZE THEM. That's what M.A.D. is, conceptually. A big Army on the otherside is not "assured destruction." But a couple hundred nukes that can be fired before (or after) you hit the other nation....now THAT is deterence. It means that any aggressive action could incur the ultimate cost. Its also, however, an umbrella for proxy wars. It gives the state "freedom of action," because, unless the small act was enough to risk M.A.D., the deaths of hundreds of thousands, you have to let a nuclear power (who can deliver the weapon) get away with the small action. That was Rhodescholars point - that a Nuclear Iran would just be an Umbrella for much more TERRORIST activity, but not enough to provoke a major return strike. That said, the bluff can be called, for example lets say Iran gets Nukes and the gets Hezbollah to blow up a refinery in Israel, killing 4,000. Israel could at this point say - you know what, better to have everyone die than continue living this way, and declare conventional war on Iran. Iran's choice then would be to use its Nukes, prompting an Israeli "2nd strike" on Iran (and almost assuredly Mecca, Medina, Damascus etc. etc.), and M.A.D., or keeping it convetional. So, in many ways, against Israel it wouldn't be so effective.

Against the US, though, it might be a little more effective, though not much (delivery issues, and the US could survive an Iranian strike easily, while Iran, and probably Muslim Ummah in general, could not survive an American counter attack.)

The problem is that Iran is just zealatous enough to possibly test these scenarios, as opposed to the more rational Russians.

[Sumud]

Ummm... Sumud, you really are showing a lack of the ability to handle fairly simple concepts.


However, with Nukes, and specifically 2nd strike capabilities, that's the point - YOU CAN'T NEUTRALIZE THEM. That's what M.A.D. is, conceptually. A big Army on the otherside is not "assured destruction." But a couple hundred nukes that can be fired before (or after) you hit the other nation....now THAT is deterence. .

Yikes - more of the same. Not simple concepts - simplistic.

Stasis and equilibrium are again the proposed saviours. :rolleyes:

MAD is a reality - it's just the concept that this is some kind of protection is the really mad aspect.

[MGB8]

Your last post made absolutely no sense. As for MAD, it works. It keeps wars low level, no one (RATIONAL) wants to push that line where the other side actually considers triggering Armagedon.

However, Zealots, like the Communists in Cuba, or like the Mullah's in Iran... they mess up the picture. All it takes is one crazy with complete authority. In the US there are too many fingers in the pot, the president's power, while extensive, is far from absolute. But a tyrant, especially a dictator who claims the mantle of G-d???

[rhodescholar]

You're tilting at windmills MGB8.

Takeo's summary of Hizbollah is close enough to the mark. Their involvement in the territories has been quite limited.

The liklehood of Iran sheltering Al-Qaeda has got to be close to zero.
I'm sure you believe it though, but you probably believed in the Saddam\Al-Qaeda link too.

Are you for real? Are you going to claim that the sky isnt blue either? Huh?

Hamas has long ago gone on record that it is supplied, along with IJ, by hezbollah, who pays significant amounts of its operational budgets for attacks. Noone with even a passing knowledge of the conflict questions this fact.

And clearly you ARE clueless, as iran released al qaeda operatives to quell US complainst a year or so after 9/11. I think you need to do a bit more research (like some others here) before posting further.

[golani]

Are you for real? Are you going to claim that the sky isnt blue either? Huh?

Hamas has long ago gone on record that it is supplied, along with IJ, by hezbollah, who pays significant amounts of its operational budgets for attacks. Noone with even a passing knowledge of the conflict questions this fact.

And clearly you ARE clueless, as iran released al qaeda operatives to quell US complainst a year or so after 9/11. I think you need to do a bit more research (like some others here) before posting further.

He does not care as long as only jews are killed...

[rhodescholar]

He does not care as long as only jews are killed...

Then he should be banned. People here look with such excitement towards jousting with any venturer who lands on these boards that the moderators no longer do any kind of screening.

Every internet board has a topic, and the promulgation and support of israel is the one of this one as i understand it. If there is no israel, as the jewhaters want, then there is no board, correct?

So then why do the idiot moderators allow the jewhaters on here when there are plenty of other boards on the web where their drivel would be welcomed?

If an israel supporter wants to question some of israel's policies, fine, i am not looking for a jingoistic legion of sycophants. Obviously, that would make for a very boring site, but allowing antisemites and trolls like those seen on this very thread?

To me, it simply represents a desperation move by the board overseers (who i still believe could very well be posing as these posters) to increase interest here and drive traffic to the board. Just as TV keeps lowering the bar as it strains to seek any viewers with dogsh+t like "Fear Factor" etc., this board might as well put popups on "jewwatch.com" to bring posters onboard.

As for the claim above that some of the jewhaters's claims they are jewish, as if that gives them special authority to criticise israel: BS. Noone here can prove what they are, and turd like takeo, who lies repeatedly, even after being corrected, (who again, might be one of the mods posing) can claim whatever he wants, the posts from that id might as well be in russian. They are completely irrelevent.

[philingraham]

Then he should be banned. People here look with such excitement towards jousting with any venturer who lands on these boards that the moderators no longer do any kind of screening.

Every internet board has a topic, and the promulgation and support of israel is the one of this one as i understand it. If there is no israel, as the jewhaters want, then there is no board, correct?

So then why do the idiot moderators allow the jewhaters on here when there are plenty of other boards on the web where their drivel would be welcomed?

If an israel supporter wants to question some of israel's policies, fine, i am not looking for a jingoistic legion of sycophants. Obviously, that would make for a very boring site, but allowing antisemites and trolls like those seen on this very threa

To me, it simply represents a desperation move by the board overseers (who i still believe could very well be posing as these posters) to increase interest here and drive traffic to the board. Just as TV keeps lowering the bar as it strains to seek any viewers with dogsh+t like "Fear Factor" etc., this board might as well put popups on "jewwatch.com" to bring posters onboard.

As for the claim above that some of the jewhaters's claims they are jewish, as if that gives them special authority to criticise israel: BS. Noone here can prove what they are, and turd like takeo, who lies repeatedly, even after being corrected, (who again, might be one of the mods posing) can claim whatever he wants, the posts from that id might as well be in russian. They are completely irrelevent.

So the Moderators are impersonating philingraham and takeo for profit? I guarantee you that they are not impersonating me...

[MGB8]

While it does get annoying when the trolls hijack a threat, I also don't mind the conflict, too a large degree, because, frankly, in a battle over these ideas and facts, I'm %100 sure my side wins.

I also think it is useful at times to respond to their positions in kind, with similarly uncompromising and extreme positions, just to put a mirror to them.

In the end, I don't have the authority to ban anyone, anyways, and the true troublemakers, the really vile ones, have been banned by the powers that be. T--- and S---- may be troubling, both in their disregard for the truth and faulty logic, but they are, IMO, mostly harmless.

[AbedS]

Rhodescholar, you are WAY too uptight. Relax a little bit.
Is it possible to be Anti-Zionist but not be Anti-Semitic? It seems the people on this board are fanatically in defense of Israel and everything commited in her name, no matter how atrocious and barbaric. While it's true that the other side, ie, Iran, is certainly not blameless, how can any of you claim that Israel is Perfectly Good? In Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam every, thatkind of idea attributed to anything but God is Blasphemy.
The tone of the treads in this forum would certainly attest to that fact.
Do you know how I came across this forum? I did a Google Search on "Anti-Islam America". So I guess to support Israel, one has to be for the eradication of Islam and every Muslim man, woman, and child on the planet?
Please, you all pontificate and write such eloquent thoughts with big words and attempt to portray an image of elite intellectualism. I would ask you to honestly look at the root causes behind Islamic terrorism in the 20th century, as well as Islamic opposition to the State of Israel in it's current form, as well as anger towards Israel's lapdog, my beautiful USA.
If you can truly find no fault lying at the feet of Israel and America, then I would kindly ask you to please keep your collective heads in the sand and keep your voices down because the adults are talking.
Thank you,
Abed

[MGB8]

To answer those questions:

(1) No one here claims Israel is perfect. However, compared to every other nation in the world, its pretty darn good. Only when you take things out of context (generally done purposefully), does Israel seem "atrocious", relative to its situation and the actions of other nations.

and

(2) IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO BE ANTI-ZIONIST WITHOUT BEING A JEWHATER, unless you are one of those "only at the time of the Messiah" people.

Period. Its impossible. Because to be an anti-zionist means that you believe that the Jewish state, alone among the nations of the world, does not have a right to exist, and that only the Jewish people have no right to a homeland. You deny the historical and religious ties to ZION, JERUSALEM, JUDEA... in favor of what? If you study Arab history in the region you see that the ties were much more transitory and much less deep than the Jews to that particular parcel of land.

So please, don't give me this "I can be Anti-Zionist, wish Israel to be destroyed, meaning likely the Jews all expelled, subjugated/2nd class citizens (dhimmied), or mass murdered, but... I am not an anti-semite."

If you are an anti-zionist, you are an anti-semite, or Jew hater if you prefer. You may not like the title. Too bad. Deal with it.

[Ariksan]

Hey Abed, how about stop blowing up our buses and discos? As a sign of peace you could also remove your structures on our temple mount which were built on top of our most holy site. Also I would like to have an apology for the Jews killed in Medina. Perhaps we can talk peace after that. Until that, screw you.

[Illuminatus]

AbedS wrote:
Is it possible to be Anti-Zionist but not be Anti-Semitic?First and foremost, Israel is a republic in which a great range and variety of opinions are freely expressed in the media.

It is a hallmark of every democracy - especially in Israel, to criticize the policies of its government. Honest, I am amazed at the level of debate and self-criticism that goes in the Israeli media.

Criticism becomes antisemitism when you repudiate the right of the Jewish people to their own state ( Zionism )

when you post false or anti-Jewish stereotypes or compare Jews to Nazis; when you judge Israel by a different standard than any other nation; and when your criticisms are knowingly based on distortions to further your own politcal agenda.

AbedS wrote
I would ask you to honestly look at the root causes behind Islamic terrorism in the 20th centurylook no further than a mirror for your "root causes" then you can stop whining about "the tone of this thread"....

[KettleWhistle]

Do you know how I came across this forum? I did a Google Search on "Anti-Islam America".

Let me guess.. So this unbiased and unpredjudiced search must've led you to this post: http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=7643

Did you actually read the first message within that thread?

[AbedS]

I actually did read it, very illuminating, thank you.
If Zionism means having a jewish homeland at the expense of millions of people's quality of life and displacement of millions of others, than, I am wholeheartedly against it.
You tell me to look in the mirror for the root causes of terrorism? My friend, I would ask you the same. Do you remember the King David hotel? I think that's how it started in the 20th century, at least on a grand scale. Pick up a book and READ.
Terrorism is a political tool, just like war is. Unfortunately, when you don't have a conventional army to fight with, you have to resort to other means. This is not condoning terrorism, it is understanding the reason why it is a tool that's being used.
For once, step outside your "The Jews are the chosen ones" and "holier than thou" attitude and just be a man. If you were under the boot of another group of people who take your land, bulldoze your farms, and slap your father around in front of your face, if you speak Hebrew better than the Kid with the gun who controls you going to work, how would you feel? Of course, their leadership didn't help the situation, but if you want to fix this mess, you have to be HONEST. I have no problem fessing up to every single action undertaken in the name of Islam, misguided and twisted as they have been, in order to arrive at the truth. Can you do the same in the name of "ZIONISM"?

[Mediocrates]

Iranian Revolutionary Guards training and funding and commanding Syrian Army regulars and Hezbollah troops and simultaneously sending 10s of millions dollars of advanced arms to the PLO is not the spontaneous upwelling of downtrodden people.

[MGB8]

AbedS,

You are clearly the one who needs to read his history. All the issues that you bring up are part of the leftist narrative (which is slightly different from the Arab narrative) of the creation of Israel.

Your above post didn't reflect that you had read, or even skimmed, anything. It was just a rehash or Leftist/Arab narrative.

The problems with the leftist narrative is that it is rests on a house of cards: half-truths, outright lies, and logical fallacies,

These problems have been discussed in detail on this forum, with detailed historical arguments about land titles, legal rights and resolutions (the UN resolutions, the laws of nations/international law, the LON, the Balfour declaration, the Weizman/Feisal agreement), population figures, historical sequences of events and logical inferences and assumptions that you must make in order to validate your point.

In the end, the bottom line is that all the faulty logic is so badly flawed that in order for any reasonable person to believe in it, they must badly WANT TO do so. And that motivation is often, though not always, Jew hatred/anti-semitism.

[MGB8]

Oh, and King David... attack on a group of soldiers with a warning sent. Nothing new, and not at all comparable with Jihadist terrorism.

[Mediocrates]

And unlike the PLOs routine murder of 'collaborators' the Haganah actually turned in many Irgun to the British Army for trial and execution. The "Season" still rankles many of the old guard. The PLO on the other hand debates about which murderers to free from prison. Rule of Law? Don't make me laugh.

[Reffo]

For once, step outside your "The Jews are the chosen ones" and "holier than thou" attitude and just be a man. If you were under the boot of another group of people who take your land, bulldoze your farms, and slap your father around in front of your face, if you speak Hebrew better than the Kid with the gun who controls you going to work, how would you feel?
Of course you are right, COMPROMISE is needed but you can't expect ONLY Israel and their supporters to stop doing what's necessary to defend themselves, BOTH parties need to stop the destructive pattern. Unfortunately, I don't believe that you will be able to show me evidence that the Arabs and their supporters have stopped their mythology of victimhood claiming sole right of ownership of Palestine and mantra of blaming the Jews for EVERYTHING. Even seemingly moderate Arabs seem to claim that only the Arabs had the historical right to establish their independent state in Palestine and that all the Jews there are just usurpers and interlopers. I guess when you start from that position, I can understand where their resentment, hatred and violence comes from. However, there are a number of threads in this forum that demonstrate that such maximalist claims are not logical nor are they resonable.

The other thing that you too need to understand is that the Jews (some of them) are not the only ones who are guilty of this: "The Jews are the chosen ones" and "holier than thou" attitude" and they are not the only ones who need to: "just be a man". You also need to acknowledge that whenever Israel did try the path of compromise and eased conditions in the WB and the Gaza, their reward was an increase in violence. A case in point is the most recent suicide bombing in Tel Aviv. So you see AbedS ? Unfortunately Israel's enemies are not making it easy for Israel to be reasonable. When they do, Israel does make peace with them, an example is Jordan and here is what King Abdullah says about Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas: http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/555605.html

Abdullah: Syria, Hezbollah promote terror against Israel

By Nathan Guttman

WASHINGTON - Jordan's King Abdullah warned Tuesday that Syria and Hezbollah are encouraging Palestinian activists to carry out terror attacks against Israel, trying to divert attention from the situation in Lebanon and Syria.

In a meeting with representatives of leading Jewish organizations, Abdullah also said Iran, Syria and Hezbollah are the greatest threats to stability in the Middle East.

Abdullah said he recently told Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that in case of a terrorist attack Sharon should check carefully who is behind it to avoid an Israeli retaliation against the wrong target. Abdullah was implying that, should a terror attack occur, Sharon would find that Hezbollah was responsible.

Sources who attended the session said they were surprised by the vehemence of Abdullah's remarks about Syria. They noted that he opened the meeting with his concerns about efforts by Syria and Hezbollah to undermine the peace process with terror attacks against Israel.

One U.S. Jewish source, recalling a similar meeting with the king on his first visit to Washington as Jordan's ruler, said Abdullah was then full of praise for Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Abdullah said Jordan has succeeded in thwarting several attempts by terrorists to infiltrate Israel to carry out attacks. He told President George W. Bush at their meeting last week that the success of the peace process could weaken Hezbollah and Hamas, while its failure would strengthen them.

He said relations between Jordan and Israel were good and that he intends to act to speed up joint projects.

Abdullah spoke at the meeting of a new Jordanian initiative to fight anti-Semitism in the Arab world. He said he sent a message to the Muslim states urging them to fight anti-Semitism. He also said Jordan intends to act with Jewish and Christian organizations in the U.S. to quash it. Taking the religious component out of the dispute would reduce the tension and help to find a solution, he added. He said he was appointing his cousin, Prince Ghazi, to head the team to advance interreligious dialogue.

Attending the meeting were representatives of U.S. groups, including the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, B'nai B'rith, American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, Americans for Peace Now and the Jewish Council on Public Affairs.

[takeo]

Not only did you not understand the concept of a world order, and then make a weak attempt at weaseling out of your position, but you have since then made many other silly statements, and I don't have your endless time (work much in france) to answer everyone (kind of pathetic, takeo, that you have so much time to write so many posts).

I don't have so much time, only once in a while. I still have a job to do and my girlfriends are also demanding. It's however a sorry excuse not to come up with proves if you call someone a lier. If you can't debate based on facts better not to debate at all but write poetry and fiction.






However, first, the Allies, during WWII, were really not much more than the US, UK and Russia. There was help from others, a little from China, a little from Australia, here, there.... but essentially we are talking the US and the UK, of which the US was the more dominant party by far. Between the US(UK) and Russia we had the cold war.

As mill explained already the dominant party in the war against nazi-germany was the Soviet-Union.



You also don't really understand the concept of "sphere of influence." In particular, Latin America has suffered mainly from COMMUNIST AGITATION, taking away individual ownership rights.

taking away the "ownership rights" of large foreign companies was not forbidden by any international law, in Chile it was an elected government who did so and you had no right whatsoever to install a tyrant there. It was one of the events which deeply damaged the image of the US, comparable to czechoslakia to the Soviets.

What you call agitation is simply propaganda, and in any democratic nation free speech is allowed, if not it ceases to be a democracy. and you could hardly call latin America a democratic environment, so defending democracy was clearly not the aim of the US. And in any case it was none of your business.



On the other hand, countries that have started to play by American world order rules - Mexico, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay.... have done very well.

I think Argentinians would disagree, one of the richest countries in the world in the 50's it is now just a third world country with a lot of poverty and even starvation for some.The same for Uruguay, Brazil since some decades made some advance however it's still a poor country with a sea of poverty. Nowadays it's ruled by a leftist. You forgot to mention venezuela (despite huge natural wealth impoverishing during 3 decades, that's why Chavez got elected) , Guatemala (an American-supported dictator killing 100's of 1000's of mostly innocent indians, one of the forgotten genocides of the last century and still one of the poorest countries on the western hemisphere, despite great potential in the 50's) Honduras, Haiti, etc. etc.
You always claim Cuba is poor and its people is oppressed, but Cuba isn't half as poor as many of its neighbours (despite a strangling embargo).











Those who tried to change the world order, or who had strong contingents who sided on the wrong side of the World Order in the Cold War... well, they haven't done so well.

you are refering to laos or vietnam who lost about 10% of their population due to american bombings and other warcrimes? or perhaps to Nicaragua which suffered from us-financed (with Iranian money!) terrorists?



This "new world order", while it had its roots in WWII, really only took shape with the end of the Soviet Union. Before then you had two competing world orders. Anything associated with the Soviet sphere....well, until they got out.... then you look at French Africa (much more involvement than the US in Latin America...) and, well, the results speak for themselves.

French Africa isn't much worse than countries in the english or portuguese influence sphere, quite on the contrary. And I'm not even mentioning Liberia, the state founded by American liberated slaves... and more involved than the us in latin America? i'm not so sure.






Your talk about Guantanamo, etc., is really pretty meaningless in the scope. A prison, even one with abuses...well, lets put it this way, from what I understand, French Prisons would make it look like Disneyland

BS, French prisons are up to European standards and quite confortable even comparable to American prisons. There's no mention of torture or abuse in French prisons in AI-reports, and prisoners can't be detained without an arrest warrant and without justice ordering their arrest, and can't be detained indefinately without a trial.



(and Russian prisons...)

that's another matter. But I remember Bush criticised putin for the human rights records of Russia, putin replied by refering to Guantanamo... the story of the kettle...



But of course you make the stupid and ludicrous leftist argument...really amazing in its sheer stupidity, that everything must be totally perfect, utopian, to be good. Too bad imperfect humans don't allow that. If men were angels we'd have no need for government. A little limitation on "rights" of the few is necessary to protect the mass rights of the many, the question is where do you draw the line.

So human rights are utopian according to you?
"A little limitation on "rights" of the few is necessary to protect the mass rights of the many, the question is where do you draw the line." if Guantanamo is allright how can you criticise china for detaining people without trial?








You take the side of countries like Iraq, Iran or Communist Russia, who give rights to no one but the smallest few.

I only take their side faced to the threat of a us-intervention, but it doesn't mean I don't criticise their human rights records. I take the side of the US when they are threatened by Al-Quaida, which doesn't mean I agree with the Bush-policy or Guantanamo... human rights is too often used as a poor excuse to conduct ordinary geo-poitical motivated policy, Iraq is a good example, so was Kosovo. (turned out Kosovars are worse than the Serbians)
Not only by the US but by Europe as well, I will admit.









Quite liberal...so left that you are almost far right (it's a circle)... there was very little difference between a Communist and a Nazi. What does that make you, takeo?

actually nazi's have very little in common with communists, except a few methods such as the one-party system, but on the whole the socio-economic system of the nazi's was much more similar to western Europe than to the Soviet-Union or Russia. The transition in Western Germany included a lot of former nazi-institutions and firms, while the communists in Eastern Germany cleansed the entire country and all institutions of nazi remains.





Oh, and the French are political whores because, while they say they stand for liberal western values, they will side with whoever pays them the most (ie. oil).

I think this is self-reflection. Why do you think the US sides with Saoudi Arabia?

[MGB8]

Most of that reply was drivel, speculation at best. With my grandparents in Argentina, I can tell you that you don't really know what's going on there, now, or earlier in history. Same for most of the nations in Latin America. And given Cuba's prosperity, it explains why people get on flimsy rafts to go to the states, and also from French influenced Haiti.

As for falling back on "international law" and taking away private property - there's a baseless statement if I've ever heard one. Par from the course for you, Takeo. Funny, also, considering your statements regarding Israel and Palestinians, no?

French prisons:

http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/bs/Ufrance-prisons.RMYQ_DOS.html

In short, takeo, you are liar who really doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about.

You try to assert LIES and then hope that the other side doesn't have the time or interest in pulling up the research to refute your make-believe, and its a decent bet - I don't have that much time, and you aren't important enought to care about every insignificant little fairy tale you make up and present here.

In the end, the facts speak for themselves. The relative prosperity of nations who have turned away from Communism versus the relative prosperity of nations that have joined the new world order (although certainly corrupt governments who steal from their people can also be capitalist, as is the case in much of Africa and was and/or still is the case in Latin America) run their nations to the ground). Look at Chile, look at the progress of the ex-Soviet satilites, the more tied to the west they are the better... look at South Korea versus North Korea, or Thailand versus Vietnam.

Your sad little statements don't carry any weight, because anyone who had read enough of your posts realizes that you have no caring for things like truth and fact, you only care about ideology, and as such, you have the credibility of an 8 year old child. Maybe not that much.

[KettleWhistle]

I think this is self-reflection. Why do you think the US sides with Saoudi Arabia?

The U.S. does not side with Saudi Arabia.

[takeo]

]I look at the way they are positioning themselves in the region (see article below).

I read it and don't know if shin bet is such a credible source since warfare propaganda is also part of their duty. Anyhow, just imagine it's true (and to some extend I'm sure it is) it's quite a logical evolution. The ennemy of my ennemy is my friend, remember? particularly in Iraq and all over the world some strange and unlikely alliances were constructed. But remember many groups are financially supporting palestinian militant groups, including the Saoudi government, an official ally of the US and one of the sponsors of the Bush-family... it remains a fact however the issue of lebanon and Syria are interconnected with the palestinian problem. Syria will not accept a peace not including Golan heights, I think the Golan heights are as much part of the solution as Westbank or East-Jerusalem.
Hesbollah remains a nuisance for Israel, but if the palestinian militant groups accept peace there's little Hesbollah will be able to do to prevent it.









It is this that I base my worry on, since as I stated, my view is that for a meaningful peace to occur between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then it needs to be supported by the Arabs too, and not interferred with by the Persians. If outside parties involve themselves strategically to derail peace, as has been the case, then there won't be peace. As far as Bush's statements that Hezbollah could be legitimate if they lay down their arms, that is a reflection of, as you mention, Bush being more pragmatic this term. It is also a reflection of Bush's realization that Hezbollah has a lot of backers and is gaining steadily more and more influence in the region.

Indeed, but laying down their arms won't solve all the problems, they'll still be able to finance palestinian groups. So this only supports my thesis that there won't be a sincere peace without Syria (and lebanon) involved. If Syria orders the Hesbollah to cease its activities they will, Syria is powerfull enough in the region to achieve this I think, and they have a strategic alliance with the Iranians. And lebanese too will need to stop Hesbollah, and they will only do so if there will be a solution for the palestinian refugees in Lebanese territory.
Iran is far away from Palestine, not an Arab country or key player in the region and not able to derail the conflict I think. Moreover despite the official rethorics khatami is a quite pragmatic president and the moderates still have sufficient influence to moderate Iranian foreign policy. If their ally Syria is involved in a peacedeal I'm sure Iran will follow too.
Nothing in the middle East is for sure, but Iranian influence is limited I think.

[MGB8]

KW,

The US does to an extent. Not to the extent of giving them Nukes or WMD, but they get a free pass for human rights abuses and only mild pressure exerted on them, and the US protects SA's sovereignty from nations like Iraq. Of course, Takeo would scream if the US didn't do so, making up some paranoid theory or the other. The fact of the matter is that the ME's stability is central to the world economy, and the US is the guaranteur of that fact. That was one of the many reasons to go to war in Iraq - because Saddam continuously threatened the stability of the heart of the world's economy.

However, when compared to France's dropping to its knees to, um, service Iran or Iraq or China, or even Syria so to curry favor with the Muslim world....

[KettleWhistle]

KW,

The US does to an extent. Not to the extent of giving them Nukes or WMD, but they get a free pass for human rights abuses and only mild pressure exerted on them, and the US protects SA's sovereignty from nations like Iraq. Of course, Takeo would scream if the US didn't do so, making up some paranoid theory or the other. The fact of the matter is that the ME's stability is central to the world economy, and the US is the guaranteur of that fact. That was one of the many reasons to go to war in Iraq - because Saddam continuously threatened the stability of the heart of the world's economy.

Agreed! But is it much different from how we, and other developing countries deal with other countries that have human rights abuse issues? The way I see it, we aren't treating Saudis any different from the Russians, to name just one such country.

[rhodescholar]

Rhodescholar, you are WAY too uptight. Relax a little bit.

On the day that arabs stop trying to kill me, i will.

Is it possible to be Anti-Zionist but not be Anti-Semitic?

No.

It seems the people on this board are fanatically in defense of Israel

Utter garbage. Israel does its share of incredibly stupid things - and then some. The continued building/expansion of wb settlements is at the top of the list. Find ONE QUOTE by me or anyone here who has ever claimed israel is perfect. Just ONE.

While it's true that the other side, ie, Iran, is certainly not blameless,

Kid, where you been for the last 60 years? How about implacable foes like syria, iraq (until recently), egypt, etc.? Do you have any clue HOW things came about in existence the way they do today? As if israel landed in the west bank by osmosis? Some context, please.

So I guess to support Israel, one has to be for the eradication of Islam and every Muslim man, woman, and child on the planet?

This might be necessary to save the whole world one day, just not israel ;)

I would ask you to honestly look at the root causes behind Islamic terrorism in the 20th century,

You are on unstable ground here, and your lack of historical facts is burying you. The Muslim Brotherhood began in 1922, over 25 years BEFORE anyone had even dreamed of a country called israel.

The day you start apologizing for terrorism is the day your argument fails absolutely. It is unjustifiable, under any circumstances. The jews of europe didnt do it under FAR worse conditions than the pal arabs today, so dont go down that failed path...

as well as Islamic opposition to the State of Israel in it's current form,

Thats because arab muslims wont tolerate ANY other group having their own nation in the middle east, from morocco to indonesia. Ever read pan-arabist doctrine?

And do you think the jews are alone in being pressed by arab muslims? How about the christian copts and chaldeans in in egypt, the christian maronites in lebanon, the assyrians in iraq, or the hindus of pakistan? How come all of these groups have lived as dhimmis under repressive, malicious muslim rule for so long? Were you protesting their oppression as well?

And how come none of them, including the maronites under muslim rule in lebanon for the last 15 years never resorted to terrorism? Hmmm.....

as well as anger towards Israel's lapdog, my beautiful USA.

OUR USA defends israel because israel is a DEMOCRACY, and is under the thumb of 450 MILLION hostile arab muslims. How come 4 million jews under constant attack merit no sympathy from you? Or do you just hate jews?

I would kindly ask you to please keep your collective heads in the sand and keep your voices down because the adults are talking.
Thank you,

Yes, and clearly, you AREN'T one of them.

[mani]

US troops are erecting posts in Baluchistan Pakistan for regular espionage missions on iran from there using planes and uavs .

[Roland]

The U.S. does not side with Saudi Arabia.
Huh? Did I miss something?
How do you call what the U.S. do with Saudi Arabia? Taking down tyrannts? Liberating people?

[takeo]

KW,

The US does to an extent. Not to the extent of giving them Nukes or WMD, but they get a free pass for human rights abuses and only mild pressure exerted on them, and the US protects SA's sovereignty from nations like Iraq. Of course, Takeo would scream if the US didn't do so, making up some paranoid theory or the other. The fact of the matter is that the ME's stability is central to the world economy, and the US is the guaranteur of that fact. That was one of the many reasons to go to war in Iraq - because Saddam continuously threatened the stability of the heart of the world's economy.

However, when compared to France's dropping to its knees to, um, service Iran or Iraq or China, or even Syria so to curry favor with the Muslim world....

Ever seen the movie Fahrenheit, well I found the part about the interconnection between the financial interests of the Saoudi family and the Bush-family the most interesting part, and since noone ever sued Moore for this or refuted it it must be based on facts. There isn't such a close relation between France and Syria (France even was one of the autors of the anti-Syrian resolution in the UN), nor with Iran (we have normal trade-relations, but nowhere near the US-Saoudi web of ties) or China (idem, not unlike the US we have extended trade-relations with China) or Cuba (we trade with Cuba, our tourists lay on the Cuban beaches and that's pretty much it, we don't prosecute people for the crime of visiting Cuba)

[takeo]

Agreed! But is it much different from how we, and other developing countries deal with other countries that have human rights abuse issues? The way I see it, we aren't treating Saudis any different from the Russians, to name just one such country.

yes you are, besides the whole financial interconnection there's also the fact the entire American policy in the region has protecting Saoudi arabia as most important goal, the two wars against Iraq are a good example, Iraq was to noone a threat except to Saoudi arabia and other tyranical gulfstates who are not democracies at all.

[AbedS]

Rhodescholar, you are WAY too uptight. Relax a little bit.

On the day that arabs stop trying to kill me, i will.

Is it possible to be Anti-Zionist but not be Anti-Semitic?

No.

It seems the people on this board are fanatically in defense of Israel

Utter garbage. Israel does its share of incredibly stupid things - and then some. The continued building/expansion of wb settlements is at the top of the list. Find ONE QUOTE by me or anyone here who has ever claimed israel is perfect. Just ONE.

While it's true that the other side, ie, Iran, is certainly not blameless,

Kid, where you been for the last 60 years? How about implacable foes like syria, iraq (until recently), egypt, etc.? Do you have any clue HOW things came about in existence the way they do today? As if israel landed in the west bank by osmosis? Some context, please.

So I guess to support Israel, one has to be for the eradication of Islam and every Muslim man, woman, and child on the planet?

This might be necessary to save the whole world one day, just not israel ;)

I would ask you to honestly look at the root causes behind Islamic terrorism in the 20th century,

You are on unstable ground here, and your lack of historical facts is burying you. The Muslim Brotherhood began in 1922, over 25 years BEFORE anyone had even dreamed of a country called israel.

The day you start apologizing for terrorism is the day your argument fails absolutely. It is unjustifiable, under any circumstances. The jews of europe didnt do it under FAR worse conditions than the pal arabs today, so dont go down that failed path...

as well as Islamic opposition to the State of Israel in it's current form,

Thats because arab muslims wont tolerate ANY other group having their own nation in the middle east, from morocco to indonesia. Ever read pan-arabist doctrine?

And do you think the jews are alone in being pressed by arab muslims? How about the christian copts and chaldeans in in egypt, the christian maronites in lebanon, the assyrians in iraq, or the hindus of pakistan? How come all of these groups have lived as dhimmis under repressive, malicious muslim rule for so long? Were you protesting their oppression as well?

And how come none of them, including the maronites under muslim rule in lebanon for the last 15 years never resorted to terrorism? Hmmm.....

as well as anger towards Israel's lapdog, my beautiful USA.

OUR USA defends israel because israel is a DEMOCRACY, and is under the thumb of 450 MILLION hostile arab muslims. How come 4 million jews under constant attack merit no sympathy from you? Or do you just hate jews?

I would kindly ask you to please keep your collective heads in the sand and keep your voices down because the adults are talking.
Thank you,

Yes, and clearly, you AREN'T one of them.

Point by point.

Anti- Zionist vs. Anti-Semitic: Yes, it is possible, it was a retardical question. If you read the qualifiers that went along with that statement, then any sane and fair person would agree. Suffering and displacement justifies NOTHING.

The past 60 Years: I haven't been around for all of them , fortunately, because I'm not that old. I do have, however, a great pair of eyes and a critical mind, and I am quite adept at seperating fact from propaganda and drivel. Yes it's true that none of the countries existed in the middle east before WWII, everything was under european control. England and France carved the area up and made countries out of it. The zionists pressed England for a homeland for some time to no avail, but all the while Jews were streaming in, etc.... We know the story. One can find MANY faults on both sides of the equation. What I find so amusing is your refusal to think that one side is completely blameless and innocent. On a tangent, the next war in the area will be started by settler and the Ultra-Orthodoxy who truly do want to commit genocide, but we all know where you stand on that front.

Eradication of all Muslims: You're just a scumbag on that point, I think many on this board would agree.

terrorism: This is something that i don't understand, and for anyone reading this, don't complain that I'm insensitive or callous. Why didn't the Jews of Europe fight back during WWII? If the US were attacked and occupied by another nation or group of people, I would fight to the death and inflict whatever harm possible to the opfor, no matter what the cost to my person. In the case of Germany, pretty much every man, woman, and many children were wholeheartedly supporting of the genocide, starting with Crystal Night. I just don't get it, but chalk it up to me being a savage Arab and Muslim for not agreeing.

Lebanon: Please just don't even bother talking about the Maronites. I'm lebanese and I lived there for 4 years in my teens. I know firsthand what the Maronites did, and I promise you that it was, in every sense, terrorism. The fact that Lebanon was a proxy war turned civil war made the country spiral into oblivion. It was brutal and savage, and the Maronites were by far NOT INNOCENT. By the way, Lebanon is pretty much a 50/50 split btw xstians and Muslims.

The rest of the Arab world: I'm right there with you on that one, I think it's disgusting and deplorable, and the people that perpetrate such acts should have their kneecaps blown off. regardless of what you may think, Islam actually embraces the people of the Book, ie, Christians and Jews. Under Islamic Law, they should be protected and may occupy any position of power in a Muslim Government. What you experience is a bastardized version of Islam which we are working to change.

USA and the defense of Democarcy: You have no idea how it upsets me when I see any kind of attack on Israeli civilians. Please don't begin to think that you can pigeon-hole me into some pre-concieved notion of a Jew Hating muslim. While it's obvious that you hate Muslims and want to kill them and drink their blood, please don't think I am anything like you.
Please compare military power for a minute. Israel by far has the most modern and powerful army in that area, supplied by Uncle Sam. Israel posseses God knows how many Nukes, stolen from the US and smuggled from Europe. Israel has access to Sattelite Imagery, up to date intelligence, and the full military support of the United States. I wouldn't worry about 450 million Arabs if I were you. their leaders are corrupt BUT they are all buddies of the US, since we keep them in power, and all their blustering is just for show. Instead, your only worries should be Terrorism and clean drinking water.
Terrorism won't end until people LIKE you. That way when something happens, you have the local Arab population closing ranks around you and rooting out wholeheartedly the maniacs among them. Unfortunately, you have done nothing but make those people heroes by marginalizing the whole PA population time and time again. why would they care about you? Reign in the settlers and make a positive tangeable difference in the lives of the Palestinians and see what happens.
Water is also a major drinking problem for Israel, and that's why control of Lebanon is justified. The Litani river flowing from Mt. Lebanon is your only source of drinking water, I suggest that you spend some money and get more desalinization plants up and just leave that tiny little country alone. they finally are getting their act together, although the road is still bumpy.

Rhodescholar, I will leave you with this. If you condone killing a billion people for your own childish amusement, even if it's kidding the square, then my suggestion to you is STFU. I've only been on this board for 3 days now and I've gleamed that you are not indicative of the tone on this board. I would suggest that you read some of what your brethren are saying and learn from them. Good luck to you, I wish you a speedy maturity.

[rhodescholar]

Point by point. Anti- Zionist vs. Anti-Semitic: Yes, it is possible, it was a retardical question.

No IT IS NOT. Are the arabs, who displaced MILLIONS of people over the past 1500 years,somehow entitled by g-d to the middle east? Do you have ANY idea how many cultures the arab muslims have destroyed over the last 15 centuries? The Jews, like the Kurds, and the tibetans, and other displaced groups - have EVERY right as the arab muslims to their own homeland, its just the arab muslims who wont compromise.

If you read the qualifiers that went along with that statement, then any sane and fair person would agree. Suffering and displacement justifies NOTHING.

The VAST majority of pal arabs left of their own accord in the 48 war, this is common knowledge, fudged only by time and the desire to obfuscate by arab muslims and their supporters.

The past 60 Years: I haven't been around for all of them , fortunately, because I'm not that old.

I am, and you might be so lucky to get there, but given your attitude, probably wont happen.

I do have, however, a great pair of eyes and a critical mind, and I am quite adept at seperating fact from propaganda and drivel.

IYO.

The zionists pressed England for a homeland for some time to no avail,

My dear friend, what you fail to realize is huge, which explains your comments:

1-there were ALREADY ALOT of jews in palestine at that time
2-most of the area was unsettled desert
3-once the jews began expanding outward by both birth and immigration and settling the desert turning it into farmland, the arab muslims from neighboring countries moved in as laborers on those farms. To say that the land was arab muslim is a farce.

but all the while Jews were streaming in, etc.... We know the story.

Clearly you dont.

One can find MANY faults on both sides of the equation.

Agreed, but the arab muslims have over the past 100 years preferred violence to resolve political issues on a consistent basis.

What I find so amusing is your refusal to think that one side is completely blameless and innocent.

I dont like repeating myself, but where did i ever make that claim?

On a tangent, the next war in the area will be started by settler and the Ultra-Orthodoxy

No, it will be started probably by hezbollah/iran/syria to keep the conflict going once peace starts to really take hold. Thats my prediction, and it would fit their profile and historical behaviour perfectly.

who truly do want to commit genocide,

The settlers are a vocal MINORITY.

but we all know where you stand on that front.

And where is that? If the arab muslims would stop attacking the jews, something they havent done for 100 years, i would not care one whit about them. I prefer to completely ignore them, which is what most of the world would like to do as well, its just they have oil, which will only be true for a few more decades...

Eradication of all Muslims: You're just a scumbag on that point, I think many on this board would agree.

Moderators: a warning about violating board rules is in order here.

And dear, the very fact that you are still posting here, is proof of which "side" is in the right. On every muslim board i have ventured onto, when you factually present the other side of view, they ban you. Typical arab muslim intolerance and unwillingness to accept other people's viewpoints as equally important as your own.

terrorism: This is something that i don't understand, and for anyone reading this, don't complain that I'm insensitive or callous. Why didn't the Jews of Europe fight back during WWII?

1-jews are not violent, they prefer negotiation and discussion
2-unlike US citizens, they werent armed. Protect that 2nd amendment to the death, it might come in very handy one day.

In the case of Germany, pretty much every man, woman, and many children were wholeheartedly supporting of the genocide, starting with Crystal Night.

So by your thinking, who then could the jews have attacked? Every german citizen? Try using a little logic and less heat when you speak.

Lebanon: Please just don't even bother talking about the Maronites. I'm lebanese and I lived there for 4 years in my teens. I know firsthand what the Maronites did, and I promise you that it was, in every sense, terrorism.

Too funny. Were you there in the early 1970s when the the PLO was inciting the muslims to attack christians? The christians were a majority in the country, which was a rare shining example of liberalism in the ME, something that the arab muslims would not tolerate. Its the saem old story, a country is doing well, arab muslims move there under the guise of seeking jobs, and then de-stabilize the country. This has been repeated all over the world where the arab muslim world touches the non-muslim.

By the way, Lebanon is pretty much a 50/50 split btw xstians and Muslims.

Yes, AFTER the muslims forced so many christians to leave after making the country intolerable to live in. And AFTER syria has illegally transferred over 1 million of its own citizens into lebanon to suck money like a leach out of the economy.

regardless of what you may think, Islam actually embraces the people of the Book, ie, Christians and Jews. Under Islamic Law, they should be protected and may occupy any position of power in a Muslim Government. What you experience is a bastardized version of Islam which we are working to change.

When:

1-so many hundreds of million muslims support terrorism
2-the entire 57-muslim strong OIS cheers matathir when he said "jews are dogs"
3-broad arab media calls jews pigs to be slaughtered in its news and TV shows
4-arab muslim leaders declare no negotiation until israel gives ALL lands back. In other words, do everything WE want, then maybe we will consider talking to you. All the while as israel endures terror attacks by those same arabs. Comical.

While it's obvious that you hate Muslims and want to kill them and drink their blood,

Not even close. Many clients of mine ARE arab muslims, and they are fine people, like anyone else.

please don't think I am anything like you.
Please compare military power for a minute. Israel by far has the most modern and powerful army in that area, supplied by Uncle Sam.

Israel is 4 million people supported with arms by the US.

There are 450 million arab muslims, supported with arms by Russia.

Israel posseses God knows how many Nukes, stolen from the US and smuggled from Europe.

Clearly, you have no idea what the f--k you are talking about. France BUILT israel's dimona reactor in the 1960s, from where israel gets its uranium from. Try BUYING a fact or two.

Israel has access to Sattelite Imagery, up to date intelligence, and the full military support of the United States. I wouldn't worry about 450 million Arabs if I were you. their leaders are corrupt BUT they are all buddies of the US, since we keep them in power, and all their blustering is just for show.

Given your age, it is understandable how you have no idea what things were like in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. The arabs were expected to destroy israel, and tried fiercely to do so. Egypt had massed an army of over 500,000 troops on israel's borders, as did syria and jordan. The spin of peace-seeking arabs of today's dreadful media changes nothing, as the arabs' desire to destroy israel hasnt either.

Reign in the settlers and make a positive tangeable difference in the lives of the Palestinians and see what happens.

Too funny. Remember pre-1967? Oh well, guess not. Thats the way things WERE, and the attacks were as bad today if not worse. The arabs just keep changing their excuses.

Water is also a major drinking problem for Israel, and that's why control of Lebanon is justified.

Israel has some of the largest de-salineation plants in the world.

[Mediocrates]

A small point. Syria has about 10 billion bbls water per year. It manages to waste about 20% of that and pours out over a billion bbls of freshwater every year into the sea. In Lebanon which is much smaller, they have 'only' about 1 billion bbls of water per year of which they waste about 20% as well, at least in the agricultural sector. Compared to Israel-West Bank-Jordan which has about 1.2 billion bbls per year for a population of 10 million people or about 2.5 times that of Lebanon, or, about one fifth of the water of Syria for 55% of the people in Syria. In other words Syria and Lebanon could solve the regions water problems simply by not pouring 3 billion barrels of water into the Med. every year. But of course, being who they are, corrupt incompetant racist murdering tyrants who would rather die then not punish all the other Arabs, and Jews who are their neighbors, they don't do that. The biggest problem with desalinization is power - it takes enormous amounts of power to do it. Maybe the peaceful peaceloving people of peace of Saudi Arabia would like to donate powerplants and desal technology to their Arab brethren? Who are we kidding. The Arab national sport is standing on the necks of your 'friends and allies'.

[MGB8]

Didn't quite realize how wrong on the facts AbedS was/is so wrong on the facts.

Just to add, NO ONE has suggested killing all Muslims, except maybe that little response. In fact, there are and have been many muslims on this board who, when not hostile to Israel, our national home, are welcomed.

The accusation that Israel wants to committ genocide is UTTER GARBAGE, and speaks volumes about the accuser. This is compared to the ANNOUNCED goal of many Muslims to committ genocide on Israel.

The idea that Settlers and Orthodox want to committ genocide is MORE utter garbage. Its part of the "I'll believe what I want, regardless of truth" line of thought.

The most you get is a desire by some to expell the Palestinian Arabs from the WB and Gaza. This is based on the belief not that the Pal Arab's don't have a right to a home state, but that THEY ALREADY HAVE HOME STATES - Jordan (aka Eastern Palestine Mandate), Egypt, Lebanon and Syria. If they already have home states, and certainly the ethnic and familial ties are there, then why do they need another one, so the argument goes.

Another issue is THE CRUSADES. The Arabs are constantly complaining about them as unfair Western Imperialism, but they FORGET the ISLAMIC IMPERIALISM that brought those formerly Christian and Jewish lands under Islamic rule. Its part of the RACIST Arab/Muslim double standard that has been too long applied - Muslims are allowed to be imperialist and expand, but no other religion is allowed to do so. In many ways, while the Crusades were brutal and terrible, both to Muslims and Jews, they were a "belated act of self defense" by Christiandom against the Muslim Ummah. The crimes of the Crusades are not any worse than the crimes of the Muslim conquerors before them.

[KettleWhistle]

yes you are, besides the whole financial interconnection there's also the fact the entire American policy in the region has protecting Saoudi arabia as most important goal, the two wars against Iraq are a good example, Iraq was to noone a threat except to Saoudi arabia and other tyranical gulfstates who are not democracies at all.
We have a trade relationship and normal political ties with SA. The wars with Iraq have little to do it. In fact, democratic Iraq is more of an ideological threat to the House of Saud than Saddam's hurt pride over their refusal to cut down the production of oil and to forgive his debt. Saudis were strongly against the war in Iraq, and it took much coersion to get them to allow covert operations to be conducted from their territory.

[AbedS]

Another issue is THE CRUSADES. The Arabs are constantly complaining about them as unfair Western Imperialism, but they FORGET the ISLAMIC IMPERIALISM that brought those formerly Christian and Jewish lands under Islamic rule. Its part of the RACIST Arab/Muslim double standard that has been too long applied - Muslims are allowed to be imperialist and expand, but no other religion is allowed to do so. In many ways, while the Crusades were brutal and terrible, both to Muslims and Jews, they were a "belated act of self defense" by Christiandom against the Muslim Ummah. The crimes of the Crusades are not any worse than the crimes of the Muslim conquerors before them.
Don't have time to reply to all the posts, so I'll address just one now and come back later to finish.
The Crusades came about MAINLY because there were too many nobles and too little land. It was a way to thin out the Heirs, so to speak. it was not "self defense". By the way, When Islam conquered Jerusalem, the temple Mount was a garbage dump. Those savage and militaristic Klingon Mulsims cleaned the area up and gave Jews full rights to worship openly. What disgusting sub humans, huh?

[Mediocrates]

Don't have time to reply to all the posts, so I'll address just one now and come back later to finish.
The Crusades came about MAINLY because there were too many nobles and too little land. It was a way to thin out the Heirs, so to speak. it was not "self defense". By the way, When Islam conquered Jerusalem, the temple Mount was a garbage dump. Those savage and militaristic Klingon Mulsims cleaned the area up and gave Jews full rights to worship openly. What disgusting sub humans, huh?


Compared to the Byzantines, the conquest of Jerusalem by Caliph Omar ibn Al-Khattab in 638 I suppose was a relatively benign thing. It's not for nothing that the Code Of Justinian was considered harsh even by standards of the day. But I'm not sure the muslim conquest and its possible aftereffects has been entirely relevant for over a thousand years. Certainly by the time of Godfroi de Boullion's reconquest in 1098 that the treatment of Jews by either Christians or Muslims was interchangeable. There were innumerable pogroms from both sides aimed at persecuting the Jews. Mazel, you're in good company. Why you would be proud of that is beyond me.

[MGB8]

Who said anything about "sub-human filth?" Who implied anything of the sort.

And the Muslim conquests of Christian and Jewish lands went far beyond just Jerusalem, and also included instituting the Jizyha (tax on non-Muslims) and general dhimmitude, including thing such as not being able to testify in court versus a Muslim, etc. "Open worship," okay... building Muslim shrines or mosques on top of Jewish holy sites.... also happened. The massacres committed of non-Muslims, the raping and pillaging, easily rivaled if not topped the atrocities of the Crusades.

Please see: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17441

And yet the Muslim world has recently demanded an "apology" for the Crusades, without seeing the need for their own apology. That is base hypocrisy, but its typical of the modern Muslim world. Can't see beyond themselves, can't compromise, can't do anything but feed their collective massive vanity.

For example, Syria attacked Israel in 48, 67, and on Yom Kippur in 1973. Where in the world does it get off "demanding" any land back? Are you kidding me? What Israel needs to do is be the aggressor with Syria, because it seems that is the tact that the Arab nations by in large have taken. Make SYRIA ask for peace, as opposed to continuously Israel asking "please leave us alone."

[KettleWhistle]

The Crusades came about MAINLY because there were too many nobles and too little land.
Rubbish. There was plenty of land in Europe. Organizing the Crusades was a convinient way for European rulers to get rid of numerous unempoyed and poor that would otherwise turn to crime, or require communal support. So they gave them a cause and sent them off to die far and away. The Crusaders weren't even an organized army, but a ravaging mob. Many of them died on the way to Jerusalem, or wherever else they were going. And when they did come to Jerusalem, Jews were fighting them alongside Muslims.

[Mediocrates]

Historians have said that before in a different context. It had to do with nobles having many sons and under the laws of inheritance only the eldest son could inherit the title and the land. So lesser sons were sent off to be pirates and adventurers. Sicily for example was overtaken by Norman French and their greatest king was Roger II of Sicily.

[AbedS]

you call my post "Rubbish" and then you prove my point. Thank you.

[Mediocrates]

I call most of your posts rubbish. Even you get it right once in a while.

[KettleWhistle]

Historians have said that before in a different context. It had to do with nobles having many sons and under the laws of inheritance only the eldest son could inherit the title and the land. So lesser sons were sent off to be pirates and adventurers. Sicily for example was overtaken by Norman French and their greatest king was Roger II of Sicily.

One of my former college professors is a reknowed and highly respected scholar in European history. According to him, the Crusader crowd was more like today's inner-city gang members. In Ukraine and Southern Russia this social class was known as "cossaks."

[KettleWhistle]

you call my post "Rubbish" and then you prove my point. Thank you.
I don't know what your point was.

[Reffo]

and for anyone reading this, don't complain that I'm insensitive or callous. Why didn't the Jews of Europe fight back during WWII? If the US were attacked and occupied by another nation or group of people, I would fight to the death and inflict whatever harm possible to the opfor, no matter what the cost to my person. In the case of Germany, pretty much every man, woman, and many children were wholeheartedly supporting of the genocide, starting with Crystal Night. I just don't get it, but chalk it up to me being a savage Arab and Muslim for not agreeing. They did not initially fight because of the following factors:


They did not know what was planned for them
They were ordinary family oriented people who were not organized to fight.
The measures against them were introduced gradually and by the time that they realised the danger, it was too late.
They were totally outnumbered and they were unarmed
They were dispersed among a population that was at best indifferent or scared to help and at worst many were hostile to the Jews.
They were isolated and they had absolutely no support
The Nazis were totally ruthless and retaliated with total brutality to even a small hint of resistance (for example, they immediately imprisoned or executed entire families and the Nazi prisons for such "crimes" meant death and torture)


The above list is not exhaustive. Also, towards the end, despite the above handicaps, the Jews did fight and they fought bravely and effectively but also hopelessly. Just read up on the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.

AbedS, I can assure you that with such handicaps you and your people would not have done better and more importantly, if the Palestinians would have had the same deal, they would have praised and loved the treatment that they get from Israel by comparison.

So, Now do you understand why Israel is not willing to take any chances with it's security ? Also, I hope this will make you understand why they are sensitive to threats, incitements and random and indiscriminate acts of murder by the Palestinians ? I think that you guys must understand that Israel was founded on the principle that it's people will never ever allow themselves to be trapped in the same way as the Jews of Europe. That is also why some of them are critical and disdainful of us Diaspora Jews who are still exposed to this possibility.

[golani]

[QUOTE=AbedS]Don't have time to reply to all the posts, so I'll address just one now and come back later to finish.
The Crusades came about MAINLY because there were too many nobles and too little land. It was a way to thin out the Heirs, so to speak. it was not "self defense". By the way, When Islam conquered Jerusalem, the temple Mount was a garbage dump. Those savage and militaristic Klingon Mulsims cleaned the area up and gave Jews full rights to worship openly. What disgusting sub humans, huh?[/QUOTE

Ever more disgusting was the conquest of India by peace loving muslims...
Indian writers described the gorgeous temples looted and destroyed, peaceful bonzes decapitated and population slaughtered in droves...
Read Bat Yeor for more historical details...
About full right for jews in muslims dominated regions, read also Bat Yeor about "dhimmis" status...

[MGB8]

The reason for the Crusades is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the Crusades, as an action, were no worse than the original Muslim conquest of the lands.

The basis for the Muslim complaints about western "Imperialism", which they group the existance of Israel in, is based on this double standard - that Muslims are allowed to go out and conquer whomever they want, while they are not allowed to be subjected to the same treatment.

They argue that the times are too remote, and yet almost a thousand years after the fact they are still complaining about the crusades. Its an arbitrary cut-off - whatever the date is that makes the Muslim case the best, that is the date they use - any change after that date is bad, while the conquests and massacres that the muslims used to convert those lands, that is ok.

The point is the double standard that Muslims apply to the actions of others versus their own actions.

If the Muslim world wants an apology for the crusades, it needs to APOLOGIZE for forcibly siezing and converting all the now and formerlly muslim lands outside of Arabia - southern spain, northern africa, parts of India, Turkey, Jordan, Syria, etc. etc.

[KettleWhistle]

I don't understand what relevance Crusades that took place centuries ago have to do with the present. There were plenty of battles, many countries/peoples were took over by others. What is it about the Crusades that's so different from Mongolian conquests that occured roughly at the same time, or Ottomans building their empire?

[MGB8]

Psychologically and thus politically, they appear to be relevant to the Muslim world, as a description of the West, in their reaction to Bush's "crusade" statement, and in how they think of Israel. They are a basis for Arab/Muslim victimhood ideology, and also for the notion that "whatever must be done to repell the (injustice of) the "invaders/occupiers" is just..." logic. Problem is, they never think about their own invasion and occupations, which would entitle all the other lands that are now muslim to have their ethnic bretheren go to them to become Christian or Jewish or Hindu "mujahadeen" against the Islamic imperialists...

But, as you note, the Crusades are no different, really, than other conquests, specifically, the Muslim's own conquests.

[KettleWhistle]

Exactly my point. Such an emphasis on Crusades is an epitomy of prejudice against the West, much like that what is described in the article from "Is America anti-Islam" thread.

I would think that the Crusades should fade in comparison to the Mongol conquest of Baghdad. It was a city of roughly one million, and humongous city by the standards of the time. And it could easily be considered the most developed one. But after they refused to surrender, the Mongol army established a complete blocade of it by building a wooden wall surrounding the whole city. After that they effectively destroyed Baghdad. Yet we don't hear half as much about that as we hear about the Crusades.

[AbedS]

Isn't the answer to the Crusades issue obvious? As a result of their ineptitude, the scumbag leaders in the Muslim world keep inciting their people with rhetoric about history that happened hundreds of years ago to deflect public opinion away from them and focus their downtrodden populations frustration towards something else. Of course, the same could be said of Israel, and it's true to an extent, but not all the way.

[MGB8]

Well, we agree on one thing. The leaders of the Arab nations are generally, kindly put, scumbags, interested in their own power and position and not the well-being of their people.

You may think that Israel has a holocaust fixation, but Israel doesn't go around demanding more and more things about the holocaust, only that it be remembered, and that such a thing not be allowed to happen again (much good that did in Rwanda, OTOH Israel and Israeli's and Jews have been at the forefront of stopping the genocide in Sudan, despite much opposition from the Arab and Islamic states who view this as a Pan/Arab versus the world issue.)

The point with the crusades is that they are the historical basis for much of the claims that any "Dar Al-Harb" in once muslim lands is unjust and cannot be tolerated.

As for Israel and "dispossesing" - certainly there are land issues. However, the Arabs as an ethnicity have 99.9% of the middle east. They have Eastern Palestine, the majority "Palestinian" nation of Jordan. They have Lebanon and Syria and the Sinai and Iraq, etc. etc. etc. Its not like there isn't enough room for the Pal Arabs, were that to be the end result (and if the Pal Arabs get a state in the WB and Gaza and AGAIN declare war on Israel, that WILL BE the likely result, btw.)

However, there is another issue, and that is Arabs STANDING UP AND TAKING RESPONSIBILITY for their actions. Israel was established as part of the Partition plan. That establishment was legal and just. In fact, the land grant should have been larger, given prior commitments. But the Arab nations, and the soon to be "Palestinians" rejected the state and attacked. There are CONSEQUENCES for that action, which was unjust and against International Law, among other things. One of those consequences is the loss of land.

The Arab peoples, in general, haven't been able to stand up like adults, like men, (all the talk about Arab pride) and say "look, we tried, we lost, here's the end result, we knew it might happen when we went to war, we accept that it was a risk we took and it came out badly for us."

In other words, You make your bed, you lie in it.

Same goes for Syria and the Golan.

The only real issue with the Arabs in the WB and Gaza is not about sovereignty as much as representation, in that Israel, being a democratic country, is held to a higher standard than her despotic Arab neighbors, and thus it is difficult (though not impossible) for Israel to justify some people in its borders having the vote (including Arabs), whereas some don't (because the land hasn't been annexed). That said, its better than the Arab nations laws concerning Jews (no vote, no freedom of religion, limited or no land ownership, the Pal's want Jews ethnically cleansed from any state they get...)

[Mediocrates]

Going back far less into the past than even that is a complete waste of time and only a culture that was determined and obsessed with returning to the most backwards and reactionary fundamentalism would use it as an excuse. Every murderous tyrannical state that ever was, cooked up some long-ago slight, military disgrace or demographic shift as the 'reason' the had to murder whole communities of people.

[KettleWhistle]

Isn't the answer to the Crusades issue obvious? As a result of their ineptitude, the scumbag leaders in the Muslim world keep inciting their people with rhetoric about history that happened hundreds of years ago to deflect public opinion away from them and focus their downtrodden populations frustration towards something else.
Agreed. You may be surprised by that, but I do believe that what you want for the Arab countries and societies is not that much different from what most Israelis want, or from what most Jews want.

[Mira]

AP: Iran Stockpiling High-Tech Small Arms

Fri Mar 25, 8:00 PM ET Middle East - AP


By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer

VIENNA, Austria - Iran (news - web sites) is quietly building a stockpile of thousands of high-tech small arms and other military equipment � from armor-piercing snipers' rifles to night-vision goggles � through legal weapons deals and a U.N. anti-drug program, according to an internal U.N. document, arms dealers and Western diplomats....

The buying spree is raising Bush administration fears the arms could end up with militants in Iraq (news - web sites). Tehran also is seeking approval for a U.N.-funded satellite network that Iran says it needs to fight drug smugglers, stoking U.S. worries it could be used to spy on Americans in Iraq or Afghanistan (news - web sites) � or any U.S. reconnaissance in Iran itself....

...Iran says it needs the satellite network, high-tech small arms bought on the European arms market and night-vision goggles, body armor and advanced communications gear through the U.N program to fight drug smugglers pouring in from neighboring Afghanistan."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=2&u=/ap/20050326/ap_on_re_mi_ea/arming_iran

Is there any doubt that some of these weapons...high-tech small arms, night-vision goggles, body armor and advanced communications gear...along with logistics on the movement of Israeli military and civilian activity will find its way into the hands of Hezbollah and eventually those Palestinian factions that Hezbollah already influences and aids? I posted an article earlier in this thread about Hezbollah's increasing influence in the territories and it is no secret that Iran already aids Hezbollah. The question is at what point does this threat materialize? Assuming that the process of disengagement goes forward, Palestinians will have control of more land; land that in some cases will be vital (hilltops in West Bank) for carrying out small scale strategic attacks. There is absolutely no indication that Israel will be able to fully stop these kinds of attacks, at least anymore than they have been able to counter similar lower grade attacks on Sderot now. Those kinds of attacks have been determined by the international community not to warrant a full scale retaliation by Israel. So unless the future PA can put a stop to them, they will continue in one form or another...indefinetly, or in other words, as long as Israel can put up with it.

[AbedS]

I think that last post is a bit alarmist.
Not everything in the middle eats has to do with israel alone. We all know that the Bushies love to declare war, and they've been aiming a loaded gun towards Iran for sometime. The Iranians, meanwhile, have vowed to fight to the last man if the US invaded. I think they are acquiring these weapons in case of a us attack.

[Illuminatus]

Reports are coming in of demonstrations taking place all over Iran (Tehran, Esfhan, Tabriz, Abadan, and others) against the regime, using the soccer victory over Japan as an excuse to go into the streets. The victory is an excuse for people to go into the streets. The people can claim the are celebrating their victory while those in their midst demonstrate against the regime.

The reports say that the demonstrations are dispersed in neighborhoods all across Iran. The streets are being jammed with traffic and thousands are gathering in the center of each of these demonstrations. These traffics jams are apparently protecting the demonstrators. The reports further state that those in the center of these demonstrations can be heard making statements against the regime. In a new development, there are calls for "armed resistance" and some are raising guns (a capital offense against the regime). http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2005/03/update-on-protests.html

meanwhile

[.. Iran Press News: According to received reports from various cities in Iran, today which marks the first celebration of the Iranian New Year's Festival of Fire was met with celebrations as well as huge protests and demonstrations against the Islamic regime of Iran. The protestors chanted: "We need no Sheikh or Mullah, we curse YOU - RUHOLLAH!" ..]

http://www.iranpressnews.com/english/source/003897.html

[Mira]

I think that last post is a bit alarmist.
Not everything in the middle eats has to do with israel alone. We all know that the Bushies love to declare war, and they've been aiming a loaded gun towards Iran for sometime. The Iranians, meanwhile, have vowed to fight to the last man if the US invaded. I think they are acquiring these weapons in case of a us attack.

The facts would indicate that I'm not being alarmist. Rather, you are being naive. Of course Iran wants the spy satellites to monitor US troop movement. That doesn't mean they won't use it to also monitor Israeli troop movement. They will use the spy satellites for multiple purposes, including their stated purpose of monitoring drug smuggling. The information that they obtain will make its way into the hands of Hezbollah, along with some of the equipment that they are purchasing, and provided that Hezbollah continues to gain influence with Palestinian terrorists, it's foreseeable that it will eventually end up in the hands of Palestinian terrorists as well. Again, it is well known that Iran backs Hezbollah already and it is also well known that Hezbollah has infultrated some of the Palestinian factions. http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/2004/April/April13/april13.html

Even assuming that I'm being "alarmist," it is not without good reason. You don't expect us to depend on the international community for protection, do you? A lot of good that is doing for the African Sudanese.

[philingraham]

Mira, What is that asterick I see at the end of your name? Get banned or somethin?

[KettleWhistle]

I think that last post is a bit alarmist.
Not everything in the middle eats has to do with israel alone. We all know that the Bushies love to declare war, and they've been aiming a loaded gun towards Iran for sometime. The Iranians, meanwhile, have vowed to fight to the last man if the US invaded. I think they are acquiring these weapons in case of a us attack.

The idea of a U.S. war with Iran or a U.S. invasion is just out-of-touch with reality. Despite the common opinion Bush is no warmonger. In case of Iraq, he was just doing his job in protecting the country by acting on the information he received from the CIA. The war in Iraq was approved by more than 75% of Congressmen. A war with Iran simply will not get the needed Congress approval, no matter how much Bush might have wanted, which he doesn't. He announced a number of times, both by himself, and via Condi, that U.S. has no intentions to attack Iran, and that the matter needs to be resolved by political means.

[Mira]

Mira, What is that asterick I see at the end of your name? Get banned or somethin?
No, I didn't log in for a long time and I forgot my old password so I started with a new name "Interloper." The trial period for Interloper has expired and so now I have been switched to my old name with a star. :rolleyes:

[MGB8]

The US is highly unlikely to invade Iran, but multiple targetted strikes on nuclear targets is far from out of the question. Not now, though. Summer, maybe early fall.


The idea of a U.S. war with Iran or a U.S. invasion is just out-of-touch with reality. Despite the common opinion Bush is no warmonger. In case of Iraq, he was just doing his job in protecting the country by acting on the information he received from the CIA. The war in Iraq was approved by more than 75% of Congressmen. A war with Iran simply will not get the needed Congress approval, no matter how much Bush might have wanted, which he doesn't. He announced a number of times, both by himself, and via Condi, that U.S. has no intentions to attack Iran, and that the matter needs to be resolved by political means.

[Mediocrates]

It all depends on how low Bush's job approval rating sinks in lieu of pillaging Social Security and fighting off God's New Army; Terri Shaivo Battalion. Remember that the mid term elections are next year and the fundamentalists have already said both Bush careers are over. It probably would take a war againt Satan himself for Bush to get them back in the boat.

[Static]

The idea of a U.S. war with Iran or a U.S. invasion is just out-of-touch with reality. Despite the common opinion Bush is no warmonger. In case of Iraq, he was just doing his job in protecting the country by acting on the information he received from the CIA. The war in Iraq was approved by more than 75% of Congressmen. A war with Iran simply will not get the needed Congress approval, no matter how much Bush might have wanted, which he doesn't. He announced a number of times, both by himself, and via Condi, that U.S. has no intentions to attack Iran, and that the matter needs to be resolved by political means.

I agree. As much as I am for war with Iran, it will never ever happen. We've already exhausted our military resources for the time being, and Bush could never get political or public backing for such an endeavor.

[KettleWhistle]

It all depends on how low Bush's job approval rating sinks in lieu of pillaging Social Security and fighting off God's New Army; Terri Shaivo Battalion. Remember that the mid term elections are next year and the fundamentalists have already said both Bush careers are over. It probably would take a war againt Satan himself for Bush to get them back in the boat.

The conservatives, including Christian fundamentalists, are split in their opinions on the Shiavo case. Many conservatives feel that Congressional intervention was an assault on the rights of the States, and/or individual freedoms. Many Christian fundamentalists believe that after marrying Terri was "cleaved onto her husband" (or something along these lines) and her parents aren't supposed to interfere.

[Mediocrates]

Yeah so what. They're silient on the issue. Much rather let Terry Randall speak for them. Oh I hear this all the time - "the gubmint is evil the gubmint needs to be smaller and promote liberty" and some such self serving nonsense not even they believe. Except for all the hundreds of issues where they say it's not: abortion, censorship, no knock warrants, gay marriage, stem cells, death with dignity, legalization of weed, library reading lists, where you buy your prescription drugs from, and so on and so on and so on. When the religious Catholics in this country start sounding like rational liberals on these issues then you know you've gone too far.

Sorry - too many people made this their personal political agenda item and they aren't saying anything to the contrary. And I actually look forward to it because honestly, it will take nothing short of revolution to change this.

[KettleWhistle]

Half of these issues I agree with. But others:

Death with dignity: it is impossible to control. If you want to die you simply ask your doctor, and he'll prescribe you something like morphin, telling you that if you take one pill, it will relieve your pain, but if you take twenty you'll pass out and will die painlessly in half-an-hour.

Legalization of weed: I think anyone who've seen how devastating the result of pot addiction can be would disagree with that. It can completely ruin people's lives. It just acts much slower than other drugs, so most wouldn't notice the slow degradation of an addict.

Prescription drugs from Canada: it is a band-aid solution that will not solve anything in the long term. Saying that it will, is just a manipulative political rhetoric.

The point here is that conservatives are not wrong on everything, and while various radicals make much noise, they aren't representative of the majority, and they do not have any power. In fact all the desisions are made by moderates. The Shiavo law was just an attempt to cater to the radical voters. Everyone involved in passing it knew full well that it will be ineffective, and will not let her parents keep her body alive.

[MGB8]

Re-importation of drugs is just an end run at the US government's refusal to negotiate any price controls, allowing the drug companies to charge other nations less and compensate in the US. Its like the "choice based private accounts" for social security, which is in reality just an end run around the idea of a transfer from young to old (because, of course, true conservatives believe a person should have the choice NOT to invest...)

In general, conservatives believe in private property above all else (except when its little people w/out money, then the government can be used to claim it via eminent domain) - Economic liberties trump personal liberties. Liberals believe in personal liberties much more than economic liberties/the sacredness of private property. I, as in many things, am somewhere in between.

[Mediocrates]

Sorry dude for most nearly all of you it's a package deal. Anyone who sounds halfway rational about those things is pushed aside by the crazies you voted for (generally speaking). All of you knew and heard what they were saying last year. You elected them and now they've come with the bill. And please make no mistake the fundamentalists are not going to permit the party to splinter. That is weakness. They will work to cast anything they don't want as inherently evil, unpatriotic and unchristian so any moderates will feel compelled to hold their noses and revote them in again. Hell even John McCain who's a dyed in the wool Goldwater conservative is working for this agenda, and they called him a coward and a war criminal first.

No you will see that in order to hold on to power past 2006 the Republican party will have to move even further to the right than it is now, further than its ever been. In Texas and Florida you're starting to see legislative motions that effectively remove the Democratic party from the system and leave open politics there in the hands of a single party system where party and office are indistinguishable. You haven't seen anything yet. Rehnquist will leave, Scalia will be elevated and replaced with someone as conservative but Bush has the possibility of replacing two other seats as well. This would push the SC into the twilight zone of conservatism, not seen since the days of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896).

[KettleWhistle]

Everything is a package deal. Sometimes it is hard to say which package is the lesser evil. That's why I wouldn't commit to any party.

[AbedS]

Sorry I haven't posted recently, I'm getting married next month and my schedule is hectic.
With regards to Iran and Iraq.
911 gave Bush the opening he was praying for. Ever since the day he step foot in the White House, he was itching for that fight. If you look at PNAC, even in the early 90's they were pushing for Saddam's removal, even though Bush '41 was wholeheartedly against it. They had plenty of time to cook the intel and spice it up enought to make it look good enough to attack Saddam.
Remember that almost everything has to do with MONEY. That is the driving ideology of the Republican party. The religious slant is just to keep the voting cattle in line. Ultimately, Iraqi Freedom was designed to put up massive reconstruction contracts for US firms as well as to kowotw to Israeli interests. I find both those reasons appaling.
Iran cannot know what the political situation is in the US. They saw that Congress overwhelimingly approved the Iraq invasion based on faulty intelligence, and there is nothing to stop the same thing from happening to them. On top of that, their nuclear program is now a matter of national pride. When most Iranians found out about the program, their overwhelming reaction was horror at the thought of nucular weapons their country. After the international condemnation of the program, the collective mind changed. No matter what the political situation on the ground there, Iran is an old civilization, with thousands of years of history and they are very proud.
Their view is "Why should Israel have the bomb and we shouldn't?" That doesn't justify anything, but it illuminates something. The Middle East should be COMPLETELY Nuclear free. NO One should have that kind of weapon there. Not Iran, not Israel. Any use of that weapon will create a holocaust unlike anything the world has ever known.

[Mediocrates]

kowtow?

http://www.pathology.washington.edu/research/labs/Monnat/alden.jpg

[Static]

Sorry I haven't posted recently, I'm getting married next month and my schedule is hectic.
With regards to Iran and Iraq.
911 gave Bush the opening he was praying for. Ever since the day he step foot in the White House, he was itching for that fight. If you look at PNAC, even in the early 90's they were pushing for Saddam's removal, even though Bush '41 was wholeheartedly against it. They had plenty of time to cook the intel and spice it up enought to make it look good enough to attack Saddam.
Remember that almost everything has to do with MONEY. That is the driving ideology of the Republican party. The religious slant is just to keep the voting cattle in line. Ultimately, Iraqi Freedom was designed to put up massive reconstruction contracts for US firms as well as to kowotw to Israeli interests. I find both those reasons appaling.
Iran cannot know what the political situation is in the US. They saw that Congress overwhelimingly approved the Iraq invasion based on faulty intelligence, and there is nothing to stop the same thing from happening to them. On top of that, their nuclear program is now a matter of national pride. When most Iranians found out about the program, their overwhelming reaction was horror at the thought of nucular weapons their country. After the international condemnation of the program, the collective mind changed. No matter what the political situation on the ground there, Iran is an old civilization, with thousands of years of history and they are very proud.
Their view is "Why should Israel have the bomb and we shouldn't?" That doesn't justify anything, but it illuminates something. The Middle East should be COMPLETELY Nuclear free. NO One should have that kind of weapon there. Not Iran, not Israel. Any use of that weapon will create a holocaust unlike anything the world has ever known.

I completely agree with you, but I'll take you one further: the WORLD should be 100% nuclear free, and it's terribly tragic that humans have developed such weapons. I honestly think there's a good chance that they could one day be the end of humanity as we know it.

As for the war on Iraq, while Bush may have been "itching for war," that doesn't fdetract from the fact that the greater good has been achieved here, and that the Iraqi people will never have to endure Saddam's wicked regime, his torture chambers, or his son's rape rooms. That transcends whether or not we'll benefit from Iraq's oil wealth for me.

[Mediocrates]

But no one forced North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Algeria, Egypt, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Pakistan, India, China, Russia to develop or attempt to develop nuclear weapons. They did that all on their own. The point is you can't uninvent something and as soon as you try, someone cheats. So treaties are only as useful as the likelihood of the most ruthless nation to ignore them.

[Static]

But no one forced North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Algeria, Egypt, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Pakistan, India, China, Russia to develop or attempt to develop nuclear weapons. They did that all on their own. The point is you can't uninvent something and as soon as you try, someone cheats. So treaties are only as useful as the likelihood of the most ruthless nation to ignore them.

I realize that you can't uninvent something, and it certainly isn't realistic or even plausible to think that eventually the world can be without WMD. I was sort of speaking of a utopian ideal; ideally, the world would be without such weapons to harm our species, but then again, ideally there would be no war, conflict, etc...

[minusthejihad]

And there would be cookies and blankets and cute puppies for everyone!!! Kumbaya, kumbaya!

[Static]

And there would be cookies and blankets and cute puppies for everyone!!! Kumbaya, kumbaya!

Man, I've been saying that what the Palestinians and Israelis really need is to get some joints, a couple of kegs, and just have a big hippy circle smack in the center of Jerusalem where they all hold hands and sing "kumbya, my looooord...!" together for YEARS!

I'm telling you, that's the only way we're gonna resolve this silly conflict! :p

[minusthejihad]

Man, I've been saying that what the Palestinians and Israelis really need is to get some joints, a couple of kegs

Thats how my old Palestinian roommate and I got along in college!

[Static]

Thats how my old Palestinian roommate and I got along in college!

rofl ;)

[Mediocrates]

This is all the same fatally flawed Francis Fukyama thinking in "The End of History". For every resolution there's always someone right behind ready to raise holy hell over some dispute you never thought was important. In fact Islamonihilism was not predicted after the end of the cold war because strategists naturally assumed there were no more issues for the major states to fight over. What's that comic line - God is a violent vengeful spiteful god and he made us in his image.

[KettleWhistle]

What's that comic line - God is a violent vengeful spiteful god and he made us in his image.LOL. From my favorite web site on all-things-Christian:

God Hates:

You think God does not hate the sinner, only the sin? That certainly is the popular and politically correct thing to say nowadays, isn't it? But I still remember a time when we did not have to sugar-coat the truth. As my grandpa used to tell me, "The Lord don't throw just the sin into Hell"!

It is a fact the Lord hates... a pure hatred which burns white hot:

Proverbs 6:16-19
"These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."

But (and this is important) the Lord does not ONLY hate the sin, He loathes, yes HATES the sinner!

Psalms 5:5
"The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity."

Take your argument up with the Lord, not me. I only enlighten those too lazy to read their own Bibles and have fallen victim to the liberal "modernization" of our Church.

Glory to God!
Nathaniel P. Robbins

He certainly does!

Romans 9:13 says that God hated Esau, and Psalm 5:5 says that God hates all WORKERS of iniquity. Other examples are Proverbs 6:16-19, Psalm 11:5, and Malachi 1:3. Given these verses, how can you say God loves everyone? Can you really say "God loves everyone" when God says "I hated Esau?" Does God love the people in hell? Tell me, do you sit in your room and TORTURE, unmercilessly for endless hours the people and pets you love? Because that is what you are telling me the Lord does.

Or, you are thinking of "God is love." God certainly is love, toward His elect (His children). But He certainly is not love toward the reprobate (children of the devil). That's why His elect go to heaven, and the reprobate go to hell. In Romans 9:13, which says "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated", Jacob is a representative of God's elect, while Esau is a representative of the reprobate. God hates reprobates.

God's hatred is one of His holy attributes, whereby He reveals Himself as having a fixed and immutable determination to punish the finally impenitent with eternal perdition. God's hatred is not like man's hatred. His hatred is holy, pure, unchanging, while man's hatred is a sinful, fickle emotion.

Because the Bible preaches hate. For every one verse about God's mercy, love, compassion, etc., there are two verses about His vengeance, hatred, wrath, etc. The maudlin, kissy-pooh, feel-good, touchy-feely preachers of today's society are damning this nation and this world to hell. They are telling you what you want to hear rather than what you need to hear, just like what happened in the days of Isaiah and Jeremiah: "That this a rebellious people, lying children, children [that] will not hear the law of the LORD: Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us." Isaiah 30:9-11; "Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart." Jeremiah 14:14; "They have healed also the hurt [of the daughter] of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when [there is] no peace. Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time [that] I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the LORD." Jeremiah 6:14-15. And also in the New Testament we are warned: "For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. One of themselves, [even] a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians [are] alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith." I Timothy 1:11-13; "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of." II Peter 2:1,2. What you need to hear is that God hates people, and that your chances of going to heaven are nonexistent, unless you repent. What you need to hear is a little fire and brimstone preaching, like Jesus preached. What you don't need to hear is that you're okay just the way you are, and God accepts everyone without exception. Don't listen to the heretic who stands at the front of your church. Listen to God. If you are one of His elect, you'll hear.

Amen!
Nathaniel P. Robbins

[i]And to top that off:

Hating out of Love --- Pastor Hutchinson

I can't count how many times visitors to this site quote "love thy neighbor" to us. But how do we "love" our neighbor?

Does that mean to lie to him and tell him what he wants to hear? No. It means to tell him the truth, and warn him to flee from the wrath to come. As we are commanded in Leviticus 19:17, "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him." Here, loving your neighbour is defined as rebuking him, and not allowing sin to come upon him. Further, we have never suggested that we don't love our neighbor. We're not saying "We hate sinners" - we're saying "God hates sinners." The purest, most exalted form of love is to tell people the truth, especially about weighty matters such as life and death, sin, righteousness, judgment to come, Heaven and Hell.

But remember, David said: "Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? Am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred; I count them mine enemies." Psalm 139:21, 22. David hated God's enemies with a perfect, spiritual hatred (as opposed to the fickle human emotion of hatred), just as all of God's elect do.

In the Blood of the Lamb,

Pastor Hutchinson

Source: http://p203.ezboard.com/ftruechristiansunitefrm7.showMessage?topicID=5.top ic

[Mediocrates]

The thing that hell and churches have in common is they're both filled with sinners.

[AbedS]

The main problem is that people take religion too seriously, or else they need a crutch and religion is that crutch. they can use it to justify anything, even beheading innocent people or killing a population. Unfortunately, America is a nation which has been so confused about its religious identity. On the one hand, sex is bad, but on the other, nothing excites us more! Nowadays, though, you see the more religious side more prevalent in society.
In the middle east, it's about the same. Israel is a country founded on religious priciples, and the muslims in the middle east are just as crazy and fundementalist. If everyone just became a little more laid back about things, we would have solved all the problems there already. I think we should contaminate the drinking water with exstacy some day when there's a meeting going on.

[Mediocrates]

Ya be Jamaica mon. Iree.:rolleyes:

[MGB8]

AbedS, you need to do A LOT of research on the founders of Israel, among other things.

You get a kid who has maybe taken a couple of college courses who comes on and makes very broad statements, not to mention equating Israeli Jewish religious people, even the few ultras, with Muslim fundamentalists who support or take part in terrorism.

Its clear that you know very very little. Read some on this board, and then do some research on your own. Not from electronic intifadah, or people like Benny Morris, who is a political creature first, historian second.... read some of the basic stuff - seriously, the Encyclopedia Britannica would be a fine place to start.

[tandem]

The main problem is that people take religion too seriously, or else they need a crutch and religion is that crutch. they can use it to justify anything, even beheading innocent people or killing a population. Unfortunately, America is a nation which has been so confused about its religious identity. On the one hand, sex is bad, but on the other, nothing excites us more! Nowadays, though, you see the more religious side more prevalent in society.
In the middle east, it's about the same. Israel is a country founded on religious priciples, and the muslims in the middle east are just as crazy and fundementalist. If everyone just became a little more laid back about things, we would have solved all the problems there already. I think we should contaminate the drinking water with exstacy some day when there's a meeting going on.
israel was not found on religious principles. it was found on historical and political principles. throughout history jews have been oppressed almost anywhere they were at because of their religion and nothing else. it didn't matter to people if you were a religious jew or if you were a totally never-read-the-torah-in-your-life jew. if you are jewish you'd be placed under this umbrella that is the target of racial and social bigotry. the dream of zionism, the return of the jews to their ancestral homeland, has been alive in the minds of jews for over 2000 years. the political movement of zionism finally made that dream possible. if israel would have been founded on strictly religious principles, we wouldn't be tolerating any of the freedom people from all walks of life enjoy in israel today. israel is nowadays over 80% secular. in fact, only today the israeli supreme court passed a ruling (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1112239417431) saying that people living in israel who are not jewish but converted to judaism in reform courts abroad must regarded as jewish by the state. the ultra-orthodox in israel oppose this idea vehemently. in israel, unlike the arab world, we really do try to balance our jewish customs and freedom and as time goes on i think we'll see the gap between religion and state expand even more. but at least in israel, if jews want to worship or not, they could it without the fear of being persecuted for just being jewish and the same respect is afforded to other religions. this is why you really can't compare israel to despotic theocracies in the arab world.

[minusthejihad]

I think we should contaminate the drinking water with exstacy some day when there's a meeting going on.

Do you work for the makers of Paxil?

[AbedS]

AbedS, you need to do A LOT of research on the founders of Israel, among other things.

You get a kid who has maybe taken a couple of college courses who comes on and makes very broad statements, not to mention equating Israeli Jewish religious people, even the few ultras, with Muslim fundamentalists who support or take part in terrorism.

Its clear that you know very very little. Read some on this board, and then do some research on your own. Not from electronic intifadah, or people like Benny Morris, who is a political creature first, historian second.... read some of the basic stuff - seriously, the Encyclopedia Britannica would be a fine place to start.

Please spare me that patronizing tone. Israel is a Nation based on religion. It is a JEWISH state. that's the reason why there can never be a one state solution. Israel would cease to be a JEWISH state and thus not exist any longer.
I am far more than a kid, and when you read a post that's short and to the point, try to gleam a positive connotation that fits the theme of the post. I was not equating Islamic terrorism to jewish orthodoxy, but rather illustrating that any religion taken to extremes does more harm than good. Prove to me that religion isn't the driving force in the middle east on both sides. And kindly show me an instance of extremism in any religion doing any good. Otherwise, kindly take your condescension and stuff it.
Thank you.

[AbedS]

israel was not found on religious principles. it was found on historical and political principles. throughout history jews have been oppressed almost anywhere they were at because of their religion and nothing else. it didn't matter to people if you were a religious jew or if you were a totally never-read-the-torah-in-your-life jew. if you are jewish you'd be placed under this umbrella that is the target of racial and social bigotry. the dream of zionism, the return of the jews to their ancestral homeland, has been alive in the minds of jews for over 2000 years. the political movement of zionism finally made that dream possible. if israel would have been founded on strictly religious principles, we wouldn't be tolerating any of the freedom people from all walks of life enjoy in israel today. israel is nowadays over 80% secular. in fact, only today the israeli supreme court passed a ruling (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1112239417431) saying that people living in israel who are not jewish but converted to judaism in reform courts abroad must regarded as jewish by the state. the ultra-orthodox in israel oppose this idea vehemently. in israel, unlike the arab world, we really do try to balance our jewish customs and freedom and as time goes on i think we'll see the gap between religion and state expand even more. but at least in israel, if jews want to worship or not, they could it without the fear of being persecuted for just being jewish and the same respect is afforded to other religions. this is why you really can't compare israel to despotic theocracies in the arab world.
Again, I was not comparing the 2 side by side, but merely stating that any religious extremism does more harm then good.
God, all you people want to do is pontificate and put on airs.
It's obvious that Israel and every other Arab country are on 2 different levels (with the exception of Lebanon, they're in a class of their own). However, in both societies, religious fundementalists are driving factors to different extents, and they do nothing but cause problems, case in point, your post about the Ultra-Orthodoxy not accepting converted Jews, even though sometimes they have more appreciation for the faiuth because they had to discover it on their own despite their upbringing and in the face of what they were taught since their first breaths on this Earth. That's religious extremism. What about the nimrods in the South here in the US who are sending Michael Schiavo and the Federal judges who heard the case death threats and are also threatening to bomb the hospice where Terri was? religious nutjobism should have no place in this world.

[MGB8]

In this tantrum you prove my point.

Specifically, you don't have a good conception of what being "Jewish" or a "Jewish state" is. Had you browsed around the forum, you would have had much more perspective.

Jewish refers to a religion. True. But its not "just" a religion.

More than a religion, its a PEOPLE, an extended family, or, as anyone with Arab middle-east ties should be fairly comfortable with, a TRIBE. Arab society is still quite tribal based.

The Jews, really, are just another tribe. Along with the tribe comes a religion and history. Its not a seperate race (Jews are multi-racial) or even ethnicity (Jews are multi-ethnic), but it is a tribe.

Israel was founded on TRIBAL principles, not religious ones. The founders of Israel were for the most part quite secular, some even bordering on anti-religious.

The religion can't be seperated from the Tribe, and so you have religious laws, and other issues. However, given the Israeli "Law of Return" which says ANYONE of Jewish BLOOD (TRIBE) is an automatic citizen... well, you get the point.

You showed a misunderstanding of a very central point on Israel. Its a commonly held misunderstanding, but its still plain wrong. When you come onto an Israel forum and start preaching to a group of people who have been debating and imersing themselves in this for far longer than you... get your ducks in a row, first.


Please spare me that patronizing tone. Israel is a Nation based on religion. It is a JEWISH state. that's the reason why there can never be a one state solution. Israel would cease to be a JEWISH state and thus not exist any longer.
I am far more than a kid, and when you read a post that's short and to the point, try to gleam a positive connotation that fits the theme of the post. I was not equating Islamic terrorism to jewish orthodoxy, but rather illustrating that any religion taken to extremes does more harm than good. Prove to me that religion isn't the driving force in the middle east on both sides. And kindly show me an instance of extremism in any religion doing any good. Otherwise, kindly take your condescension and stuff it.
Thank you.

[Static]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish


Jew
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


The word Jew (Hebrew: יהודי) is used in a wide number of ways, but generally refers to a follower of the Jewish faith, a child of a Jewish mother, or someone of Jewish descent with a connection to Jewish culture or ethnicity and often a combination of these attributes. This article discusses the term as describing an ethnic group; for a consideration of the religion, please refer to Judaism.


Most Jews regard themselves as a people, members of a nation, descended from the ancient Israelites and those who joined their religion at various times and places. The term Jew came into being when the Kingdom of Israel was split between the northern Kingdom of Israel and the southern Kingdom of Judah. Hence, the Israelites (who were later largely destroyed by the Assyrians) were those of the northern kingdom and the Jews (who survived) were those of the southern kingdom. Over time, the word Jew has come to refer to those of the Jewish faith rather than those from Judah. In modern usage, Jews include both those Jews actively practicing Judaism, and those Jews who, while not practicing Judaism as a religion, still identify themselves as Jews by virtue of their family's Jewish heritage and their own cultural identification.

Who is a Jew?

Judaism shares some of the characteristics of a nation, an ethnicity, a religion, and a culture, making the definition of who is a Jew vary slightly depending on whether a religious or national approach to identity is used. For discussions of the religious views on who is a Jew and how these views differ from each other, please see Who is a Jew?. Generally, in modern secular usage, Jews include three groups: people who practice Judaism and are Jewish via maternal lineage, people without Jewish parents who have converted to Judaism; and those Jews who, while not practicing Judaism as a religion, still identify themselves as Jews by virtue of their family's Jewish descent and their own cultural and historical identification with the Jewish people.

[KettleWhistle]

Please spare me that patronizing tone. Israel is a Nation based on religion. It is a JEWISH state. that's the reason why there can never be a one state solution. Israel would cease to be a JEWISH state and thus not exist any longer.LOL. Israel is not a state based on religion. Jews are a nation based on Hebrew ethnicity. It is only a Jewish state based on ethnicity.

[Illuminatus]

Iranian President Muhammad Khatami met with French President Jacques Chirac in Paris today.

don't they look good together? (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050405/481/par12704051719)

Thus a subject cowards would never confront Iran with.


Ottawa � Canada is calling for an international forensic investigation into the torture and death of Canadian photojournalist Zahra Kazemi in Iran, saying it is fed up with "coverups" and "double-speak."

The request was aimed at increasing pressure on Iran, which has discounted an account by a doctor who examined her after her arrest in 2003 and said she had been systematically tortured and raped.Globe & Mail: Canada demands probe into Kazemi 'murder' (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050405.wkaze0405/BNStory/National/?query=Iran)

Glad Canada isn't afraid.

Here's some more background on this horror from the CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kazemi/)

I bet 'ya Chirac and Khatami - indicative of a very close relationship between France and Iran, had a real good time together.

[takeo]

Iranian President Muhammad Khatami met with French President Jacques Chirac in Paris today.

don't they look good together? (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050405/481/par12704051719)

Thus a subject cowards would never confront Iran with.

Globe & Mail: Canada demands probe into Kazemi 'murder' (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050405.wkaze0405/BNStory/National/?query=Iran)

Glad Canada isn't afraid.

Here's some more background on this horror from the CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kazemi/)

I bet 'ya Chirac and Khatami - indicative of a very close relationship between France and Iran, had a real good time together.

Your hero Yuchtchenko had a good time too in Tehran drinking chay with Khatami. ( in Iran they use samovars too to make tea, as in the Ukrain). And I always wondered what Bush and the Saoudi embassador discuss during their numerous meetings in the White House and the embassy, besides their financial relationship and their close personal friendship.