|
|
|
|
|
| End of the world on Aug. 22?
Posted: 8/8/2006 1:19:06 PM | Maybe so before this insane war between Israel and hezbollah … but now US has a new found appreciation for Iranian ability.
Sorry arri ... but again ... NO.
If anything ... Hezbollah's abilities ... INCREASES the neoconservatives resovle to marginalize Iran ... BECAUSE they fear them.
They are determined to deny Iranian enrichment ... and now even their conventional capabilty to be in alliance with others ... that Hezbollah fought well ... solidifies in their mind the impression that Iran must NOT be ALLOWED to get any stronger. Thats what the whole doctrine of preemption is about ... you attack a nation BEFORE they get too strong.
If the performance of hezbollah against Israel is any indication of their training by the Iranians, then US knows what an invasion would cost them.
Israel doesn't give a damn what it will 'cost' Americans ... and their traitorous cohorts within the American government don't give a damn either ... they themselves will not be particularly or personally burdened by the 'costs'.
Besides, if they believe that Iran is so fanatical to develop nukes and use them, what would stop Iran from bottlenecking and totally stopping any shipment of oil through the Persian Gulf?
I imagine they think they would then not merely attack the Iranian nuclear capacity but go for regime change as well ... only it would not be with gound forces but invoking the nuclear option with Iran.
They seriously believe it is now possible to fight a limited nuclear war ... with smaller tactical nukes, they've built them and they are probably dying to try them out.
That is one of the central miltary pillars enshrined in the PNAC's ... 'Rebuilding America's Defenses'
They have the means and the ability ... no my friend, war with Iran is not good for business.
Arri, everything you are saying makes perfect sense in a country whose Leaders and those within its power structure, actually care about the country, its ideals, and it's citizens ... THESE FOLKS DONT.
They have proven it in inumerable ways, to limit the citizens freedom, ginning up phony wars, and by invoking taxcuts for the wealthiest among us ... and sliding all of their accumulated debt onto the backs of generations to come.
They care about America in theory, as an abstraction, but about the REAL America ... God NO.
They believe, We the People, are lazy, indolent, and corrupt ... a Godless nation that has strayed too far under generations of liberal nonsense.
They don't like the REAL America ... and they want it destroyed and gone.
They are as ideologically theocratic as the Taliban, and the mullahs in Tehran ... and believe society would be better served by an autocratic and authoritarian Christian regime ... a nation that will prosper from enforced moral guidelines and strict social darwinism.
They would like nothing better than to seperate the Wheat from the Chaff ... and if folks can't make it in their draconian system... well then ... America in the long run ... will be better off.
About war being bad for business, for some it would be 'great business'.
Any limit on the supply of oil only drives their portfolios up ... Big Oil and the jackal like speculators within the American investment-class are eating this shit up ... millionaires are popping up like mushrooms daily from speculators spiking ALL energy prices up.
Those involved in the 'commercial opportunities of the new millenium' ... defense industries, homeland security, and criminal in-justice ... are also raking the windfall cash profits up ... by the fistfull ...and into wheelbarrows.
Of course the average American citizen will suffer for it ... but since when did you see those in American power who give an actual damn about the actual wellbeing of their constituents.
I agree it is insane ... but frankly I believe they seriously don't give a fock ... why should they ... they're getting enormously wealthy and cementing an increase to their political powerbase for generations to come ... they've got that taste of blood in their mouth ... and they're thinking ... nobody is revolting yet ... it can't be so bad ... lets go for the gusto.
The added benefit ... a determined and real enemy at our throats ... it should be obvious now ... they don't aim to decrease terror ... they aim to guarantee it ... for generations to come.
They of course rationalize such a reckless gamble at the citizens ultimate cost.
A desperate people under attack with a broken economy may be an incentive to them in the perverse way ... that desperate people are easier to manipulate in all kinds of ways ... politically, economically, spiritually, miltarily.
Just as in Iraq ... if the people are nervous for their security, and economically destitute, it means plenty of cheap real estate, cheap labor, and plenty of fresh military recruits.
Education, Medicare, Social Security, and a whole slew of other things Republicans think are anathema to America can be eliminated permanently just on prohibitive cost ... we won't be able to afford such luxuries if we become a militaristic debtor nation engaged in ceaseless perpetual warfare.
Oh ... and it keeps the Republicans in Congress.
darjeeling | |
|
arri
|
Joined: 10/5/2005
Msg: 27 | |
| End of the world on Aug. 22?
Posted: 8/8/2006 1:52:01 PM | darjeeling .. you have one hell of an imagination 
US has enough checks and balances in place ... as well as a very smart military officer core that are constitutionally obligated to refuse unlawful orders.
They are smart enough to know that middle eastern countries, specially Iran with its 2500 year history of never being conquered can fight wars of attrition. United States can’t .. and using nukes in a preemptive attack will remove any credibility that US is left with, internationally.
Where is vivid? .. this end of the world stuff is totally up his ally. | |
|
| End of the world on Aug. 22?
Posted: 8/8/2006 1:58:58 PM | Damnit Arri....I hate to do this but........Your 100% correct!
The US will not use nukes on anyone. Our end of the world..suitcase conspiracy friends are nutz! | |
|
| End of the world on Aug. 22?
Posted: 8/8/2006 6:09:53 PM | US has enough checks and balances in place ...
The checks and balances are now being breached and under constant pressure to be further marginalized by the Executive branch ... particularly in matters of national security ... if we were to be on a permanent war footing the President has unlimited power ... according to their view of these things.
The Supreme Court can intervene but it takes years before they can 'hear' a case ... in many instances that delay allows the damage to be done before that 'check' would balance any abuse out.
as well as a very smart military officer core that are constitutionally obligated to refuse unlawful orders.
You're dreaming ... how many US officers in the military spoke up publicly before going into Iraq, even though many knew what a disaster it would be?
How many challenged ANY order in Iraq?
Powell was very reluctant ... but eventually they wore him down ... and then made him a collaberator to their plans by having him do their dirty work at the UN ... now to his great shame.
They are smart enough to know that middle eastern countries, specially Iran with its 2500 year history of never being conquered can fight wars of attrition. United States can’t .. and using nukes in a preemptive attack will remove any credibility that US is left with, internationally.
Did it make any real sense at all to go into Iraq?
Real sense in terms of the country, or its citizens; or did they go with an ulterior motive, an unspoken agenda ... on a gamble with the lives of both Iraqis and Americans in the balance.
Did they use any wisdom, are they now using sound judgement in their determination to see that the Israeli's get anything that they want? How does they're current actions benefit any American or contribute to our credibilty?
On using Nukes:
The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War
New Pentagon Doctrine: Mini-Nukes are "Safe for the Surrounding
Civilian Population"
by Michel Chossudovsky
February 17, 2006
[Global research]
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context==viewArticle&code=
060217&articleId= 88
This article elaborates on two earlier texts by the author:
Nuclear War against Iran , January 2006
Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran , May 2005
"Current US nuclear weapons policy as immoral, illegal, militarily
unnecessary, and dreadfully dangerous. The risk of an accidental or
inadvertent nuclear launch is unacceptably high. Far from reducing these
risks, the Bush administration has signaled that it is committed to
keeping the US nuclear a***nal as a mainstay of its military power - a
commitment that is simultaneously eroding the international norms that
have limited the spread of nuclear weapons and fissile materials for 50
years. Much of the current US nuclear policy has been in place since
before I was secretary of defense, and it has only grown more dangerous
and diplomatically destructive in the intervening years."
(Robert McNamara, US Secretary of Defense under the Kennedy and Johnson
administrations)
The Bush administration's new nuclear doctrine contains specific
"guidelines" which allow for "preemptive" nuclear strikes against "rogue
enemies" which "possess" or are "developing" weapons of mass destruction
(WMD). (2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and Doctrine for Joint
Nuclear Operations (DJNO) ).
The preemptive nuclear doctrine (DJNO), which applies to Iran and North
Korea calls for "offensive and defensive integration". It explicitly
allows the preemptive use of thermonuclear weapons in conventional war
theaters.
In the showdown with Tehran over its alleged nuclear weapons program,
these Pentagon "guidelines" would allow, subject to presidential
approval, for the launching of punitive bombings using "mini-nukes" or
tactical thermonuclear weapons.
*snip*
In an utterly twisted logic, the nuclear bunker buster bomb is presented
as an instrument of peace-making and regime change, which will enhance
global security. It is intended to curb the dangers of WMD proliferation
by "nonstate organizations (terrorist, criminal)" and "rogue states".
Pentagon propaganda has carefully distorted the nature of this bomb.
The B61-11 is casually described as causing an underground explosion
without threatening "the surrounding civilian population".
The Pentagon has blurred the distinction between conventional
battlefield weapons and nuclear bombs. Already during the Clinton
Administration, the Pentagon was calling for the use of the "nuclear"
B61-11 bunker buster bomb, suggesting that because it was "underground",
there was no toxic radioactive fallout which could affect civilians.
The Bush administration has gone one step further in defining the use of
tactical nuclear weapons, which are now part of America's preemptive
arsenal. Essentially they are described defensive weapons. Under the
preemptive nuclear doctrine, they are specifically identified for use in
conventional war theaters.
*snip*
While the US Congress has blocked further research funding in fiscal
2005 on new more robust tactical nuclear weapons, this decision does not
affect the existing a***nal of tactical nuclear weapons including the
B61-11, developed during the Clinton administration. The B61-11 bunker
busters are fully operational, The B61-11 has apparently been tested
"resulting in its acceptance as a standard stockpile item". It has been
cleared for battlefield use.
I don't know what makes you think Bush and his crowd care about the world's opinion, they all too often seem to relish the impression that America, just like Israel, will do what IT wants.
darjeeling | |
|
| End of the world on Aug. 22?
Posted: 8/8/2006 6:21:03 PM | | yanno.. when i was about 10-11 & in school.. a teacher of mine had said that the world would end in about 10 yrs after he gave that speech.. well we`re in 2006 (that speech was given back in 1970 something) & hummmm looks like we`re still going strong!.. and i hope the rest of the world isn`t believing this & maxing out their cards.. .. | |
|
arri
|
Joined: 10/5/2005
Msg: 31 | |
| End of the world on Aug. 22?
Posted: 8/8/2006 6:32:11 PM | First of all .. the US President needs congressional approval to declare a clear and present danger and send in the troops. US congress was fooled once, not going to happen again.
Did it make any real sense at all to go into Iraq?
Iraq was another story.
First of all, they didn't go there for WMDs, they went there to establish permanent military bases to ensure strike capability should they need it for Iran or should Saudi Arabian royal family fall to a revolution ... as well as ensuring military presence once the oil shortage becomes a serious issue. What most people don't understand is how much oil is really there.
Let me do the math for you. US including Alaska has reserves of 21 to 23 billion barrels of oil and produces between 5.5 to 7.5 million barrels per day.
Iran has 130 billion, Iraq has 120 billion .. Saudis have 240 Billion barrels .. all together including the little emirates and Kuwait, they have over 700 billion barrels. World only has 1.2 Trillion barrels of oil.
Iran produces 3.5 million, Iraq about 2.5 now and Saudis about 5 million barrels per day. Doesn't take a math genius to figure out who is going to run out first. (just in case, North America is)
Right now actually, US produces half locally and imports most from Canada and Mexico that don't have all that much anyway ... about 11 Billion barrels together. The rest about 10% comes from Saudi Arabia and 1% from other middle eastern countries.
Tar sands have a EIoER (Energy input vs energy return) of 1:1 that means takes the energy of barrel of oil to produce a barrel of oil ... not economic.
Then ... Iraq was supposed to be a cake walk .. regardless what the media was selling us about the size and power of Saddam's army
Iraq was beaten 12 years earlier. It's military capability was cut to shreds, the country was under hard economic sanctions that was designed to make it even weaker and there were no fly zones. Bush also thought that the American Army would be greeted with flowers
US military at the time was following lawful orders .. a war that was sanctioned by the congress ... all constitutional.
they fooled the congress and people once .. they can't do it again. | |
|
| End of the world on Aug. 22?
Posted: 8/8/2006 6:43:12 PM | I took the time to read all of the posts in this thread, and the only conclusion I can reach is that there a lot of people out there who need there meds checked and probably increased. What all of the Pres. Bush haters don't get, is that in the USA, everybody, including the president has a right to a religious belief. What he can't do is act on those beliefs. ALL of you marginally sane somehow believe that the USA is the root of all evil, yet lets try this on for size....... If the USA were to lay down their arms, what would happen? Well, with an almost certainty, we would be over-run by the "peace-loving" in the world, and we either would be bowing to the east praying 5 times a day, or we would be dead. Very simple. Now, what would happen if the "peace loving" islamists were to somehow through an epiphany realize that there path just wasn't right, and they were to lay down their arms? Well, at first, all of the nut-cases who think that the USA is the root of all evil will bemoan the fact that the good guys are now defensless, and within a very short period of time, the US Congress would vote to give them all kinds of aid.... even though they have and control the greatest riches in the world in the form of oil. If you want to equate the USA with those who have no respect for human life, you are going to have to do a little better than this thread...
PK | |
|
rks58
|
Joined: 1/28/2006
Msg: 33 | |
| End of the world on Aug. 22?
Posted: 8/8/2006 6:49:50 PM | Personally, I am far less worried about the ones who claim God is on their side and are only attempting (maybe) to develop weapons to hurry the "end times" along than I am about the ones who claim God is on their side and already have the weapons to hurry the "end times" along.
The wise move would be to spend less time trying to provoke those who don't have the weapons to push their agenda and more time trying to pacifying those who do.
"It Can't Happen Here"
It can't happen here
It can't happen here
I'm telling you, my dear
That it can't happen here
Because i been checkin' it out, baby
I checked it out a couple a times, hmmmmmmmm
And i'm telling you
It can't happen here
Oh darling, it's important that you believe me
(bop bop bop bop)
That it can't happen here
Who could imagine that they would freak out somewhere in kansas...
Kansas kansas tototototodo
Kansas kansas tototototodo
Kansas kansas
Who could imagine that they would freak out in minnesota...
Mimimimimimimi minnesota, minnesota, minnesota
Who could imagine...
Who could imagine
That they would freak out in washington, d.c.
D.c. d.c. d.c. d.c. d.c.
It can't happen here
Ba ba ba ba ba ba ba ba
It can't happen here
It can't happen here
Everybody's safe and it can't happen here
Oh yes, and there is the Sinclair Lewis reference too. | |
|
| End of the world on Aug. 22?
Posted: 8/8/2006 7:15:04 PM | If you want to equate the USA with those who have no respect for human life, you are going to have to do a little better than this thread...
They respect some human life if it falls within their purview of value and mythology ... other life comes quite cheap.
For instance PK ... from your posts ... I would venture to guess you would have generally no problem if America waged war on Iran, even if that would mean significant Iranian death; from the tenor of your posts you seem to yearn for a decisive confrontation with the evil Islamic world.
Back to your comment.
This thread should convince no one, this thread really has nothing to do with speaking to what the US government has valued throughout it's illustrious short history ... the history of America however speaks for itself.
Do I really need to list all the victims?
Suffice it to rhetorically ask how many civilians deaths in Iraq?
At least a year back the Lancet estimated 100,000 civilian deaths ... we all know that figure is climbing.
And you infer others are delusional.
darjeeling | |
|
| End of the world on Aug. 22?
Posted: 8/8/2006 9:55:38 PM | If you want to equate the USA with those who have no respect for human life, you are going to have to do a little better than this thread...
Here, let me translate propaganda speak, for you.
George W. Bush: "Any government that supports, protects or harbours terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent and equally guilty of terrorist crimes."
Translation: "Any government" = any unfriendly government. "innocent" = any friendly government. It is fine to support Al Qaeda and the Taliban against the USSR. It is fine to support Cuban terrorists. It is fine to support the KLA in the Balkans. It is fine to support the INA in Iraq.
George W. Bush: "Everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear."
Translation: "Everywhere" = only where we decide to send our troops. "tyrants" = guys we don't like.....not to be confused with supporting Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Saudi, Kuwait, Egypt.....nor to be confused with supporting Sadaam, the Shah, the Duvaliers, Pinochet, Pol Pot, Noriega, Batista, Suharto, Marcos.....
George W. Bush: "For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible - and no one can now doubt the word of America."
Translation: "diplomacy" = doing what the US government says, or else. "credible" = total bullshit
George W. Bush: "Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."
Translation: The US isn't a free nation.
George W. Bush: "I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch."
Translation: Do what I say, or they'll kill us all! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
George W. Bush: "I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."
Translation: "peace" = war
George W. Bush: "If you're sick and tired of the politics of cynicism and polls and principles, come and join this campaign."
Translation: none needed
George W. Bush: "We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace."
Translation: none needed
Britney Spears: "I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that."
Translation: It's Britney Spears...c'mon.
George W. Bush: "We would rather fight them there than our own streets."
Translation: Better them Iraqihabs are dying, than us good Mericans.
Madeleine Albright (upon hearing that 500000, under 5 Iraqis, died from sanctions): "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."
Translation: I'm a psycho ****.
__________
Here's a Military speak, I'll translate, too.
IRAQ WATER TREATMMENT VULNERABILITIES: http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.html
Translation: We know exactly what will happen...hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians will die...but, we'll bomb it all anyway.
__________
"George Bush was not elected by a majority of the voters in the United States. He was appointed by God." — Lt. Gen. William Boykin
Translation: So much for Democracy.
"Bring em on!" No, no, no, no...that's not tough enough...how bout this? "We want to continue to perfect this system, so we say to those tyrants who believe they can blackmail America and the free world: You fire; we're going to shoot it down!"
Translation: "To an old leader will be born an idiot heir, Weak both in knowledge and in war." — Nostradamus - Century 1, Quatrain 78
Maybe there is something to worry about.
Peace  | |
|
| |
| End of the world on Aug. 22?
Posted: 8/8/2006 10:07:37 PM | Daily massacres of civilians in Iraq and Lebanon thanks to that do-nothing Bush and he appears relaxed and smiling at every public appearance. Is he high on war? That is the true face of a madman. | |
|
arri
|
Joined: 10/5/2005
Msg: 38 | |
| End of the world on Aug. 22?
Posted: 8/8/2006 10:08:51 PM | @ bunny
here is a great reason to make love not war 
Welcome to the current events threads bunny | |
|
| |
| End of the world on Aug. 22?
Posted: 8/8/2006 10:37:36 PM | O.K., are we sure the world is really going to end this time? Last time I heard this, I kinda went a little overboard. I told my boss to phuck-off, told my girlfriend that I was cheating on her, told my wife about the girlfriend, borrowed tons of money from my friends, then told them to phuck-off. Then I went to Vegas and partied real hard the night before with tons of cocaine and hookers, and then ran down the strip naked telling everyone to bet it all on red, because the world is going to end tomorrow. Next thing you know, I woke two days later in jail. That's when I realized that the world didn't end, and I was in some serious $hit.
Soooooooo, are we sure this time? I wouldn't want to make the same mistake twice. | |
|
| End of the world on Aug. 22?
Posted: 8/8/2006 11:16:19 PM | Hey darleejing
If you took my post as only infering that others are delusional, I appologize, because I thought that I was a lot clearer than that..... They ARE delusional.
Lets look at your post one sentence at a time....
The only way that the militant islamists will stop is when the suffer a decisive loss, and then only for a while. They are the ones who set up the rules, we are only playing the game. I see no reason for America to "wage war" on Iran; When the Isrealis know for certain that the Iranians have a nuke, they will take that nuke out. Period, simple as that. And they should be applauded for taking that action. How many times do you want the nut-job running Iran to say that nothing less than total annihilation of Isreal is their end goal until you believe it? This is not a rheotrical question, I'd really like to know how many times does he have to say that before you believe him? AND, knowing that the Iranians want nothing less than to wipe out Isreal, please tell me how you would solve that problem?????
As far as the civilian deaths in Iraq.... the only thing I can conclude due to your posts is that that you "feel" that the US Military is the one killing all these people...... I guess the Shiites killing Sunnis, etc. doesn't count, because since they have been doing that since the beginning of their history, it, well, just doesn't count.........
Would I have "no problem" is America would attack iran? Depends. If we had sufficient reason to, and we did it in a way to actually win, no porblem. Like I said before, the Israelis have a much more vested interest in what is going on in Iran than we do. Their vested interest is nothing less than their very existence.
Please, tell me what you think of the fact that the iranian leader keeps saying that he does not want Israel to even exist? AND, then tell me what Israel should do when they KNOW that Iran has the "bomb"??????
Your answer to those two questions will tell more about how you "feel" almost more than anything else.
Paul K | |
|
rks58
|
Joined: 1/28/2006
Msg: 42 | |
| End of the world on Aug. 22?
Posted: 8/9/2006 12:44:31 AM |
How many times do you want the nut-job running Iran to say that nothing less than total annihilation of Isreal is their end goal until you believe it? This is not a rheotrical question, I'd really like to know how many times does he have to say that before you believe him?
From my personal perspective, it would have to be sometime after he ACTUALLY says that (so for he has only referenced a quote from Khomeini about removing the radical Zionist regime that is governing Israel "from the page of history" and attempting to occupy all of "Eretz Yisrael" while telling everyone who currently lives there to p*ss off. But I understand your confusion since you only have the US gov't translating for you, we know what they think of Iran) and when he ACTUALLY has, or is at least reasonably close to, the ability to carry it out.
At this point Iran has not said any such thing and does not have anything close to the ability to carry it out even if they did say it much less the ability to bring about the arrival of the 12th Imam. The only ones with that capacity are the US, Israel, UK, France, Russia, China, India and Pakistan. The N. Koreans might be able to do it to themselves or the S. Koreans (assuming they have a car fast enough to outrun the border guards). No, I'm far more worried about the US and Israelis than I am Iran (well, the Indians and Pakistanis too, but they will blow each other up first before they bother anyone else). | |
|
| End of the world on Aug. 22?
Posted: 8/9/2006 10:45:15 AM | @Paul K
Lets look at your post one sentence at a time....
To do so ... which you have not done ... would require that you to learn to use the quoting function Paul. You can learn how to do so here.
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts148258.aspx
The only way that the militant islamists will stop is when the suffer a decisive loss, and then only for a while. They are the ones who set up the rules, we are only playing the game.
That seems to be the popular consensus ... which in my book sets off alarm bells ... it usually apeals to those social elements who are attracted to the lowest common denominator of thought, hence the success of things like:
The Jerry Springer Show
Sloganeering Sound Bytes
Arabs are murdering Islamofacist Thugs
Back to your comment.
I would say that the militant factions in Islam are reacting to the Rules set by those traditionally in power ... if they had set the rules there would be no need for their 'militantcy, but that might create an opositional militantcy on the alternate hand.
Getting them to stop?
Your answer, as well as George Bush's, and Israel's, IS to 'Kill Them All' ... that however does not eliminate the 'Root Cause' ... something Condi, George, and Israel seem to be speaking to alot these last fews days. Though they do so cynically.
Killing the 'terrorists' without examining what they spring from, is at best a hopeless endeavor ... for everyone you kill, two more pop up to fill the resistance vacumn. Its a sick dispaly of 'Whack-a-Mole'.
That Israel has been pursuing such a policy for over 30 years it should be clear now, by the gauge of simple objective reality, that this policy has not worked.
At worst, it actually creates more terror, as every death of an innocent bystander in such pursuit adds more converts to the militant ideologic fold.
That you might care to discount the rather 'simple idea', that retributive violence generally begets reciprocal violence, is perhaps excusable, but it is not excusable that world leaders do not acknowledge this fact.
As they in fact, DO understand, they have the data that clearly shows it.
Since they DO understand that their policies create MORE terror ... one is left with only two conclusions ... 1) They are insane ... or 2) It is intended to do that which they know it will do.
If you kill people it tends to get their relatives, countrymen, and compatriots riled up.
When the Isrealis know for certain that the Iranians have a nuke, they will take that nuke out. Period, simple as that. And they should be applauded for taking that action.
While I understand that such an answer is 'as simple as that' for YOU ... you will need excuse me if I do not join you in the applause ... if such were to occur ... or to join you in cheerleading for that eventual outcome.
I'd really like to know how many times does he have to say that before you believe him? AND, knowing that the Iranians want nothing less than to wipe out Isreal, please tell me how you would solve that problem?????
I will be clear. Zionism was a fairly bad idea at its inception and over time, has only grown to be a progressively worse idea. It is inconsistant with the whole concept of democracy.
It is a political idea Paul. So I stand agaisnt the idea and concept of Zionism, as I stand against the idea of the Jewish State as it now stands.
You should not confuse that with being against Jews as a people.
When Amadinejad says that the Zionist State must end ... it is a political statement. The world also stood to eventually dismatle the South Afrikan State of apartheid. Neither position suggests the elimination of Jews or Minority white South Afrikans. It means that their governance needs to change.
This also does not mean that the State of Israel must end ... it means its governing pricipals need to be changed.
I believe they do.
My ultimate solution is complicated as it does not endorse a Two State Solution, and could probably be considered to be relatively unpopular with any and all sides of the equation. That however is fodder for another thread.
My final note is that while Iran has not yet declared any intention to seek nuclear weapons, I would not be opposed to their doing so.
I think a nuclear armed Iran would act as a stabilsing and counterbalancing force for the entire region. It is MHO that it would actually lessen terror, act to discourage and limit conventional warfare, and increase the incentive for dialogue and diplomacy all around. I am sure many will disagree.
That or declare the entire Mideast region a Nuclear Free Zone, which is incidentally the Iranian's official position.
darjeeling | |
|
| End of the world on Aug. 22?
Posted: 8/9/2006 11:11:54 AM | @darjeeling
I have a request. Can you please provide a link to Iran's position on the Mid-East becoming a nuclear free zone? This is the first I've heard it mentioned. I'd like some more info. This might be a great offering in future debates.
I'm not necessarily questioning your assertion. I ask merely for information.
Thx. | |
|
arri
|
Joined: 10/5/2005
Msg: 45 | |
| End of the world on Aug. 22?
Posted: 8/9/2006 11:28:47 AM | I would like that too Dar.
To the best of my knowledge, Iran has never made that position directly. However, during the first attempt by the United States to rally the UN Security Consul against Iran, Egypt tried to add an amendment to the draft of the resolution to make the entire Middle East Nuclear Weapons free zone that was welcomed by Iran and hailed publicaly in their media but not by the United States.
Iran is one of the original signatories of the Nonproliferation Act and has stated over and over that has no interest in developing nuclear weapons. In addition, those of us that know a little about nuclear energy know that the path that they have taken that has been a nice step by step & methodical towards a complete Nuclear lifecycle with investments and research in areas including nuclear medicine and agricultural has now placed them within the top 10 internationally, is a pretty dumb path if all the wanted was to make Plutonium for bombs. | |
|
| End of the world on Aug. 22?
Posted: 8/9/2006 11:39:03 AM | | I heard some nut case (TV Preacher) this morning going on and on about the end of the world and how this would be a glorious thing and how it is going to happen on or about the date mentioned. The first thought I had was since few of these nut cases follow the teachings of who they say they believe in is that they might just have a bad day that day. Jesus might be asking questions like "Now just when did I say that"? | |
|
| End of the world on Aug. 22?
Posted: 8/9/2006 11:53:16 AM | Algernon
In my opinion Gordon Prather is the 'go-to-guy' to get the truth of what is happening within the whole Iranian nuclear debate.
Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico.
A selection of his writings about this: http://antiwar.com/search/search.php
On the specific point of Iran's endorsement of a Nuclear Free Mideast:
June 17, 2006 Nuke-Free Zone .... by Gordon Prather
The Neo-Crazies, in cahoots with the Anti-Nuclear-Whatever crazies, have managed to get Western politicians from across the political spectrum to view-with-alarm the Iranian nuclear weapons "threat." Of course, as those politicians know, there is no evidence whatsoever that Iran is now a nuke threat.
Know, because until March of this year Iran had voluntarily cooperated with Director-General ElBaradei and staff of the International Atomic Energy Agency as if an unratified Additional Protocol to their 1974 Safeguards Agreement was actually in force.
After more than three years, comprising 1700 man-days of inspections, the IAEA found "no indication" there were "undeclared source or special nuclear materials" in Iran. Furthermore, they found no indication that any declared source or special nuclear materials had been diverted to military purpose.
As for Iran comprising a nuke threat, the IAEA inspectors didn’t even find trace amounts of almost pure Uranium-235, much less the hundreds of pounds that would be needed to make a few first-generation nukes.
But the almost certain knowledge that there is no Iranian nuke threat doesn’t faze Western politicians.
Nor does the knowledge appear to faze them that if George Bush nukes Iran – as he and his henchmen keep threatening – we are all going to be in a heap of trouble.
What’s more puzzling is why the Western media elite do not challenge the oft repeated assertions by Western politicians and government officials that we have "no choice" but to remove the Iranian nuke "threat," by force "if necessary."
The Western media elite also repeatedly report that Iran’s alleged nuke program – if not actually on the agenda – is a hotly debated sideline topic at recent meetings of the Arab League, the Gulf Cooperation Council, the China-Arab Cooperation Forum, the Non-Aligned Movement’s Ministerial Meeting, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the upcoming meeting of the Group of Eight.
But it’s not hotly debated.
On the contrary, Iran is acknowledged to be a principal defender of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear weapons and a principal advocate of a "nuclear-weapon-free" zone in the Middle East.
Most notably at the 2005 NPT Review Conference (made disastrous by Condi’s quasi-boycott), but also at the "high-level event" (savaged by Bonkers Bolton) that immediately preceded last year’s 60th Session of the UN General Assembly, by the address of their new President before the General Assembly last September, and in addresses made by high-level Iranian officials at quarterly meetings of the IAEA Board of Governors.
In fact, virtually all meetings of all these organizations end with expressions of strong support for the NPT (and implicitly, Iran) and its "three pillars" – [1] non-proliferation, [2] disarmament and [3] the inalienable right to peacefully use nuclear technology.
Note that for the anti-nuclear-whatever crazies, that third NPT pillar is bad.
And for the neo-crazies, that second NPT pillar is really bad.
For the complete article: http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=9158
If someone has the time research the boldened info above for the direct statements of Iranian endorsement.
darjeeling | |
|
| End of the world on Aug. 22?
Posted: 8/9/2006 12:09:48 PM | To RKS58,,, your message #42
Let me re-iterate what you said, and feel free to correct me if I have mis-stated your position... you are more afraid of the USA and Israel having nuclear capability, and the wherewithall to use it, than you would be if Iran had the same capability and delivery potential? Lets see if that makes sense.... On one hand you have two countries who haven't proclaimed that the minute they get the capability to use nukes will do so, and on the other hand you have a country who has said so.... And said so many times. I guess we should just sit back, let them keep feeding Hezbollah weapons, which the Hezbollah uses, and sooner or later in that pipeline will be a brand new, shiney nuke. Judging from what they have declared, and carried out to the best of their abilities, there is absolutely no reason to think that given the opportunity that they wouldn't use the nuke also.
Hey, makes sense to me, trust the one who promises anilhation..........
And this actually passes for logic?
Paul K | |
|
| End of the world on Aug. 22?
Posted: 8/9/2006 12:16:22 PM |
Hey, makes sense to me, trust the one who promises anilhation..........
Do you have a cite for Iranian leaders preaching "end of the world" scenarios?
'Cause y'all got a few whackos in the US doing just that.
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts4889916.aspx
The White House has explained the nuances of God's plans to Armageddonites before. Last year, it sponsored a meeting with leading fundamentalist preachers to explain that Gaza was not part of the historical Judea and Samaria. Therefore, its spokesman argued, Israel's withdrawal of settlements would not interfere with God's plan to end the world.
And we KNOW the US has WMDs of nuclear means, ...and there is that matter of the fact that only one nation has ever used a nuke on another.
And, they did it twice.
Jeeeeeez! Even the Israelis try to give warnings. | |
|
| End of the world on Aug. 22?
Posted: 8/9/2006 12:32:33 PM | @LATE
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
America killed hundreds of thousands of civilian innocents in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If the Allies had lost the war, America would have been charged with genocide.
The holocaust should include the Japanese at these two cities along with EVERY Jew..
America, upon their decision to drop nukes !!TWICE!! on Japan made their administration no different than Hitler's Axis. The only noticable change was that the American method of extermination included turning people to dust and having their ashes blow away in a nuclear wind before ANYONE could make an accurate body count. | |
|
|
| Page 2 of 7
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
|
Home
login 
