| What are the Consequences of attacking THE ENTIRE M.E. ?
Posted: 6/19/2008 12:58:50 PM | Madfiddler, what I find more disturbing is this faux dichotomy we've set up as Republican v. Democratic. I cringe when people use neo-con as a pejorative term because its playing into the very same meme methology you're talking about. The enemy is the farce that our political system has become: we essentially have 5% of our wealthy battling the other 5% of our wealthiest for control of the country. Neo-con, liberal, whatever. They're two sides of the same coin. Its disturbing to me that the most successful politicians today are those that stand for the least but shine up the brightest. Our current election year is blatant demonstration of that fact.
Thats why I think its dangerous to ever call one of our modern politicians a villain or a hero. Its just a diversion anyway, our country is now more than ever run by bureaucrats and lobbyists, irrespective of political party. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking THE ENTIRE M.E. ?
Posted: 6/19/2008 1:10:56 PM |
And replaced by a regime that embraces all the people of the region. No, not a government of defenceless patsies either. But a government that establishes full rights and freedoms for all of its people and not only those of Jewish faith. They should however remain welcome there and free always to practice their faith and culture there without interferance forever.
I don't know how they do that without eventually losing their identity. The only way for them, in the precise middle of a billion people of a faith aligned against them, to retain their identity to is to actively promote it. Because otherwise they'll quickly become the minority once more. They tried your solution for millennia and, well, that didn't quite work out did it?
I'm not saying they're justified, they stole land from the prior inhabitants. But to be fair, those inhabitants had originally stolen that land as well. I think its impossible to find anyone in this conflict with the moral highground. I just favor the Israelis because they have one nation against, what 52 majority Muslim countries? Lets not forget that it was the 5 Arab nations that instigated both the wars in 48 and 67. I don't say you can legitimately claim that most Arabs want peace with Israel either, when you consider that Anwar Sadat was ridiculed and ultimately assassinated for reaching a peace treaty, even one favorable to Egypt. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking THE ENTIRE M.E. ?
Posted: 6/19/2008 1:23:58 PM |
I don't know how they do that without eventually losing their identity. The only way for them, in the precise middle of a billion people of a faith aligned against them, to retain their identity to is to actively promote it. Because otherwise they'll quickly become the minority once more. They tried your solution for millennia and, well, that didn't quite work out did it?
Well no they really didn't get to do so in an environment where they were allowed to do so. In fact, ironically the only environment they did get to practice their faith and culture freely was under the Caliphate and that was hardly as freely and fully as could be desired...but at least it was free of the burden of being charged with deicide whenever you turned around. I prefer the idea of a two state solution
Madfiddler, what I find more disturbing is this faux dichotomy we've set up as Republican v. Democratic. I cringe when people use neo-con as a pejorative term because its playing into the very same meme methology you're talking about. The enemy is the farce that our political system has become: we essentially have 5% of our wealthy battling the other 5% of our wealthiest for control of the country. Neo-con, liberal, whatever. They're two sides of the same coin. Its disturbing to me that the most successful politicians today are those that stand for the least but shine up the brightest. Our current election year is blatant demonstration of that fact.
Thats why I think its dangerous to ever call one of our modern politicians a villain or a hero. Its just a diversion anyway, our country is now more than ever run by bureaucrats and lobbyists, irrespective of political party.
I agree essentially. Neo-Con is a handy label to describe a small and perfidious group of said bureacrats with a specific political agenda that transcends right or left. It's about essentially the "Western" way of life and imperialist/colonialist/corporatist economic control with the West on top. All of the other "isms" can be made to serve this as tools. It's essentially plutocracy. Villains...heroes...no. Just small minded, small men. As I noted in another post I was reminded of Leonard Cohen's poem about Eichmann in the dock at Nuremburg...people expecting a toothy monster seeing a pathetic little man. That's how I view Wolfowitz. But we still have to pull their fangs before they do too much more damage because the work they are doing is like an engine block chained to our ankles and the bottom ever approaching is more war. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/19/2008 5:41:55 PM | "Iran promotes international terrorism. By doing so, it has attacked other countries ceaselessly for decades now."
Wow! How could anyone possibly make such an obvious spelling mistake?!? In the context of the quoted post, "I-R-A-N" should actually be spelled "U-S-A."
"Don't get the idea that Iran would be the cake walk Iraq was."
Yeah. Iraq was, and continues to be, about as much a 'cakewalk' as the Titanic was 'unsinkable.'
(By the way, how many years has it been since Monkey Boy's famous "Mission Accomplished" blatherings on the deck of that aircraft carrier?) | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/19/2008 6:00:02 PM |
Even if Ahmajamed said Israel should be wiped off the map, so what? He never said that ... that's old news. There are several threads on here that explain the intentional MISinterpretation of that speech.
MEMRI ... well known for purposely misinterpreting.
It would be extremely foolish for us to attack Iran ... but with the nutjob in the White House ... who knows what's next?  | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/19/2008 6:43:49 PM | The Iraqi invasion was a cakewalk. The war has become a civil war with our troops in the crossfire. Our specific victory was indeed quite easy. I think thats what he was talking about.
Wow! How could anyone possibly make such an obvious spelling mistake?!? In the context of the quoted post, "I-R-A-N" should actually be spelled "U-S-A."
Thats a really productive statement. Thanks. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/19/2008 7:40:46 PM | You said: "they have done the same thing now with the creation of the imaginary Al-Qaeda network"
This is called dialectic materialism as explained by Marx. It is how history, especially modern history, can be understood through the analysis of action vs reaction, or problem vs solution.
You create the problem, then you provide the solution while advancing a certain agenda. That is why you found America supporting Al-Quada and arming Saddam to the teeth, only to later blame them as problems that needed to be solved.
These aren't coincidences nore are they mistakes. It's called Dialectic Materialism. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/19/2008 8:45:54 PM | They only seem to be so (coincedences and mistakes) in the eyes of those unfamiliar with the tactic...in other words "the great unwashed masses" or useful idiots that people like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. have the same contempt for as they do for the populations of the lands they propose to illegally invade, occupy and destroy as part of the PNAC...
And of course I am talking about the populations of the Western Nations. All they have to do is continue to believe the Black Hat vs. White Hat myth...Black Hat = Evil empire = Flavour of the month...Say soon to be Iran. White Hat (Strauss' favorite TV Heroes Matt Dillon and Perry Mason) = Western Powers primarily The USA, Britain and Canada...if'n y'all ain't with us, yer ag'in us. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking THE ENTIRE M.E. ?
Posted: 6/19/2008 9:21:14 PM | The Iranians pains comes mainly from Khameni
Khameni's reign relies on great pain
I once played against a girl on the yhoos games and her handle was "I love Hitler" or something to that effect. I asked her where she was from and she said Iran | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/20/2008 6:47:15 AM | What's with all those ridiculous insult's...You sound like your on your period or something.You made a great thread, dont ruin it by acting like a thug.It's seem's to me your trying to make Iran out to look like a victim and making the U.S to look some arrogant bully.The Iranian government is far from innocent, Iran took american's hostage and pretty much dictated a American presidency by not releasing them until jimmy carter was out the whitehouse.You said Iran has not invaded anyone in over 3 century's...Your right , they have terror group's like hezbollah carry out their dirty work like launch dummy bomb's into Israel for them. Ahmadinejad already has his mind made up about triggering this war. Moscow is using Iran just like Ahmadinejad use's Hezbollah to attack Israel.Iran is just a pawn for Moscow.The world is already devided ,The pope already broke whatever peace their was between Muslims and Christian's by calling Islam the devil's religion.You have a paranoid Kim Jong-il sleeping with the button to his nuclear weapon's under his pillow.China who is poised to be the next superpower is getting ever so close with Moscow and looks like they maybe leaning toward's a military pact.You have China and the U.S flexing their muscle's at each other by shooting down satellites...Which will definitely play a big roll in military strategy from now on.I wouldnt be surprised if Moscow decides to demonstrate their power by shooting down their own satellite.You have tensions rising with India and Pakistan...You have U.S Troop's on both side's of Iran's border's in Afghanistan and Iraq...which is basically what the U.S is trying to do to Moscow by trying to set up missile defense system's in europe....prompting Moscow to issue a threat that if the U.S continued with this missile defense system they would target European capital's with the nuclear weapon's.The U.S said it is to prevent attacks from Iran , which goes to show Iran is a pawn in this and being played by both sides.The tension among the world has never been so high.It's so bad that it may not take a U.S led invasion of Iran to start another world war ...A simple car bomb in the wrong place could trigger this massive war.We are on the brink of another world war.I really believe Russia will be the next country to use nuclear weapon's in war...Which will prompt the U.S to respond with an even dumber action and that's to retaliate with it's own nuclear arsenal.here is a little quote I've read from an article which was talking about U.S ships being deployed to the Persian Golf which pretty much surrounds Iran " The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on a military adventure, "a long war", which threatens the future of humanity " Here is the url to a simple map of Iran and it's border's.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/2007/04/08/iranmap.jpg
You can show this map to any general or leader in history who have led a war and they would all tell you the same thing...It's not If the U.S invades Iran...But a matter of when. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/20/2008 6:00:08 PM | ^^^^^^
Given all of the above mentioned turmoil and conflict in the world, why doesn’t the USA just stay within its own shores so we could have peace on the planet Earth?
107 years ago, in 1899 Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem about the USA’s annexation of the Philippines. The poem is titled “The White Man’s Burden”. It’s a poignant poem regarding the white man’s unquenchable thirst to colonise and rule people of other nations for their own unscrupulous benefit regardless of damage inflicted.
The poem has become the emblem, the mantra of Western desire to dominate the world through conquest, death and destruction. A century after its publication, the poem is still relevant of the greedy aspirations of white men.
The White Man's Burden
Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.
Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.
Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to naught.
Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go make them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.
Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"
Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloak your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.
Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers.
Rudyard Kipling 1899 | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/20/2008 7:46:01 PM | We cant attack Iran. Its too modern, too many civilians would be killed. Its not like removing Hussein, who was a tyrant and a butcher. I loved watching him dangle from the rope....I hope when his neck broke it really hurt and he panicked and crapped his pants and cried like a baby as the blood flowed from his limbs. This is I like! Not because i like suffering, but for the thousands of victims..there was justice.
Not so with Iran. Although I would love to beat the crap out of their president and put his****in a vice in a buring barn with only a butter knife to escape with...bombing tens of thousands of innocent Persians does nothing. But evil.
Persians are the sweetest, most educated, most artistic culture in the middle East. They are basically Jews who speak Farsee.
Any invasion of Iran is a crime against humanity. But I would love to get their president in a room alone for one hour. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/20/2008 7:51:55 PM | I can see it now:
Israel sends a squadron of jets across Iraq to attack Iran
The Americans who rule the skies over Iraq suffers an inexplicable standdown in air power over Iraq that day. Sounds familiar? what happened on 9-11 | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/20/2008 9:20:22 PM | "We cant attack Iran. Its too modern, too many civilians would be killed. Its not like removing Hussein, who was a tyrant and a butcher. I loved watching him dangle from the rope....I hope when his neck broke it really hurt and he panicked and crapped his pants and cried like a baby as the blood flowed from his limbs. This is I like! ..."
Thanks. That pretty much sums up why we have the problems we have in the world today.
In other words, to quote Pogo: " We have seen the enemy and...."
...Well, we all know the rest, don't we?
'nuff said. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/20/2008 9:46:07 PM | Previously posted: "Persians are the sweetest, most educated, most artistic culture in the middle East. They are basically Jews who speak Farsee." ??
I have to agree with the first part of this statement- living in southern California I have known several, and they all have been. So are the Palestinians I have met at UC Irvine. Sweet, educated, artistic people. I have not had the same experience with the many Jews I have known, however. Seriously. To attack Iran on behalf of Israel, well, I'm not sure I could call this "my" country anymore. | |
|
| |
NERO1
|
Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 42 | |
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/20/2008 10:26:11 PM | Like Jews who speak Farsi??? Give me a break...... Israeli Jews, IMO, were the most unpleasant people in the Middle East that I encountered. Firstly, I should say that in general they struck me as very different from the average American Jew (again, "in general" --- barring perhaps some of the NY'ers....but then NY'ers, Jew or Gentile, can be rather...abrasive ....to say the least). But compared to Arab or Persian hospitality, etc, Israeli Jews were rather like the least pleasant of NY Jews, except in many cases armed and much more paranoid.....at least that was my experience there.
Overall the atmosphere there , IMO, was that of an armed camp, with a lot of cynical and generally unfriendly, brusque and ill-mannered people (again I'm talking just about the Israeli Jews), oh and the most c*cky soldiers of the whole Middle East IMO (many of whom in any case looked far more Russian or Slavic than anyone who should be native to the Middle East). Hands down the least friendly and welcoming folks in all the Mediterranean basin IMO. Really rather unpleasant people, and again this is just my own experience there and the ones I encountered when I visited the Abrahamic holy land. Hands down give me the Persians and the Arabs, the Muslims in general, over the Israelis any day.
There I'm admitting a personal bias of sorts I guess, based on personal experiences, but....I'm only human. Despite all that however, regardless of who one "prefers" (Israelis or Persians or Arabs or what have you), the notion of America getting involved in any sort of conflict which may erupt between Israel and Iran is IMO the ultimate nightmare scenario for this country and , since this is where I live today, this is the one that comes first for me (although I wonder if we can say the same for Washington Likudniks like Joe Liebermann and many of the AIPAC lobbyists, etc....). | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/20/2008 10:46:39 PM | I am just seeking clarification here but when someone says that the regieme in a region needs to be swept off of the map what exactly can the meaning behind that be? How exactly do you think Iran will accomplish this? flooding the voting centers with fliers or paying for a political consultant to sway votes to oust people? Please explain to me how I or anyone with sound reasoning should interepret this statement. If I am missing something let me know, I tend to just take what a man says at face value. To me it seems pretty cut and dry. I am even going by the interepretation put out by the OP so help a guy out here.
On a side note I think an invasion of Iran would be insane. We are spread too thin at the moment. The only way to win would be total annilation of iran we have plenty of weapons short of nukes to accomplish this thermite, carpet bombs, bunker busters, air drop thermo payloads, daisy cutters, and others. However the death toll on civilians would be a travesty. Then the fallout from the global community, sheesh can you say hello occupation if not assault? | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/20/2008 11:17:24 PM | Given all of the above mentioned turmoil and conflict in the world, why doesn’t the USA just stay within its own shores so we could have peace on the planet Earth
While I am all for the U.S. staying out of other countries affairs.I hardly think there would be peace on earth.
The World at War
Algeria Insurgency 1992 -->
Angola Cabinda 1975 -->
Burma Insurgency 1950 -->
China Senkaku Islands 1968 -->
China Spratly Islands 1988 -->
Colombia Insurgencies 1970s-->
Congo (Zaire) Congo War 1998-->
Georgia Civil War 1991-->
India Assam 1985 -->
India Kashmir 1970s-->
India Naxalite Uprising 1967 -->
Indonesia Aceh 1986 -->
Indonesia Kalimantan 1983 -->
Indonesia Maluku 1999 -
Indonesia Papua / West Irian 1963 -->
Israel Al-Aqsa Intifada 2000 -->
Israel Lebanon 2006 -->
Ivory Coast Civil War 2002 -->
Korea Korean War 1953 -->
Laos Hmong Insurgency 2000 -->
Moldova Transdniester 1991-->
Namibia Caprivi Strip 1966-->
Nepal Maoists 1996 -->
Nigeria Civil Disturbances 1997 -
Pakistan Baluchistan 2004 -
Palestine Civil War 2007-->
Peru Shining Path 1970s-->
Philippines Moro Uprising 1970s-->
Russia Chechen Uprising 1992 -->
Somalia Civil War 1991-->
Spain Basque Uprising 1970s-->
Sri Lanka Tamil Separatists 1983 -->
Sudan Darfur 1983 -->
Thailand Islamic Rebels 2001 -->
Turkey Kurdistan 1984 -->
Uganda Civil Conflict 1980 -->
United States Afghanistan 1980 -->
United States Djibouti 2001 -->
United States Iraq 1990 -->
United States Philippines 1898 -->
Uzbekistan Civil Disturbances 2005 -->
Yemen Sheik al-Houti 2004 --> | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/21/2008 1:13:38 AM | Now, if we take a very close look at those conflicts, I wonder who provided weapons, logistics and intel for the various participants? Then I wonder who might have been agent provocateurs for either side? We know for certain that Indonesia had US help in trying to eradicate the rebels in its country...I would imagine any country that had a regime fighting a Communist "uprising" you will find good old Uncle Sam ready to sell guns and bombs of every description to prevent the "mythical" domino effect. That's the one that prevents any regime style other than colonialist imperial capitalism from gaining a foothold in the second or third world at the cost of human lives. And frankly it doesn't matter what ruthless, tin-pot mass-murdering dictator is propped up so long as he doesn't get stupid enough to bite the hand that feeds him...
An image of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands warmly with "our man in Iraq" Saddam Hussein comes to mind ...wonder who sold him the poison gas that he used on the Kurds...hmmm.
So taking a close look at those nations...we would probably see France, The former Soviet Union, China, and The USA...the worlds premier arms dealers footing the bill. The Lords of War... | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/21/2008 10:08:48 AM | | Fiddler, you're not honestly suggesting without the United States these conflicts wouldn't have occurred, are you? Most current wars are civil wars arising out of conflicts that predate the very United States' formation. | |
|
| |
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/21/2008 12:14:57 PM |
What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
There are quite a few, to be honest.
1) Say bye-bye to Iraq. 
The Shi'ite population of Iraq isn't going to take too warmly to an attack on it's spiritual heartland. The minute those first American bombs hit their targets inside Iran, Iraq will explode too. 
2) The Islamic world will see the third Islamic nation attacked since 2001, and start to make the connection that perhaps this IS a war against Islam.
3) The American military, and the cost of war, will drain even more money from the treasury, and place your nation even deeper into debt.
4) Gas prices will go off the historical charts, and the world's economy will suffer from that, not just the USA.
And that's just the start of it all..... | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/21/2008 12:36:33 PM |
Fiddler, you're not honestly suggesting without the United States these conflicts wouldn't have occurred, are you? Most current wars are civil wars arising out of conflicts that predate the very United States' formation.
No. And I don't want to get off topic either. However, I am stating that the United States is a primary back stage player involved in many of these conflicts - certainly not all - because it supplies arms, logistics, intelligence, etc. to one side or the other and primarily the side that is not socialist because the US is engaged in ideological warfare with the rest of the world for good or ill to maintain it's particular interests.
Not freedom, lest anyone make that mistake. That's a happy side effect of the interests of being the sole superpower and imperial might in the world. But this government is interested in surpressing on a global scale any system that rivals its own. This is part of it's zeitgeist, its driving force and now part of the policy of the government and the commonly repeated myth ever since the Cold War - the Domino effect.
Of course, directly now we apply it to "Terrorist Nations" but indirectly when applying it to nations that are supported under the table, it used to be suggested that anyone thinking of heading in a socialist direction needed to be fended against.
Well I suppose we can label them as potential agents of terror now and kill two birds with one stone. They are all potentially "unfriendly" governments and if you're not with us, your against us. There. Even simpler. Now it's been redacted to Strauss' black hat vs. white hat image and it's even easier to see in the common mind. Good vs. evil. As I said in another thread, this uncommonly stupid oversimplifying of complex problems always reminds me of Bugs Bunny and Yosemite Sam refighting the Revolutionary War with the "We" and "They" flags.
Thank you so much btw to Chiny for posting that Kipling poem...I hope everyone else can see how hauntingly similar the imperialism of his age is being re-echoed again in our time. | |
|
| What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ?
Posted: 6/21/2008 5:11:37 PM | I am still seeking an answer to my question will repost it here
"I am just seeking clarification here but when someone says that the regieme in a region needs to be swept off of the map what exactly can the meaning behind that be? How exactly do you think Iran will accomplish this? flooding the voting centers with fliers or paying for a political consultant to sway votes to oust people? Please explain to me how I or anyone with sound reasoning should interepret this statement. If I am missing something let me know, I tend to just take what a man says at face value. To me it seems pretty cut and dry. I am even going by the interepretation put out by the OP so help a guy out here.
On a side note I think an invasion of Iran would be insane. We are spread too thin at the moment. The only way to win would be total annilation of iran we have plenty of weapons short of nukes to accomplish this thermite, carpet bombs, bunker busters, air drop thermo payloads, daisy cutters, and others. However the death toll on civilians would be a travesty. Then the fallout from the global community, sheesh can you say hello occupation if not assault?"
Now I asked this question because it was the OPs contention that the president of Iran was misqouted and misunderstood So I would like some one to explain how I should interepret those words. Thanks | |
|
Home
login 
