Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 150
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran? Page 9 of 9    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)

Me:
But the religious bigots in America now claim the KORAN is barbaric!

nona27
I have been saying for quite some time that propaganda is a HUGE
factor in this.

Propaganda by so many of America's religious right? Good for you! I applaud your efforts to counter their bigotry.

I personally do not believe that the Koran is any more barbaric than the King James version of the bible.

We agree on that also. The Bible is MUCH more barbaric, but reasonable people can disagree (and often do).
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 152
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/11/2008 7:16:28 AM

nona27
Considering it's the troops who carry out the orders of the politicians within our country, that statement is not a show of support for our troops

me:
But you would have me smear ALL politicians?????
Please research this to your own satisfaction. George Bush is the ONLY politician with any power to issue any orders to troops. We call him the Commander-in-Chief.

I personally would rather the politicians be smeared since they make the policies which the poor troops have to follow

Read your own words please, on who gives orders to those poor troops. If you don't have a constitution, I'll mail you one. I l own several dozen copies. George Bush is the only one.

And as a veteran , you should know that military policy is set solely by the Defense Department. Policy is an Executive function, not a legislative function. Check it out.

And if you insist on smearing Barack Obama for supporting this war, nona, then call the news media! You have one hell of a scoop!!!!
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 153
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/11/2008 7:24:46 AM

nona
I agree with you on this, but one does have to understand about the "fanatics", note I said "fanatics" and NOT "liberal" fanatics lol

I caught that. Deep bow of respect.

I knew you meant conservative fanatics.


Here's a surprise for you Bearded, I'm a libertarian.

Could you keep that a secret please?
(joke)

Then you already know I appreciate the small-l

me
Propaganda by so many of America's religious right?

ABSOLUTELY! I do believe it's fear which causes this

Yup. Agree. Bigotry is caused by fear, and sustained by ignorance.

As an atheist, I LOVE telling Christians what is in their own Bible! (I did teach Sunday School in my teens.)
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 157
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/12/2008 1:16:41 AM
***EDIT***

me
.... while the Rogue Nation (United States) natters about launching another war, while still losing the current war.
WE are the war criminals.
I will now be accused of not supporting our troops. (snort)

Nona27
Considering it's the troops who carry out the orders of the politicians within our country, that statement is not a show of support for our troops. A better statement in this case if you were not indeed labeling our troops as war criminals, would be as follows; (Our nation's politicians are war criminals).


If you ... or anyone else ... believes OUR TROOPS are considering a war against Iran, then they're too darn stupid to understand anything I could add.

The "snort" was ridicule in advance. Now obviously deserved.

 tableguy
Joined: 11/12/2007
Msg: 160
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/12/2008 2:00:44 PM
steven: you become a hardliner, not because of your (by agenda you mean aspirations)
"agenda" because you have to defend your land where populations outside your border want to drive you into the sea.The odds are many millions(60) to (3 or 4).You quickly learn to become a hardliner.
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 161
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/12/2008 9:11:21 PM

me
But it was Arab states proposing a nuclear-free zone in the entire middle-east -- approved by the UN

aterribleaspect
The arab states don't have nuclear weapons, of course they'd like to see israel not having it either, which is really all that "nuclear-free middle east" means..

While you were sleeping for the past several months -- how was your nap? -- this entire thread is about bombing Iran because Iran supposedly has nuclear weapons, which Israel has never admitted having.

Shhhhhh, you gave away a secret, when you insist Israel has nuclear weapons.
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 163
IN DEFENSE OF DIFFERING OPINIONS
Posted: 4/12/2008 11:42:32 PM

This is dedicated to all our other conscientious posters -- who have been attacked for failing to to support our troops --- by our resident assassin --- who misquotes, twists, evades and deceives to support her McCarthy-like Political correctness.

In this exchange, see how our resident assassin says something totally stupid, then keeps trying to change her own words ... EVERY TIME she is reminded of her own words. Finally exploding into several paragraphs of totally irrelevant babbling -- demonstrating abject ignorance of our Consititution .... even claiming the President needs the blessing of his own security council!!!!!!!!!!!!

Follow the bouncing ball. Watch it squirm, evade, dodge and deceive (emphasis added) :smile:


Me
But it was Arab states proposing a nuclear-free zone in the entire middle-east -- approved by the UN --- something else for Israel to totally ignore, while the Rogue Nation (United States) natters about launching another war, while still losing the current war.
WE are the war criminals.
I will now be accused of not supporting our troops. (snort)

nona27 launches false smear:
Considering it's the troops who carry out the orders of the politicians within our country, that statement is not a show of support for our troops. A better statement in this case if you were not indeed labeling our troops as war criminals, would be as follows; (Our
nation's politicians are war criminals).

......... (aside: actually, she distorted my statement to make her smear seem plausible, as proven in msg 185.
..........I would have objected to this lie originally, but I want y'all to see how bad she is at this.)

(me: only president issues orders to troops)
"But you would have me smear ALL politicians?????
Please research this to your own satisfaction. George Bush is the ONLY politician with any power to issue any orders to troops. We call him the Commander-in-Chief."

nona now switches from orders to policies
"I personally would rather the politicians be smeared since they make the policies which the poor troops have to follow"

I repeat the original quotes, remind her that HER issue was "orders"
not policies, and repeat that only one politician has authority to give
orders to the military. I state military policies are set by the Defense Department
which are NOT politicians. And I ask why she smears, for example,
Obama -- just one of many "politicians" who actually oppose the
orders given by Bush, and our considering a war against Iran.
:
"Read your own words please, on who gives orders to those poor troops. If you don't have a constitution, I'll mail you one. I own several dozen copies. George Bush is the only one.
And as a veteran , you should know that military policy is set solely by the Defense Department. Policy is an Executive function, not a legislative function. Check it out.
And if you insist on smearing Barack Obama for supporting this war, nona, then call the news media! You have one hell of a scoop!!!!"

nona27 -- now leaves the boundaries of reason entirely,
to support her original smear.

Being someone who is educated as well as someone who works for the government as has for quite some time, I'm very familiar with the constitution, as any American should be. George Bush is not alone in his wrong doings. You forgot****Cheney, you forgot Congress. If you think GWB is the only bad politician within our system, you are wrong

........(aside: like most government workers, bafflegab, obfuscation and meaningless drivel :roll:
......... She shifts AGAIN from her own argument (giving orders to troops) to a totally new accusation and lie about me.
.......... that I believe Bush is the only bad politician!!!!!! Is anyone stupid enough to believe her?
.......... She continues the shell game:

"Actually, the department of defense meaning, all branches of the military belong to the Secretary of Defense who is a civilian."

.......... aside: "actually" implies she's correcting me, while restating my own point!

"The president has a national security council headed by a security advisor. I can go on and on with explaining to you the command structure. Where yes, the President of the United States makes decisions he can not act alone, he has to have the blessing of the security council as well as Congress in making decisions for our military. "

........ :roll: :roll: :roll: anyone else believe the President needs approval of his security council?????
......... Anyone else believe Congress must approve orders (her own word) issued by the Commander-in-Chief?


Just when we think it cannot get any wackier ... it does!! She picks up my actual words, as also stated above and responds with ..... this is so incredibly bizarre you may not believe she said it. See the same message, if you think I'm making this up.

And if you insist on smearing Barack Obama for supporting this war, nona, then call the news media! You have one hell of a scoop!!!!

nona27 (laughing):
Obama supports the war?

Uhhhhh, no ...........

"Our nation's politicians are war criminals."
-nona27

:tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue:

Typically, nona will now throw another hissy fit, claim she's being insulted, when all she wants to do is support our troops.

Right.

Why do I bother?

As mentioned elsewhere, I was a paid moderator for Compuserve political forums in the mid-1990s. Typically, 80-90% of all forum readers will never post anything. Most of them are too shy, or simply enjoy the reading.

Others, an unknown percentage, will never say anything here, to avoid being subjected to the shrill, shrieking assaults of neo-McCarthyism.

"My country, right or wrong." Americaland Uber Alles.

Is THAT what our troops and fighting and dying to defend?

:peace:
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 164
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/13/2008 1:13:26 AM

Peacethx:
George W. Bush is a war criminal
Okay we have some common ground!

And Cheney and Wolfowitz, at the minimum. Bush's approval rating is a new low of 28% -- closely tracking the 65-70% of Americans who want our troops out of there.

You ask two good questions. If I understand you properly, I'll handle them in the opposite order. I am a published political writer, sorting through much of this at the moment, especially the issue of anti-Muslim bigotry.

.do you think that Israel has a decidedly arrogant attitude toward the Muslim countries? A feeling of moral, spiritual and social superiority? A feeling that results in Muslims being seen as inferior?

Your thoughts please..you are quite articulate and very respectful in your answers. I wonder if there is an ethnocentricity here, a narrative that causes Jews to believe that they are indeed, "the Chosen". If a race believes in some way that is is "chosen", then what becomes of those who are not chosen?


There's a lot of debate about the "chosen people" thing. The phrase does not appear in the Old Testament, and only in SOME translations of the same verses in the Torah. But some Jews believe it anyhow, which is more important. So let's come at it in a different way.

Orthodox Jews are more likely to believe this than Reformed Jews ... but Orthodox Jews are also more likely to be anti-Zionist, which means they too oppose the current state of Israel. Anti-zionist Jews argue that the Promised Land is to be provided by God, not by the United Nations.

The "Promised Land Doctrine" is far more dangerous, because isareal has no rights at all to their current land ... and obtained it orignally by committing mass genocide on the Phoenicians.

The song. "Joshua fit the battle of Jericho" ... is kinda like celebrating Hitler's invasion of Poland.

The anti-Muslim sentiments are totally separate, in my mind. Basically, Muslims never had a Reformation ... a successful revolt against established church power ... so they are still as vicious and barbaric as pre-Reformation Christians.

Do you know the name Salmon Rushdie? An immensely critical Muslim writer ... now the target of a fatwah? In time, history may record him as the Martin Luther of Islam.

And that's the biggest answer I can suggest for you.

1) Individual Muslims don't need to wait for their Reformation. They need merely come to America for freedom .... like everyone else. So what should we do about all the other Muslims?
2) Should we offer aid and support to the reform factions within Islam, like Rushdie?
3) Or should we instead support the extremists, like Osama Bin Laden, with a President and policies which are every bit as vicious and barbaric as they say we are?

None Dare Call it Treason.

But I just did.
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 165
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/13/2008 2:32:42 AM

There is a very big push on to bring in legislation that would curtail discussing these sorts of "sensitive subjects .

By whom? Where?

McCarthyism seems to be the province of isolated malcontents and sociopaths these days. Who's asking for legislation?
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 166
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/13/2008 12:46:47 PM
.

When are you going to acknowledge that :
A - McCarthy raised some very well documented legitimate concerns about communist subversion in America

I can acknowledge that right now. It wasn't the concerns that define McCarthyism. but how he chose to dweal with them, and his hysteria regarding constitutionally-protected behavior.

B - It is the left that is the modern "McCarthyism" . ( they won)

Disagree. I see McCarthyism on both the left and the right, but in the blind world of knee-jerk partisans it's only the other guy doing it.

To answer your questions :
By the left through PC hate speech legislation.

Granted. I assumed you might actually be on the topic here.

We have a perfect example of McCarthy-like smears from the right, in this very forum, as I've documented a few posts earlier.

I have been smeared as a draft dodger and a flag-burner -- then I demanded proof of those smears, and even offered to pay her $250 cash for proving it, or an apology.

No proof. No apology. Just more shrieking. That's why I mentioned sociopaths. Check the definition.
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 168
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/13/2008 1:29:39 PM

I can acknowledge that right now. It wasn't the concerns that define McCarthyism. but how he chose to deal with them, and his hysteria regarding constitutionally-protected behavior.

Was it not his enemies that painted him in this very radical light?
It's a very effective tool of the left to use their media to marginalise and discredit adverseries in the publics eye.

I can agree that the "McCarthyism" label has been overused. But McCarthy himself thought it was somehow immoral to be a communist at all. American communists weren't all that into STATE communism (as opposed to American sympathizers with Stalin, who were very rare.)
People like McCarthy -- and many conservatives today, even some of my own libertarians claim they never heard of voluntary communism .... like, oh, the Israeli kibbutz, our own Oneida community and many other voluntary communes in American history, including the original Roanoke.

A form of it lives on today, in all sorts of fund-raising, not just political but also religious ... the big bad bogeyman threat that you can fix. Just send money.

Fear-mongering can be profitable, in both dollars and power.
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 169
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/13/2008 1:40:51 PM

Nona27 confesses:
I have been smeared as a draft dodger and a flag-burner -- then I demanded proof of those smears, and even offered to pay her $250 cash for proving it, or an apology.

I didn't mentioned any names. Thank you for confessing, darlin'

Meanwhile, I have offered you $250 cash for showing any justification for your slanderous smear ... with a copy of the money order posted here. I called your bluff, loser.

Where's your apology?

See messages 135 and 136 at the following link
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/9700094datingPostpage6.aspx


Has anyone else been verbally assaulted by our resident bully and thug, or lied about? Send me a private email here; my settings are wide open.
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 171
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/13/2008 2:55:45 PM

me
Where's your apology?

nona
Word of advice. Don't hold your breath.

I never expected one. Not from you.

Readers here are smart enough to see you for what you really are:

1) You slander me, by accusing me of being a draft-dodger and a flag-burner.

2) I immediately challenge you to show any message, in any thread, anywhere on this web site, to justify your lie.

3) I offer to PAY you $250 if you can provide any justification for your lie, to publicly apologize to YOU for calling you a liar, and to post proof of my payment to you in this forum.

4) If you cannot support your slanderous lie -- and earn an apology from me -- then I expect an apology from you. It would be the honorable thing to do -- if you had any honor -- obviously you do not.

The real point of all this has nothing to do with me. I can take care of myself, and have been handling thugs since before you were born. I want to make sure you stop scaring people out of this forum, with your vicious lies and attacks of anyone who dares to disagree with you ...since the moderators are not able to do it.

Now .... considering points 1-4 above ... why should anyone here ever believe you again (when you attack your next victim).

And you're actually proud of refusing the apology you owe me -- the apology I would have given you. As we used to say in high school, "one sick puppy indeed."
'
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 173
Bush admits approving detention camps, defends torture
Posted: 4/14/2008 9:44:16 AM
Bye-bye McCain.

In an interview with ABC News, broadcast Friday night. President Bush directly admitted that the White House was deeply and intimately involved in decisions about the CIA’s use of torture.

For the first time, George W. Bush acknowledged that he knew his top national security advisers discussed and approved specific details of the CIA’s use of torture. “I’m aware that our national security team met on this issue and I approved,” he said. He also defended the use of waterboarding -- simulated drowning where the victim feels like they are about to die.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPolitics/story?id=4635175&page=1

see related links inside this story.

"In the interview with ABC News Friday, Bush defended the waterboarding technique used against KSM. 'We had legal opinions that enabled us to do it,' Bush said."

As of Friday, defenders of Bush policy in Iraq are now on the same moral and intellectual level as the Holocaust Deniers.

Excepts follow:
-------
Bush Aware of Advisers' Interrogation Talks
President Says He Knew His Senior Advisers Discussed Tough Interrogation Methods
By JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG, HOWARD L. ROSENBERG and ARIANE de VOGUE

April 11, 2008—

President Bush says he knew his top national security advisers discussed and approved specific details about how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, according to an exclusive interview with ABC News Friday.

"Well, we started to connect the dots in order to protect the American people." Bush told ABC News White House correspondent Martha Raddatz. "And yes, I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved."

As first reported by ABC News Wednesday, the most senior Bush administration officials repeatedly discussed and approved specific details of exactly how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the CIA.

The high-level discussions about these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed -- down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.

These top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding, sources told ABC news.

The advisers were members of the National Security Council's Principals Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise President Bush on issues of national security policy.

At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President****Cheney, former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

As the national security adviser, Rice chaired the meetings, which took place in the White House Situation Room and were typically attended by most of the principals or their deputies.

The so-called Principals who participated in the meetings also approved the use of "combined" interrogation techniques -- using different techniques during interrogations instead of using one method at a time -- on terrorist suspects who proved difficult to break, sources said.

(...)

In his interview with ABC News, Bush said the ABC report about the Principals' involvement was not so "startling." The president had earlier confirmed the existence of the interrogation program run by the CIA in a speech in 2006. But before Wednesday's report, the extraordinary level of involvement by the most senior advisers in repeatedly approving specific interrogation plans -- down to the number of times the CIA could use a certain tactic on a specific al Qaeda prisoner -- had never been disclosed.

Critics at home and abroad have harshly criticized the interrogation program, which pushed the limits of international law and, they say, condoned torture. Bush and his top aides have consistently defended the program. They say it is legal and did not constitute torture.

In interview with ABC's Charles Gibson last year, Tenet said: "It was authorized. It was legal, according to the Attorney General of the United States."

(...)

In the interview with ABC News Friday, Bush defended the waterboarding technique used against KSM.

"We had legal opinions that enabled us to do it," Bush said. "And no, I didn't have any problem at all trying to find out what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed knew."

(...)
Lawyers in the Justice Department had written a classified memo, which was extensively reviewed, that gave formal legal authority to government interrogators to use the "enhanced" questioning tactics on suspected terrorist prisoners. The August 2002 memo, signed by then head of the Office of Legal Counsel Jay Bybee, was referred to as the so-called "Golden Shield" for CIA agents, who worried they would be held liable if the harsh interrogations became public.

Old hands in the intelligence community remembered vividly how past covert operations, from the Vietnam War-era "Phoenix Program" of assassinations of Viet Cong to the Iran-Contra arms sales of the 1980s were painted as the work of a "rogue agency" out of control.

(...)

Ashcroft was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.

According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."

The Principals also approved interrogations that combined different methods, pushing the limits of international law and even the Justice Department's own legal approval in the 2002 memo, sources told ABC News.

At one meeting in the summer of 2003 -- attended by Cheney, among others -- Tenet made an elaborate presentation for approval to combine several different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time, according to a highly placed administration source.

A year later, amid the outcry over unrelated abuses of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the controversial 2002 legal memo, which gave formal legal authorization for the CIA interrogation program of the top al Qaeda suspects that was leaked to the press. A new senior official in the Justice Department, Jack Goldsmith, withdrew the legal memo -- the Golden Shield -- that authorized the program.

But the CIA had captured a new al Qaeda suspect in Asia. Sources said CIA officials that summer returned to the Principals Committee for approval to continue using certain "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Rice, sources said, was decisive. Despite growing policy concerns -- shared by Powell -- that the program was harming the image of the United States abroad, sources say she did not back down, telling the CIA: "This is your baby. Go do it."

Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 174
view profile
History
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 3/6/2009 11:35:52 AM
I've never seen a reason to even consider bombing IRAN.

If Israel does bomb IRAN, then the other nations in the world who have nuclear weapons ... all need to unload as fast as they can on Israel.

Their nuclear weapons (if they have them ... cough) are considered illegal as it is. They have never admitted to it ... so if they let one fly towards IRAN ... they deserve to be bombed right back.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 175
view profile
History
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 3/8/2009 10:45:03 AM

A certain presidential candidate joked about it with a song and the present Administration has certainly been slowly beating the drum; and, economic sanctions, as we found out with Iraq, can be a kind of declaration of war ...so there seems to be the will to do this.

What are the assumptions here and what could the consequences be?
Probably the same assumptions as when America invaded Iraq. That it was for our own defence, and that the other Arab states would unite with Iraq. Neither was found to be true. Iraq was over oil, and the Arab states did nothing. But terrorism did increase, especially in Iraq. I suspect the same would happen with Iran.

At any rate, personally, I do believe that the invasion of Iraq is and should be considered a war crime. That country never threatened us, not ever, it had nothing to threaten us with, we had eyes in the sky for ten years and many years of inspectors on the ground, we knew what they had or didnt have. There was NO reason to go in there and to USE the country as a BATTLEFIELD? so we can "fight them there so we dont have to fight them here" is pure baloney.
I'm still waiting for Americans to demand that Bush be arrested for war crimes, and the American people formally apologise to the Iraqi people for going along with it.

As far as Israel goes, there is no reason to bomb Iran. If it does, it's because America has paid them to do it, so America doesn't get the blame. For that reason, if Israel does bomb Iran, I think it only fair to bomb those who ordered the attack right back at them.
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  >