Iran war has started [Archive]

segovius

06-20-2005, 03:16 PM

I touched on this in the 'Car Bombs in Iraq' thread but the issue has gone mainstream now and the purpose is now revealed as vastly different than we had surmised: ie it is prepping for invasion of Iran - so as this is a different take a new thread is (hopefully) legitimate.

Scott Ritter (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7896BBD4-28AB-48BA-A949-2096A02F864D.htm) has written a fascinating article published on al-Jazeera which has highlighted this whole issue of the US using terrorist outfits and Islamist cells for their own agenda - in this case, war in Iran.

Ritter starts by contrasting the current bombings in Iran with the situation pre-war in Iraq. Then (as now) the public were fooled into believing that diplomacy was ongoing, that peaceful solutions were being sought and were encouraged to think this by Bush's own statements.

Statements we now know were lies. All the while bombing was underway in the 'no-fly zones' Iraq and that Special Forces were on the ground.

Similarly now, in relation to Iran, Bush is claiming 'all options are open'. In reality the war has already begun.

Drones and reconnaissance planes are illegally infringing Iranian airspace on a daily basis and in neighbouring Azerbaijan bases are being prepared and US military presence is building up.

But this is only one use the US has planned for Azerbaijan. American military aircraft, operating from forward bases in Azerbaijan, will have a much shorter distance to fly when striking targets in and around Tehran.

In fact, US air power should be able to maintain a nearly 24-hour a day presence over Tehran airspace once military hostilities commence.

No longer will the United States need to consider employment of Cold War-dated plans which called for moving on Tehran from the Arab Gulf cities of Chah Bahar and Bandar Abbas. US Marine Corps units will be able to secure these towns in order to protect the vital Straits of Hormuz, but the need to advance inland has been eliminated.

A much shorter route to Tehran now exists - the coastal highway running along the Caspian Sea from Azerbaijan to Tehran.

US military planners have already begun war games calling for the deployment of multi-divisional forces into Azerbaijan.

But it is on the ground that the key elements are taking place. The MEK (Mujahadeen el-Khalq) has engaged on a wholesale campaign of terror, bombing and slaughter targeting Iranian government interests and ordinary citizens.

The MEK was founded by Saddam's notorious mukhabarat and were trained in techniques of terror, torture and assassination by the finest practitioners of these arts in Saddam's regime. The purpose was to fight a covert war against Iran as a counter-point to the overt hostility mainfested in the Iran/Iraq war.

Of course Saddam no longer controls the MEK, being otherwise engaged, but they are still taking orders from another anti-Iranian outfit: the CIA.

Ritter clearly spotlights the breathtaking hypocrisy involved:

The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.

It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.

So basically the same MO is being played out: while the US sheep slumber on, all the pieces are put in place, a few judicious bombings here and there and then just wait for 'the event' that will be needed to sell yet more murder and carnage on an innocent people. All in the name of democracy of course.

This is Ritter's take (and I more or less agree - certainly there is no way in hell Iran will not suffer the same fate as Iraq, none) and it is difficult to see how else they will do it if this is not it.

Any thoughts ?

Aurora

06-20-2005, 03:22 PM

Duh, Iran has Nukes. No time for games. We should simply say stop it all period both you and the G.D. Russians or we will stick some nukes right on your doorstep. Enough of these games. All Iran is doing is stalling the U.N. & U.S. while it builds its bomb. If Iran wants the bomb so bad i say lets give them one from 50,000 feet. Hell lets just do the same to N.Korea and get over. Its coming anyways.:smokey: Your either with us or against us remember?

Powerdoc

06-20-2005, 03:26 PM

I don't buy what you say Sego.
Iran war is not possible. Iraq is already a quagmire, and making a war against Iran, will be a political suicide, and let's say simply a suicide.

If Rafsandjani is elected (excuse me for this terrible spelling) he will propose this deal to US and the rest of the world.
We give up our nuclear nuke program in exchange to the acess of the free market via the OMC. We will not wait ten years, but will enter in 3 years, no more.

BRussell

06-20-2005, 03:27 PM

And exactly what army is going to invade Iran? I hear the one we have is busy elsewhere. But I'm sure there are tons of volunteers.

Aurora

06-20-2005, 03:31 PM

segovius

06-20-2005, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Powerdoc
I don't buy what you say Sego.
Iran war is not possible. Iraq is already a quagmire, and making a war against Iran, will be a political suicide, and let's say simply a suicide.

If Rafsandjani is elected (excuse me for this terrible spelling) he will propose this deal to US and the rest of the world.
We give up our nuclear nuke program in exchange to the acess of the free market via the OMC. We will not wait ten years, but will enter in 3 years, no more.

I'm just quoting Ritter Doc but I must say that I find it difficult to believe they won't.

Look at it this way: they have started this business of the nuclear issue. It is 'on the table' and even if they wanted to they cannot back down and say 'ok, just carry on'.

It doesn't matter whether it is true or not - it is the same as the WMD with Saddam - he couldn't admit it because it wasn't true and his denials were not accepted. Iran is in exactly the same position. The US put them there - and Iran will certainly not back down. As I say, they can't, they're caught in a trap.

So regardless of Ritter, the questions are really:

1) Is Iran in the cross-hairs anyway ? Yes

2) Are the US backing off the rhetoric and hoping people forget ? No

3) Will Iran back down ? No

4) Even taking [b]BRussell's[b] point below, are the current US leadership insane enough to do it ? .................

You have the answer right there.

Yes, it's insane. Yes, it's almost not possible to do right now. But why would that stop them ?

If in the weeks after 911 someone had said that the US would forget about Osama for years and get involved in a quagmire in Iraq instead then that would be labeled impossible and insane too.

segovius

06-20-2005, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by Powerdoc
If Rafsandjani is elected (excuse me for this terrible spelling) he will propose this deal to US and the rest of the world.
We give up our nuclear nuke program in exchange to the acess of the free market via the OMC. We will not wait ten years, but will enter in 3 years, no more.

Sorry, meant to address this last bit of your post which is a very interesting angle.

Do you have info for this idea or is it something you concluded yourself ?

Powerdoc

06-20-2005, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by segovius
Sorry, meant to address this last bit of your post which is a very interesting angle.

Do you have info for this idea or is it something you concluded yourself ?

Unfortunately no, I heard on the radio, and I find this very interesting.
Rafsandjani (wrong spelling), is probabily the next president of Iran. He is a very, very rich man : the 50 fortune of the world. He is the king of the pistache. Whenever you eat a pistache, you have a chance to eat one pistache coming from his properties.

That's mean he is a busisnessman, who know how to deal. As a progessist muslim ( if you consider the iran spectrum) he is interested in the economic wealth of his countrie. The free market exchange is high on his list, and he has a perfect weapon to achieve his goals : exchange nuisance (the Iran nuclear program) against the OMC membership.

Powerdoc

06-20-2005, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by segovius
I'm just quoting Ritter Doc but I must say that I find it difficult to believe they won't.

Look at it this way: they have started this business of the nuclear issue. It is 'on the table' and even if they wanted to they cannot back down and say 'ok, just carry on'.

It doesn't matter whether it is true or not - it is the same as the WMD with Saddam - he couldn't admit it because it wasn't true and his denials were not accepted. Iran is in exactly the same position. The US put them there - and Iran will certainly not back down. As I say, they can't, they're caught in a trap.

So regardless of Ritter, the questions are really:

1) Is Iran in the cross-hairs anyway ? Yes

2) Are the US backing off the rhetoric and hoping people forget ? No

3) Will Iran back down ? No

4) Even taking [b]BRussell's[b] point below, are the current US leadership insane enough to do it ? .................

You have the answer right there.

Yes, it's insane. Yes, it's almost not possible to do right now. But why would that stop them ?

If in the weeks after 911 someone had said that the US would forget about Osama for years and get involved in a quagmire in Iraq instead then that would be labeled impossible and insane too.

I have nothing agains the point 1 to 3, but point 4 is huge. US can't afford politically (inside politic here) this new war. They can't open a second battlefront, and this war will be very unpopular in US. Bush will lose his support. The Bush admin is able to do anything weird, but will never do a political suicide.

e1618978

06-20-2005, 03:59 PM

We only have 10% of the US armed forces in Iraq (140K out of 1.4 million) - how can it be that we are over-streched?

I think that we will either invade in the next 2-3 months, or else wait until after the 2006 elections.

Aurora

06-20-2005, 04:00 PM

Perhaps we dont need a war ,Just bomb the piss out of that reactor plant and a few other places with a word of warning that next time that bomb is coming through your window if you dont clean up your act. Enough of being the nice guy. Same goes for N.Korea we should tell China shut the Crazy Korean Down or we sill stop all trade with your Communist arse.! That would get their attention.

Powerdoc

06-20-2005, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
We only have 10% of the US armed forces in Iraq (140K out of 1.4 million) - how can it be that we are over-streched?

I think that we will either invade in the next 2-3 months, or else wait until after the 2006 elections.

Capacity of projection of an army is not the same thing, as the total capacity of an army. In order to invade Iran ( a much more difficult contender than Iraq) US will have to sent at least 500 000 people. US will not recieve any help from most of their allies, Britain included (Blair want to be reelected).
Can the US afford this war, both in term of money, and human lifes (the US ones here) ?

segovius

06-20-2005, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by Powerdoc
Capacity of projection of an army is not the same thing, as the total capacity of an army. In order to invade Iran ( a much more difficult contender than Iraq) US will have to sent at least 500 000 people. US will not recieve any help from most of their allies, Britain included (Blair want to be reelected).
Can the US afford this war, both in term of money, and human lifes (the US ones here) ?

Blair will go along Powerdoc - and anyway, he only just got re-elected. That gives him five years till he is held to account at any ballot box.

e1618978

06-20-2005, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by segovius
Blair will go along Powerdoc - and anyway, he only just got re-elected. That gives him five years till he is held to account at any ballot box.

If it is like Canada, then a vote of "no confidence" will call an election at any time. Some Canadian prime ministers have only lasted a few months.

Republic

06-20-2005, 04:12 PM

This may be true, unless you consider the confidence of Labour's parliamentary party, which is now in doubt. The five-year term is for the Parliament, not the Prime Minister, and if a Labour rebellion in the Commons gets legs, Blair himself will not last the five year term. After losing such a shocking majority, many have questions about Anthony Blair's future at Number Ten. See Thatcher to Major in the 1990s.

Towel

06-20-2005, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
We only have 10% of the US armed forces in Iraq (140K out of 1.4 million) - how can it be that we are over-streched? Because most of those troops in Iraq are ground forces, and our ground forces total well under a million, including all guard/reserves. Moreover, you can't leave troops in combat for three years straight, and you can't send them straight there from the recruiting office. At any given moment, there's about 140,000 troops training to go to Iraq, 140,000 in Iraq, and 140,000 refitting/recovering from being in Iraq. And that's just Iraq. There's probably about another 100,000 overseas ground deployments at any given time, including 20-30,000 in the Afghan combat zone. That this grand total of 200-250,000 x 3 is pushing up against the total number of active, reserve and guard troops is why the Army is overstetched. It's only made worse by the fact that overseas combat deployments require combat units (duh), so the bulk of the burden is shouldered by a relatively small - and shrinking, due to attrition, casualties, and poor enlistment - segment of the Army.

Bottomline is, if the Nazis invaded New York tomorrow, we could mobilize a half-million troops to meet them for the duration, no problem. For another overseas "war of choice" that requires an undefined period of occupation measured in years, we're already pretty much incapable of doing it with the present Army.

06-20-2005, 07:34 PM

Invading, attacking, or further threatening Iran is abaaaaaaaad bad idea.

An entire generation of people in their mid twenties (who are mostly very pro-western) are poised to take power in the very near future.

Its just a question of time.

You attack now, you alienate them, and then its all gone to shit.

Just FYI, Iran is mostly mountains... and is almost 4 times bigger than Iraq. Oh, and the people are FIERCELY nationalistic... not for the heads of state (like Iraq) but for the country.

With the amount of time they've had to prepare, and the amount of real weapons (Iraq part 2 was a fucking joke) they have amassed, the USA could never do it alone. Not even with NATO on their side. Not even Russia.

And for what?

Trust me, I've been to Iran plenty of times... take my advice... forget about it...

Aurora

06-20-2005, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by ZO
Invading, attacking, or further threatening Iran is abaaaaaaaad bad idea.

An entire generation of people in their mid twenties (who are mostly very pro-western) are poised to take power in the very near future.

Its just a question of time.

You attack now, you alienate them, and then its all gone to shit.

Just FYI, Iran is mostly mountains... and is almost 4 times bigger than Iraq. Oh, and the people are FIERCELY nationalistic... not for the heads of state (like Iraq) but for the country.

With the amount of time they've had to prepare, and the amount of real weapons (Iraq part 2 was a fucking joke) they have amassed, the USA could never do it alone. Not even with NATO on their side. Not even Russia.

And for what?

Trust me, I've been to Iran plenty of times... take my advice... forget about it... For what ? how about the spread of Nukes? Its a good enough reason for me. We couldnt bomb their arse to kingdom come? Please we could take control of all their skies in a week if we wanted. If our intent was just to kill folks we could do it easy. Thats not our goal. World Peace is our goal and we wont let some islamic extremist state ruin it for everyone.

Harald

06-21-2005, 02:47 AM

America, FUCK yeah!

We're going to bomb the shit out of them until we get PEACE!

e1618978

06-21-2005, 08:34 AM

Anyone see the Daily Show on Thursday? Ken Timmerman was on, talking about Iran.

He seemed to know a lot about the country, and still thinks that they are a great danger to us. In fact, he thinks that they helped Bin Laden plan 9/11, and that Bin Laden is in Iran now.

His book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400053684/qid=1119357174/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-6924668-2333629?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

segovius

06-21-2005, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by e1618978
Anyone see the Daily Show on Thursday? Ken Timmerman was on, talking about Iran.

He seemed to know a lot about the country, and still thinks that they are a great danger to us. In fact, he thinks that they helped Bin Laden plan 9/11, and that Bin Laden is in Iran now.

His book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400053684/qid=1119357174/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-6924668-2333629?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

That's more evidence there going in then.

Clearly this Timmerman knows nothing at all about Iran or/and is lying - but that's even more proof of the prepping for war.

Fellowship

06-21-2005, 08:47 AM

Seg I think you have the wrong idea with this thread. I doubt the US would do something so stupid as to go to war in Iran. Again it would be just stupid.

I may not admire Bush for many reasons but I would be willing to bet he is not that stupid.

Fellows

e1618978

06-21-2005, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by segovius
That's more evidence there going in then.

Clearly this Timmerman knows nothing at all about Iran or/and is lying - but that's even more proof of the prepping for war.

You can say that without 1) reading the book, or 2) even watching the inteview on the Daily Show...

Bias, baby, Bias!

He does mention some of the things that you have talked about (Iranian youth very pro-US, etc). And I don't think that he is advocating all-out war.

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/celebrity_interviews/index.jhtml?playVideo=15750

segovius

06-21-2005, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by e1618978
You can say that without 1) reading the book, or 2) even watching the inteview on the Daily Show...

Bias, baby, Bias!

He does mention some of the things that you have talked about (Iranian youth very pro-US, etc). And I don't think that he is advocating all-out war.

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/celebrity_interviews/index.jhtml?playVideo=15750

How do you know I haven't read the book ? In fact I quoted it in a recent thread - with the not so subtle title of "Osama is in Iran'.

Besides, one does not need to have read the book, one needs only a rudimentary knowledge of Islam in a historical sense.

The Shi'i and the Sunnis have been at war to various degrees for nearly 1300 years. There are what you might call some 'issues'.

Osama is not only a Sunni he is a Wahabi - even the Sunnis hate the Wahabis. But more than that, he is a Wahabi who makes it his business to kill Shi'ia. If the Iranians find him in Iran the last thing they will do is turn him in. They will kill him themselves.

That is why one might hazard a guess he wouldn't go there.

I know none of this matters for your average winger, if someone started selling it to the sheep that Osama was on Mars they'd believe it. Facts just don't exist for them and they live in a complete fantasy world now - that's what happens when you play around with the meaning of truth and lie a lot.

If this Timmerman was just a wee bit less stupid he would have said Syria instead of Iran (of course no-oone ever mentions Saudi which is the only place the Wahabis have control and Osama is a Saudi but hey....) but it's not like he's a thinker or making a contribution....he's just parroting what he's told and it's merely drip, drip, drip for the drips......

segovius

06-21-2005, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by Fellowship
Seg I think you have the wrong idea with this thread. I doubt the US would do something so stupid as to go to war in Iran. Again it would be just stupid.

I may not admire Bush for many reasons but I would be willing to bet he is not that stupid.

Fellows

I agree Fellows, it would be very stupid. But the neocons are very stupid. It takes a special kind of stupidity to squander the world support after 911 and to make a military failure of probably one of the easiest regimes to overthrow....

Besides, Bush is not calling the tune is he? He is merely dancing to someone else's beat. If you look at the signs in the run up to Iraq - signs we didn't then know for sure were lies and prepping but do now - it's all being played out again.

How long till we actually see it coming ad do something ?

Are we always going to be arguing after the fact ?

segovius

06-21-2005, 03:51 PM

And one more thing, for those who think that the Bush cabal would not be 'stupid' and that there are not enough troops etc, check out this article from the authority on all military matters, the Intelligence Bible: Jane's Intelligence Digest (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1074745158639) via the Jerusalem post (hardly a 'left-wng rag').

The title is suggestive enough: "Rumsfeld considers striking Hizbullah to provoke Syria".

I think you will all agree , this qualifies as stupid and moreover, faces the same military problems an attack on Iran would re the troop numbers - of course, Syria is no opposition militarily (unlike Iran) which is why the bullies are continuing their policy there instead of in a real testing ground.

Bombing civilians from 20,000 feet when you have an inept and low-morale army for opposition is always the path of choice for the chickenhawk. But it does signal intent and again, is evidence of 'the way the wind is blowing'.

We are not there yet - though this is as near as a declaration of war as we get these days - the media will let us know when it kicks off as they ratchet up the propaganda. I'd say 4 - 6 weeks and still say Iran rather than Syria.

Meanwhile savour these gems:

In an article to be published on Friday, the journal said multi-faceted US attacks, which would be conducted within the framework of the global war on terrorism, are likely to focus on Hizbullah bases in the Bekaa Valley of eastern Lebanon.

It noted that the deployment of US special forces in the Bekaa Valley, where most of Syria's occupation forces in Lebanon are based, would be highly inflammatory and would "almost certainly involve a confrontation with Syrian troops."

Such a conflict might well prove to be the objective of the US, said the journal, which described Washington's strategic benefits from a confrontation with Syria. These include:

* Pressuring Damascus into ending its support for anti-Israel Palestinian groups;

* Persuading Syria to abandon its weapons of mass destruction and to withdraw its troops from Lebanon;

* Stimulating a situation where Syrian leader Bashir Assad can be ousted;

* Crushing Hizbullah and ending its presumed connections with al-Qaida.

"The political consequences of a US attack against Lebanon. . . could result in the destabilization of a country that is still rebuilding its infrastructure a decade after a ruinous 15-year civil war," noted the journal.

"It would also fuel Muslim and Arab hostility toward the US at a time when US-led occupation forces are fighting the ongoing insurgency in Iraq.

"In these circumstances, taking on Hizbullah in the Bekaa Valley is likely to prove a highly risky undertaking.

"However," it continued, "given the Bush administration's doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, it remains entirely possible that Washington will soon launch military strikes against Lebanon, regardless of the consequences for wider regional stability".

Note the implanted reference to Syria's "WMD".

When are the left going to wise up and realise the agenda here ? The wingers have known about it all the time and have been having wet-dreams at the prospect of more deaths on a nioghtly basis - when are the intelligent section of society going to wake up and smell the BS ?

e1618978

06-21-2005, 05:14 PM

If the Iranians find him in Iran the last thing they will do is turn him in. They will kill him themselves.

The guy that wrote the book said he watched a video where Osama was planning future terrorist strikes with the Iranian leadership. The planning session was in Iran, and could be dated very recently because of a new style of cell phone that was in the video.

So you are saying that he ls flat out lying to inflame war.

Anders

06-21-2005, 05:27 PM

Damn. I was planning to go to Iran within a year. I guess I have to hurry up or forget all about it...

Anders

06-21-2005, 05:31 PM

Moe_in_Texas

06-21-2005, 05:40 PM

The US would be remiss not to be spying on Iran and setting up special forces inside of the country. We will not attack them. That would not be practical. Not going to happen.

segovius

06-21-2005, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
The guy that wrote the book said he watched a video where Osama was planning future terrorist strikes with the Iranian leadership. The planning session was in Iran, and could be dated very recently because of a new style of cell phone that was in the video.

So you are saying that he ls flat out lying to inflame war.

Yes. I am saying that. Absolutely.

And I'm not the only one who thinks that. The CIA and Military Intelligence agree (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/12/183535.shtml) - so you'll have to decide who you believe. Here are some quotes that might help (or perhaps not):

Timmerman's startling revelations come from a recent defector who held a top position in Iranian intelligence. The defector provided documents and other material evidence - including a detailed description of a meeting last November between bin Laden and top Iranian government officials at a safe house in northern Iran.

The CIA calls the defector a "fabricator of monumental proportions".

You have some facts wrong btw - it is the defector whose claims about the Osama video are under discussion. Timmerman is reporting second hand.

But onwards... (http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t43328.html)

No more comment is needed here.

I will say this though:

Bush is going into Iran.

You can talk all you like about 'Osama' or 'Nuclear threat' but the fact is that these are just more lies to justify more murder.

That is to say: they are not true.

They exist only to placate people like you who seem to need some justification of this sort before murdering innocent civilians.

You would be more honest if you admitted what you wanted and said you needed no reason. This is why the US is not comparable to the Nazis - they are nowhere near as honest and have nowhere near the integrity.

Just like WMD, just like the '45 minutes' and babies in incubators - the plastic shredders - all lies.

Lies told to facilitate murder. And yet again you are buying into it.

You're a fool - it's not even meant to be believable.

06-21-2005, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by Aurora
For what ? how about the spread of Nukes? Its a good enough reason for me. We couldnt bomb their arse to kingdom come? Please we could take control of all their skies in a week if we wanted. If our intent was just to kill folks we could do it easy. Thats not our goal. World Peace is our goal and we wont let some islamic extremist state ruin it for everyone.

Wow... yet another example of brainwashed american...

I was once like you... then I left for school abroad, and managed to shake the shackles of "America, fuck yeah" attitude after a few years and am always amazed at how America is really nothing more than media hype and... brainwash.

Get around a bit...

Although I do agree with you on one point, about the Nukes. If they do have it, they should be dealt with... in a proper manner. And not "a la fucking Bush" way. Because of him the US has little to no credibility in the rest of the world. Nice going Bush & Co.

e1618978

06-21-2005, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by segovius
Yes. I am saying that. Absolutely.

And I'm not the only one who thinks that. The CIA and Military Intelligence agree (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/12/183535.shtml) - so you'll have to decide who you believe. Here are some quotes that might help (or perhaps not):

You have some facts wrong btw - it is the defector whose claims about the Osama video are under discussion. Timmerman is reporting second hand.

But onwards... (http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t43328.html)

No more comment is needed here.

I will say this though:

Bush is going into Iran.

You can talk all you like about 'Osama' or 'Nuclear threat' but the fact is that these are just more lies to justify more murder.

That is to say: they are not true.

They exist only to placate people like you who seem to need some justification of this sort before murdering innocent civilians.

You would be more honest if you admitted what you wanted and said you needed no reason. This is why the US is not comparable to the Nazis - they are nowhere near as honest and have nowhere near the integrity.

Just like WMD, just like the '45 minutes' and babies in incubators - the plastic shredders - all lies.

Lies told to facilitate murder. And yet again you are buying into it.

You're a fool - it's not even meant to be believable.

1. He had multiple sources, who corroborated each other
2. The CIA does not seem that competant lately
3. The Nuclear thing has been publically verified by the Iranian government directly

segovius

06-22-2005, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by e1618978
1. He had multiple sources, who corroborated each other
2. The CIA does not seem that competant lately
3. The Nuclear thing has been publically verified by the Iranian government directly

Like I say - these lies are specifically designed for people like you, precisely aimed at people like you and relentlessly pitched at people like you.

And hey, look....it's working.

You are the ones who will give the green light for more murders of innocent civilians.

And you are the ones who will be arguing with saner heads here after the fact about whether or not we were lied to 'whether WMD exist' and whether country X should be the next in line for some carpet-bombing.

johnq

06-22-2005, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by segovius
Like I say - these lies are specifically designed for people like you, precisely aimed at people like you and relentlessly pitched at people like you.

And hey, look....it's working.

You are the ones who will give the green light for more murders of innocent civilians.

And you are the ones who will be arguing with saner heads here after the fact about whether or not we were lied to 'whether WMD exist' and whether country X should be the next in line for some carpet-bombing.

There will "need" to be another 9/11 to get the yoo-ess-ay guys to start volunteering again.

But get this:

Since the Iraq war is a quagmire and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, recruitment has plummeted.

Stop Loss has trapped the majority of the troops into serving 'til death or injury. They signed up for x number of years and the military says tough shit, you fight or die or go to jail. Naturally only the dumbest or the most desperate will volunteer seeing that. it's no longer a volunteer army, it's an indentured servant army (or mercenary at best).

So...we start seeing "inspiring" stories about "noble" soldiers like:
1. Females fighting in combat roles
2. Amputees getting fitted with state of the art prosthetics and returning to combat

We also start seeing stories about use of robots outfitted with automatic shotguns/RPG/machine guns. (Not the bomb-defusing ones, these are killing machines - on the ground now in a so-called sovereign country as it's guinea pig).

Darpa is working on autonomous roving minefields, that communicate with eachother to maintain any defensive grid and reforming itself to seal up any gaps. Once the autonomous software is tweaked, no reason the remote control 4-wheeled robots can just be semi-autonomous.

The government *wants* to be over-stretched so that we have the reasons to spend money into robotics.

They are politically too cowardly to force an actual draft on the public.

Instead, we'll see them do things like allow (and recruit) women for combat, increase the age you can enlist (really, why not 45?), make it a requirement for amputees and other injured troops to "suck it up" and get back to their units when healed, leg or no leg. And those that are too wounded but have enough mobility to control a remote robot will be encouraged to do so.

Some of that is semi-far fetched and tongue in cheek but not really. It's all going on.

segovius

06-24-2005, 12:29 PM

From the Boston Globe via Gorilla in the Room (http://gorillaintheroom.blogspot.com/):

In a report to the council, Gelb was scathing about America efforts to train an Iraqi army. ''If you ask any Iraqi leader, they will tell you these people can't fight. They just aren't trained. And yet we're cranking them out like rabbits." As for plans to train a 10 division Iraqi army by next year, Gelb was scathing.

''It became very apparent to me that these 10 divisions were to fight some future war against Iran. It had nothing to do, nothing to do," with taking Iraq over from the Americans and fighting the insurgents.

If the Iraqi army is going to be the one going into Iran then that takes care of the troop problem nicely....

steve666

06-24-2005, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by Powerdoc
Unfortunately no, I heard on the radio, and I find this very interesting.
Rafsandjani (wrong spelling), is probabily the next president of Iran. He is a very, very rich man : the 50 fortune of the world. He is the king of the pistache. Whenever you eat a pistache, you have a chance to eat one pistache coming from his properties.

That's mean he is a busisnessman, who know how to deal. As a progessist muslim ( if you consider the iran spectrum) he is interested in the economic wealth of his countrie. The free market exchange is high on his list, and he has a perfect weapon to achieve his goals : exchange nuisance (the Iran nuclear program) against the OMC membership.

Welp, he lost.
Look for more confrontations now.
Either we destroy Irans Nukes or flatten them entirely.
Either way, theres no way we can allow Iran to get Nukes.
Come on, Israel, do it already, so we wont have to.

Powerdoc

06-25-2005, 01:40 AM

Originally posted by steve666
Welp, he lost.
Look for more confrontations now.
Either we destroy Irans Nukes or flatten them entirely.
Either way, theres no way we can allow Iran to get Nukes.
Come on, Israel, do it already, so we wont have to.

Yes it's very bad news : dark times in Iran. We are going to see a taliban like governement. Nothing good will occur from this election. :(

segovius

06-25-2005, 02:35 AM

Originally posted by steve666
or flatten them entirely.

Or we flatten people like you....that's always another option and the way to go imo.

It's people like you that make these things happen - you go on and on about things that aren't true till you make them true.

Congratulations - the belligerent US foreign policy has driven yet another country into the extreme.

But then again, that's the point isn't it?

Aurora

06-25-2005, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by Powerdoc
Yes it's very bad news : dark times in Iran. We are going to see a taliban like governement. Nothing good will occur from this election. :( Reminds me of America, we have the extreme right Bible thumpers destroying every ounce of freedom we have left.Just Look at how they are spinning science here in the U.S.A. Look where George has taken us in 5 years. He has undone 50 years of progress. Iran will be just the same, another Zealot state of fanatics pushing their Book. America/Iran both ran by extremist who can only think in those narrow religious terms. Now lets see what did the Bible/Koran say on the issue of popcorn after dark?:err: These are the folks that will destroy this world. For their selfish system of belief. We cant do much about Iran but we can clean house here in the U.S.A. Vote out all incumbants. its the only way.

Powerdoc

06-25-2005, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Aurora
Reminds me of America, we have the extreme right Bible thumpers destroying every ounce of freedom we have left.Just Look at how they are spinning science here in the U.S.A. Look where George has taken us in 5 years. He has undone 50 years of progress. Iran will be just the same, another Zealot state of fanatics pushing their Book. America/Iran both ran by extremist who can only think in those narrow religious terms. Now lets see what did the Bible/Koran say on the issue of popcorn after dark?:err: These are the folks that will destroy this world. For their selfish system of belief. We cant do much about Iran but we can clean house here in the U.S.A. Vote out all incumbants. its the only way.

At least you can vote in USA.

I've heard from the interview of iranian living in France (many refused to talk publicly) that the new governement will not change many things : the former president was only a vitrine, an appareance of relative freedoom and democracy, but there wasn't any democracy.
With the new governement things are simple : it appear the way they really are.

Aurora

06-25-2005, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by Powerdoc
At least you can vote in USA.

I've heard from the interview of iranian living in France (many refused to talk publicly) that the new governement will not change many things : the former president was only a vitrine, an appareance of relative freedoom and democracy, but there wasn't any democracy.
With the new governement things are simple : it appear the way they really are. Vote for what? Democrats ran by special interest or the Republicans ran by special interests? The Makers of the constitution didnt intend Corporations to run Congress through campaign donations did it?

Powerdoc

06-25-2005, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Aurora
Vote for what? Democrats ran by special interest or the Republicans ran by special interests? The Makers of the constitution didnt intend Corporations to run Congress through campaign donations did it?

All democracies, have their failures, but they are still democracies. Iran is not, the supreme guide of the revolution and the religious councils have all the real power.

Aurora

06-25-2005, 02:34 PM

What Iran has isnt a democracy, what we have isnt one either. As for going to war with Iran I think thats a mistake but they cannot be allowed to go nuclear. I would prefer airstrikes at their facilities to the point they are buried under thousands of feet of earth. By wanting to make these weapons they are in effect saying come and get us. Mistake with the Republican Zealots running our govt at the moment. Hard liner vs Hard liner is going to end up as war.

segovius

06-25-2005, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Powerdoc
All democracies, have their failures, but they are still democracies. Iran is not, the supreme guide of the revolution and the religious councils have all the real power.

Why is democracy the benchmark ?

To me it is not a question of democracy, which I do not anyway believe in personally, but a question of whether the rulers of a state administer justice and are not corrupt.

Freedom is (more or less) an illusion and it is merely a matter of degrees of relative/perceived freedom and, more importantly, the type of freedoms a given people want.

Admittedly Iran has not had justice since the days of the Caliphate but then again the freedoms that the people aspire to (and are prevented from enjoying) should not be assumed t be the same as those that we in the west might aspire to were we in the same position.

e1618978

06-25-2005, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by segovius
[B]Why is democracy the benchmark ?

It does not matter if you have a just ruler in a dictatorship. Eventually his spoiled son will destroy the country.

At least here, the son has to pass some kind of benchmark of capibility and appeal before he is elected.

segovius

06-25-2005, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
It does not matter if you have a just ruler in a dictatorship. Eventually his spoiled son will destroy the country.

At least here, the son has to pass some kind of benchmark of capibility and appeal before he is elected.

There are arguments against that but I kind of get the impression it is a bt futile to expand on them.

Iranians elected this hardliner in an election btw. That probably needs to be borne in mind.

steve666

06-25-2005, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by segovius
Or we flatten people like you....that's always another option and the way to go imo.

It's people like you that make these things happen - you go on and on about things that aren't true till you make them true.

Congratulations - the belligerent US foreign policy has driven yet another country into the extreme.

But then again, that's the point isn't it?

And whats your solution, big shot?
Do nothing while Iran develops Nuclear weapons?
Iran drove itself into the extreme, no help necessary.

e1618978

06-25-2005, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by segovius
There are arguments against that but I kind of get the impression it is a bt futile to expand on them.

Iranians elected this hardliner in an election btw. That probably needs to be borne in mind.

There has been a time when democracy faltered, and people thought that it was too inefficient. Europe in the early 1930s - people were fed up with democracy, and they looked back with nostalgia at the kings of the 19th century.

There were too many pollitical parties, and they could never agree on things, so nothing got done. The people wanted strong leadership, they wanted the age of dictators and kings to return, and they got it...

segovius

06-25-2005, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
There has been a time when democracy faltered, and people thought that it was too inefficient. Europe in the early 1930s - people were fed up with democracy, and they looked back with nostalgia at the kings of the 19th century.

There were too many pollitical parties, and they could never agree on things, so nothing got done. The people wanted strong leadership, they wanted the age of dictators and kings to return, and they got it...

And that could happen again at any moment - the lust for power of th dictator can be just as prevelant in a democracy as in a totalitarian system.

Aurora

06-25-2005, 08:03 PM

True but the problem at the moment is a Nuclear Iran. I dont think this is good for the region nor the world. There are 3 options.......engage them with the carrot, or engage them with the stick, or do nothing. I hear a lot of do nothing.Europeans?:err: I like the carrot and stick approach. doing nothing is just that.

steve666

06-25-2005, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by Aurora
True but the problem at the moment in a Nuclear Iran. I dont think this is good for the region nor the world. There are 3 options.......engage them with the carrot, or engage them with the stick, or do nothing. I hear a lot of do nothing.Europeans?:err: I like the carrot and stick approach. doing nothing is just that.

Exactamundo

Senor Fonzie

e1618978

06-25-2005, 09:51 PM

steve666

06-25-2005, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
The carrot does not work - just look at North Korea. Clinton tried the carrot.

then its time to try the stick

FormerLurker

06-25-2005, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by steve666
then its time to try the stick We all know what happens when you go after a hornet's nest with a stick, and it ain't pretty.

steve666

06-25-2005, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by FormerLurker
We all know what happens when you go after a hornet's nest with a stick, and it ain't pretty.

It also isn't good to keep the hornets around.

FormerLurker

06-25-2005, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by steve666
It also isn't good to keep the hornets around. Indeed.
I think we can also agree that safe removal of the hornets will require something a bit more sophisticated than the brute force of a stick.

steve666

06-25-2005, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by FormerLurker
Indeed.
I think we can also agree that safe removal of the hornets will require something a bit more sophisticated than the brute force of a stick.

Yup. I certainly hope we, or they (Israel) are planning something.

e1618978

06-26-2005, 12:11 AM

Originally posted by segovius
And that could happen again at any moment - the lust for power of th dictator can be just as prevelant in a democracy as in a totalitarian system.

The totalitarian dictator already has the power, he doesn't need to lust for it. A president can never have as much power as a Tsar or a Sultan or a King.

I can't believe that you are seriously suggesting that a totalitarian state is better for the people than a democracy. You spend a lot of time complaining about the US ruling class, and then you suggest a ruling class with even more power? You are making no sense...

segovius

06-26-2005, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by e1618978
The totalitarian dictator already has the power, he doesn't need to lust for it. A president can never have as much power as a Tsar or a Sultan or a King.

I can't believe that you are seriously suggesting that a totalitarian state is better for the people than a democracy. You spend a lot of time complaining about the US ruling class, and then you suggest a ruling class with even more power? You are making no sense...

You clearly judge totalitarian states by their worst examples. There are many that are no problem to anyone at all - even in the Islamic world.

Jordan - westernised and very pro-western.

Morocco - monarchy also.

Brunei, Kuwait, Oman, UAE.

The problem with your line of thought if you don't mind me saying is that you cannot judge things from any position other than a western mindset.

This is good and efficient when dealing with western concepts but when applied to the east it goes very wrong.

Hence, someone with such a view must either change it, ignore the facts or else change' the east (ie 'westernize' it or support such).

I think it would be beneficial to educate yourself about the region from the pov of the region which is the first option but it's up to you.

segovius

06-26-2005, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by steve666
Yup. I certainly hope we, or they (Israel) are planning something.

And yes, they're back......

by popular demand: the massed chorus of the xenophobes and bigots little amerika frightened hearts club band.

Prior to their sell out World Tour (North Korea and China - cancelled) which is now playing extended middle eastern dates, the band will be reprising their smash hits of current years remixed and re-edited for 2005:

Iraqi WMDs

Baby in an Incubator

Hitler reloaded

Why do you hate America ?

And who can forget the smasheroonie party hit:

45 minute warning

The band will also be previewing their new single - a cover of David Bowies 'always crashing in the same car'.

100,000 free tickets are being given away buy the Recruiting Office - just apply in person.

Powerdoc

06-26-2005, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by segovius
Why is democracy the benchmark ?

To me it is not a question of democracy, which I do not anyway believe in personally, but a question of whether the rulers of a state administer justice and are not corrupt.

Freedom is (more or less) an illusion and it is merely a matter of degrees of relative/perceived freedom and, more importantly, the type of freedoms a given people want.

Admittedly Iran has not had justice since the days of the Caliphate but then again the freedoms that the people aspire to (and are prevented from enjoying) should not be assumed t be the same as those that we in the west might aspire to were we in the same position.

In a theorical point of vue you are right, but in practice, I better live in any part of europe rather than Iran.

In order to make party, young people take risks. They organise the parties in their parent's home : if the milice caught them, they will be sent to jail. This people don't care who is the president, but they just want to have fun. The Iran rulers does not simply allow this.
If we have the illusion of liberty, many iranian people have the illusion of living in a prison.
I just think that one illusion is better than another.

Now to be clear, If something good will happen in Iran, it must come from the Iranian people. I am against the intervention of an external power. It will just lead to an another mess with hundreds thousands deaths.

New

06-26-2005, 12:18 PM

I can't believe you're all buying this crap. Iran geting the bomb is a logical step in the ME after Israel was allowed to have it. Iran having the bomb is the same as Pakistan and China having it. Not good, but absolutely something the world can live with. The chance of them using it is low. Remember that only one nation has yet used the bomb. We all know who.

From an Irani perspective it is a necessity. They don't see their safty and sovereginity guaranteed in any other way. And the resposibility for creating the situation where Iran feels that getting the bomb is the only way to be safe from the west has to be shared by us.

So snap out of it.

Aurora

06-26-2005, 01:33 PM

You sound like a Euro New, there is no logical step for folks to acquire these things. Another lets do nothing:err: We want to decrease Nukes not increase them. Only reason Isreali's have them is because they are surrounded and out numbered by folks who have tried to exterminate them for years.. New talks like Iran is a respected member of the world community and trade groups.:lol: :lol: :lol: Under his spin the only one who shouldnt have them are......... lets see..............:smokey: Do nothing is doing nothing. pull the spin out please.

BRussell

06-26-2005, 01:58 PM

segovius

06-26-2005, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by BRussell
Well they claim they're not getting the bomb, and they are signatories of the non-proliferation treaty.

The only people who claim they are are the US - the same people that want to invade and came up with the 'axis of evil' shit.

One of that triad is down - using similar lies about the false threat they represented.

The only people buying into the Iranian threat shit are the usual morons. the Iranians are the ones under threat and as New says have a right to defend themselves.

MarcUK

06-26-2005, 03:21 PM

coming soon...confirmation that the US administration has been in talks with the insurgency. Why would that be?

BRussell

06-26-2005, 04:05 PM

e1618978

06-26-2005, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by segovius
You clearly judge totalitarian states by their worst examples. There are many that are no problem to anyone at all - even in the Islamic world.

Jordan - westernised and very pro-western.

Morocco - monarchy also.

Brunei, Kuwait, Oman, UAE.

The problem with your line of thought if you don't mind me saying is that you cannot judge things from any position other than a western mindset.

This is good and efficient when dealing with western concepts but when applied to the east it goes very wrong.

Hence, someone with such a view must either change it, ignore the facts or else change' the east (ie 'westernize' it or support such).

I think it would be beneficial to educate yourself about the region from the pov of the region which is the first option but it's up to you.

Litchenstein and Monaco, also.

But these are all small countries, and all they need is a bad herideditary leader to screw everything up.

Big countries are an entirely different matter - small countries have to be polite to their neighbors, big countries have fewer constraints.

I think that China has done a pretty good job as a totalitarian large country - and since they were so poor they needed a totalitarian regime. I expect in the future, as they become richer, they will transition to democracy.

steve666

06-26-2005, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by segovius
And yes, they're back......

by popular demand: the massed chorus of the xenophobes and bigots little amerika frightened hearts club band.

Prior to their sell out World Tour (North Korea and China - cancelled) which is now playing extended middle eastern dates, the band will be reprising their smash hits of current years remixed and re-edited for 2005:

Iraqi WMDs

Baby in an Incubator

Hitler reloaded

Why do you hate America ?

And who can forget the smasheroonie party hit:

45 minute warning

The band will also be previewing their new single - a cover of David Bowies 'always crashing in the same car'.

100,000 free tickets are being given away buy the Recruiting Office - just apply in person.

And yes, he's back. The pompous blowhard who doesn't know shit from shinola.

steve666

06-26-2005, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by New
I can't believe you're all buying this crap. Iran geting the bomb is a logical step in the ME after Israel was allowed to have it. Iran having the bomb is the same as Pakistan and China having it. Not good, but absolutely something the world can live with. The chance of them using it is low. Remember that only one nation has yet used the bomb. We all know who.

From an Irani perspective it is a necessity. They don't see their safty and sovereginity guaranteed in any other way. And the resposibility for creating the situation where Iran feels that getting the bomb is the only way to be safe from the west has to be shared by us.

So snap out of it.

Iran is far different from China.
Iran is a country that chants death to America in its Parliament. The Govmnt is our enemy. they fund terrorists, who is to say they wouldnt give the technology or actual weapons to them?
Iran has no use for nuclear energy so its an obvious lie. If they do get Nukes it wont protect them because we would have to smash them.
They would be far better off if they ditched the technology and tried to join the world again and stop acting like they are still in the 5th Century.

steve666

06-26-2005, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by BRussell
Well they claim they're not getting the bomb, and they are signatories of the non-proliferation treaty.

The UN has already caught them in more than one lie.

Iran has no use for nuclear energy-they want the bomb.
We cant let them get the bomb, so we must stop them-any way we can.

steve666

06-26-2005, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by segovius
The only people who claim they are are the US - the same people that want to invade and came up with the 'axis of evil' shit.

One of that triad is down - using similar lies about the false threat they represented.

The only people buying into the Iranian threat shit are the usual morons. the Iranians are the ones under threat and as New says have a right to defend themselves.

The only morons are the ones who dont think Iran is a threat.
That is, until they actually are a threat, then they call in the cavalry-the U.S.

Why don't you do-nothings stay out of it and let the big boys handle the problem, like always unfortunately.

And I'm not talking about Iraq, this is the real threat. Bush picked the country with the wrong letter at the end.

Aurora

06-26-2005, 09:15 PM

What a lot of folks are missing is who is giving Iran this technology?. Anyone say Russia? why the hell would U.S. companies invest in Russia when they are giving the bomb to Iran. This is the question we should be asking after we destroy their Nuke plants under billions of tons of Rubble. Bush sucks and everything he stands for does but if he destroyed Irans Nuke facilities tomorrow i wouldnt shed a tear and Europe though blind would breathe easier only they are to stupid to realize.

steve666

06-26-2005, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by Aurora
What a lot of folks are missing is who is giving Iran this technology?. Anyone say Russia? why the hell would U.S. companies invest in Russia when they are giving the bomb to Iran. This is the question we should be asking after we destroy their Nuke plants under billions of tons of Rubble. Bush sucks and everything he stands for does but if he destroyed Irans Nuke facilities tomorrow i wouldnt shed a tear and Europe though blind would breathe easier only they are to stupid to realize.

Agreed.
Bush let the Russians build the reactors right under his nose.
All shrub had to do was say we know you need money, how about we spend billions rebuilding your oil fields and we will be your primary customer. Russia has lots of untapped oil and those fields could be a steady source of income for them.

johnq

06-26-2005, 09:33 PM

Each war is just the staging ground for the next.

PNAC gets what PNAC wants.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Abrams)
Gary Bauer (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Bauer)
William Bennett (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bennett)
Jeb Bush (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeb_Bush)
Dick Cheney (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney)
Eliot Cohen (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Cohen)
Midge Decter (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midge_Decter)
Paula Dobriansky (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Dobriansky)
Steve Forbes (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Forbes)
Aaron Friedberg (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Friedberg)
Francis Fukuyama (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Fukuyama)
Frank Gaffney (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Gaffney)
Fred Ikle (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Ikle)
Donald Kagan (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Kagan)
Zalmay Khalilzad (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalmay_Khalilzad)
Lewis Libby (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Libby)
Norman Podhoretz (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Podhoretz)
Dan Quayle (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Quayle)
Peter Rodman (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Rodman)
Stephen Rosen (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Rosen)
Henry S. Rowen (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Henry_S._Rowen)
Donald Rumsfeld (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld)
Vin Weber (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin_Weber)
George Weigel (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Weigel)
Paul Wolfowitz (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz)

This ominous, pre-9/11 document will be the defining proof of this administration's outright, calculated imperialism.

It is a supremacy at-all-costs, offensive-not-defensive doctrine.

It gives the go ahead to preemptively take on anyone that stands in the way of our interests.

Gone is the veneer of noble leadership we allegedly had in WWII. This is a pure powergrab for the world's last resources.

They said it, I didn't.

This is a set-em-up knock 'em down approach. Democracy/freedom has nothing to do with anything. Either you have oil and let us take it, or you're against us.

Make 9/11's if you need to. Generate or fund any enemy needed to cause the public to be outraged or fearful.

Add Operation Northwoods and the Downing Street memo and only the most gullible people can support this administration and neocons in general.

FormerLurker

06-26-2005, 10:08 PM

The drumbeat intensifies:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Sunday called Iran's presidential election invalid and the winner "no friend of democracy."

Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Rumsfeld said the Iranian government had paved the way for ultra-conservative Tehran mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to win the post.

The Iranian president does not run the country; supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khameinei has the final word in matters of state in the Islamic theocracy. But the United States and others hoped the victor in the election would be someone they deemed more committed to democratic reforms.

"I think leaving the American people with the impression that it was an election that was valid -- there were over 1,000 candidates that were disqualified, that weren't even allowed to run," Rumsfeld said.

"So the fact that they had a mock election and elected a hard-liner ought not come to any surprise to anybody because all the other people were told they couldn't run."

. . .

Rumsfeld said he does not "known much about" Ahmadinejad. "But he is no friend of democracy. He's no friend of freedom. He is a person who is very much supportive of the current ayatollahs, who are telling the people of that country how to live their lives."

The fact that such overt political commentary comes from the Defense Secretary, instead of the State Department, is pretty telling.

addabox

06-26-2005, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by FormerLurker
The drumbeat intensifies:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Sunday called Iran's presidential election invalid and the winner "no friend of democracy."

Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Rumsfeld said the Iranian government had paved the way for ultra-conservative Tehran mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to win the post.

The Iranian president does not run the country; supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khameinei has the final word in matters of state in the Islamic theocracy. But the United States and others hoped the victor in the election would be someone they deemed more committed to democratic reforms.

"I think leaving the American people with the impression that it was an election that was valid -- there were over 1,000 candidates that were disqualified, that weren't even allowed to run," Rumsfeld said.

"So the fact that they had a mock election and elected a hard-liner ought not come to any surprise to anybody because all the other people were told they couldn't run."

That's odd. I was under the impression that Freedom Is On The March™.

Weren't elections in Iran oft cited on these very boards as one of the wondrous collateral effects of invading Iraq? (I mean besides somehow inducing Arafat to die and obliging the Palestinians to elect a new leader).

tonton

06-26-2005, 10:37 PM

Funny how with Khamenei, Iran had a very pro-US sectarian leader, and after the invasion of Iraq, the Iranians decided that that wasn't what they wanted at all. Who on earth could imagine such an effect!?

Wasn't it Abraham Lincoln who said, "I destroy my enemies by making them my friends"? Wise words left unheeded.

e1618978

06-26-2005, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by johnq

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

I guess that I agree with the new american century folks, the quote seems coherent and right to me. Changing some of the text to bold does not make it more sinister, sorry.

johnq

06-26-2005, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
I guess that I agree with the new american century folks, the quote seems coherent and right to me. Changing some of the text to bold does not make it more sinister, sorry.

Try using a James Earl Jones voice... ;)

I'll give them credit for balls and putting it right out there for all to see, anyway.

steve666

06-26-2005, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by tonton
Funny how with Khamenei, Iran had a very pro-US sectarian leader, and after the invasion of Iraq, the Iranians decided that that wasn't what they wanted at all. Who on earth could imagine such an effect!?

Wasn't it Abraham Lincoln who said, "I destroy my enemies by making them my friends"? Wise words left unheeded.

Khamenei was powerless. The Imams hold all the power. That is the main problem.

johnq

06-26-2005, 11:21 PM

The point is, anyway, that as early as 1997 this brazen semi-cabal existed, it's agenda clearly defined, all prior to 9/11.

None of what we are doing is in some kind of sudden, noble defense, as we were lied to, it is all strategic offense.

They/the Bush administration may have had nothing to do with 9/11's planning and execution but they sure as hell are likely to have just let it happen, knowing full well the "benefits" they could exploit soon after.

Only by having a "new pearl harbor" could they get the funding and powers they wanted.

I can't wait to fast forward to 5 or 10 years from now when all this is exposed for what it is. For now I'll gladly be called paranoid. ;)

Next stop: Iran. But this will be with MOAB bombs (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/09/sprj.irq.moab.gulf/) and killer robots (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4199935.stm).

segovius

06-27-2005, 03:34 AM

Originally posted by johnq
The point is, anyway, that as early as 1997 this brazen semi-cabal existed, it's agenda clearly defined, all prior to 9/11.

None of what we are doing is in some kind of sudden, noble defense, as we were lied to, it is all strategic offense.

They/the Bush administration may have had nothing to do with 9/11's planning and execution but they sure as hell are likely to have just let it happen, knowing full well the "benefits" they could exploit soon after.

Only by having a "new pearl harbor" could they get the funding and powers they wanted.

I can't wait to fast forward to 5 or 10 years from now when all this is exposed for what it is. For now I'll gladly be called paranoid. ;)

Next stop: Iran. But this will be with MOAB bombs (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/09/sprj.irq.moab.gulf/) and killer robots (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4199935.stm).

Won't work - the US will take a hammering in Iran - and Iraq will intensify. Also difficult to see how the Saudis will keep a lid on things too.

But the main problem will hit the US at home. Up till now there have been no suicide bombs, bio attacks via water/facilities etc. Actually it is strange that there hasn't been given the 'awesome threat' coupled with the ineptitude of the administration and the (presumed) sleeper cells that should be in place but that's another story.

I would say the US is vulnerable from those fronts primarily if it goes into Iran - suicide bombings on home soil and attacks on food/water supplies.

New

06-27-2005, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by Aurora
You sound like a Euro New, there is no logical step for folks to acquire these things. Another lets do nothing:err: We want to decrease Nukes not increase them. Only reason Isreali's have them is because they are surrounded and out numbered by folks who have tried to exterminate them for years.. New talks like Iran is a respected member of the world community and trade groups.:lol: :lol: :lol: Under his spin the only one who shouldnt have them are......... lets see..............:smokey: Do nothing is doing nothing. pull the spin out please.

If you want to decrease nukes, why is it you keep making them, hum?

btw, no one has tried to "exterminate" (what a stupid word to use) Israel for at least the last 30 years...

New

06-27-2005, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by BRussell
Well New also claims that they're getting da bomb.
I didn't claim that. I have no intelligence agency working for me. I said it was the next logical step. If I was running Iraq, um Iran I mean, I would get the bomb as fast as I could...

New

06-27-2005, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by steve666
Iran is far different from China.
Iran is a country that chants death to America in its Parliament. The Govmnt is our enemy. they fund terrorists, who is to say they wouldnt give the technology or actual weapons to them?
Iran has no use for nuclear energy so its an obvious lie. If they do get Nukes it wont protect them because we would have to smash them.
They would be far better off if they ditched the technology and tried to join the world again and stop acting like they are still in the 5th Century.

ok... I'll play along with your logic... So why is it ok for Pakistan to have the bomb?

segovius

06-27-2005, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by New
ok... I'll play along with your logic... So why is it ok for Pakistan to have the bomb?

And why are Saudi exempt from nuclear inspections ?

Harald

06-27-2005, 01:23 PM

And why is Israel exempt from IAEA inspections?

steve666

06-27-2005, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by New
ok... I'll play along with your logic... So why is it ok for Pakistan to have the bomb?

It isn't. They developed it without our wonderful intelligence agencies detecting it.
Then our wonderful intelligence agencies let the tech info spread to iran, Iraq, etc

steve666

06-27-2005, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Harald
And why is Israel exempt from IAEA inspections?

Why, are you worried about Israel dropping the bomb on you?

tonton

06-27-2005, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by steve666
Khamenei was powerless. The Imams hold all the power. That is the main problem.

While his power may have been small, it was not negligible, not to mention the message it sent to the rest of the world. Now the opposite message is being sent. Are you saying the difference between having a pro-west leader and a hardliner is nothing? Then what's the point of this thread?

The resulting difference is not zero.

steve666

06-27-2005, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by tonton
While his power may have been small, it was not negligible, not to mention the message it sent to the rest of the world. Now the opposite message is being sent. Are you saying the difference between having a pro-west leader and a hardliner is nothing? Then what's the point of this thread?

The resulting difference is not zero.

The only difference is that Iran will be saying what they mean, not trying to give us a snowjob.
That means we will get to action sooner rather than later, which is preferred. Whether that is military or sanctions remains to be seen.
I still prefer covert action to destroy the reactors and I hope Israel is up to something.

tonton

06-27-2005, 10:29 PM

So the Iranian public elected a pro-Western leader because they wanted to fool us? Riiight.

iPoster

06-27-2005, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by Harald
And why is Israel exempt from IAEA inspections?

My responses are limited, you must ask the right question.
;)

iPoster

06-27-2005, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by New

btw, no one has tried to "exterminate" (what a stupid word to use) Israel for at least the last 30 years...

And the reason for that is:

A) Peaceful negotiations between Israel and the Arab nations

B) Israel has defeated the aggressors conventionally in every previous war

C) Israel would 'send them up the Bomb' if faced with total defeat/extinction

:no:

For those who may be interested, a short history lesson from FAS.org:
(bolding by myself)

This paper is a history of the Israeli nuclear weapons program drawn from a review of unclassified sources. Israel began its search for nuclear weapons at the inception of the state in 1948. As payment for Israeli participation in the Suez Crisis of 1956, France provided nuclear expertise and constructed a reactor complex for Israel at Dimona capable of large-scale plutonium production and reprocessing. The United States discovered the facility by 1958 and it was a subject of continual discussions between American presidents and Israeli prime ministers. Israel used delay and deception to at first keep the United States at bay, and later used the nuclear option as a bargaining chip for a consistent American conventional arms supply. After French disengagement in the early 1960s, Israel progressed on its own, including through several covert operations, to project completion. Before the 1967 Six-Day War, they felt their nuclear facility threatened and reportedly assembled several nuclear devices. By the 1973 Yom Kippur War Israel had a number of sophisticated nuclear bombs, deployed them, and considered using them. The Arabs may have limited their war aims because of their knowledge of the Israeli nuclear weapons. Israel has most probably conducted several nuclear bomb tests. They have continued to modernize and vertically proliferate and are now one of the world's larger nuclear powers. Using “bomb in the basement” nuclear opacity, Israel has been able to use its arsenal as a deterrent to the Arab world while not technically violating American nonproliferation requirements.

steve666

06-27-2005, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by tonton
So the Iranian public elected a pro-Western leader because they wanted to fool us? Riiight.

No, they elected him because the majority of the public truly want Democracy and thought a reformer could change things.
They saw that he couldnt and that he held little real power so they became apolitical and stayed home while those supporting a more radical regime came out in force this time.

Iran needs another revolution, but in the meantime the Nukes have to go.

steve666

06-27-2005, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by iPoster
And the reason for that is:

A) Peaceful negotiations between Israel and the Arab nations

B) Israel has defeated the aggressors conventionally in every previous war

C) Israel would 'send them up the Bomb' if faced with total defeat/extinction

:no:

For those who may be interested, a short history lesson from FAS.org:
(bolding by myself)

The reason is that Israel's military is much stronger than their neighbors.
Israel's nukes would do little against Syria for example because Israel would suffer the fallout. Too close.
Iran is another matter, however Israel's Nukes are for defensive purposes only, so if the Arabs and Iran would keep to themselves they have nothing to fear. If they stop support for terrorists they have nothing to fear from us.

What some here seem to be saying is that Iran needs Nukes for protection.
No, they WANT Nukes so they can continue spreading terrorism and have a means to dissuade the civilized world from stopping them.

I certainly hope you all can see the difference between an Israel with the bomb and an Iran with the bomb.:no:

burningwheel

06-28-2005, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by Harald
America, FUCK yeah!

LOL!! that's goofy movie

burningwheel

06-28-2005, 12:18 AM

Bush is just doing what the terroist want to do, except of course bush wants democracy throughout the world and the terrorist want Islam. bush is a terrorist.

New

06-28-2005, 04:43 AM

Originally posted by steve666
It isn't. They developed it without our wonderful intelligence agencies detecting it.
Then our wonderful intelligence agencies let the tech info spread to iran, Iraq, etc

so why are you not more worried about them? Pakistan is far more unstable than Iran.

segovius

06-28-2005, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by New
Pakistan is far more unstable than Iran.

For now....

New

06-28-2005, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by segovius
For now....
true.

NaplesX

06-28-2005, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by New
so why are you not more worried about them? Pakistan is far more unstable than Iran. And if the focus was on Pakistan the you would say Syria is more of a threat, and if the focus was Syria then you would say why not China, if China then why not Somalia, if Somalia, why not somewhere else.

Typical.

Wasn't this the argument against getting involved in Iraq?

segovius

06-28-2005, 01:07 PM

To anyone feeling themselves about to be taken in by the ongoing crap designed to justify the slaughter of the Iranians that is relentlessly spewing out from the Bush cabal and their shills should just watch this (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6895.htm) and then ask themselves what is different now.

It's an hour long or so but worth every minute.

Aurora

06-28-2005, 02:08 PM

We have a lot of folks who thrive on spinning, makes you wonder how they walk straight., Fact is Iran is after the bomb. Fact is they dont need this type of russian reactor. Blow the thing up and be done with it. Next problem? here comes the spinmasters spewing stuff like everyone should have these things and other foolish talk.

New

06-28-2005, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
And if the focus was on Pakistan the you would say Syria is more of a threat, and if the focus was Syria then you would say why not China, if China then why not Somalia, if Somalia, why not somewhere else.

Typical.

Wasn't this the argument against getting involved in Iraq?

hello planet earth! Don't you find this extreem selectiveness of treaths even a tiny bit strange?

SDW2001

06-28-2005, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Aurora
Reminds me of America, we have the extreme right Bible thumpers destroying every ounce of freedom we have left.Just Look at how they are spinning science here in the U.S.A. Look where George has taken us in 5 years. He has undone 50 years of progress. Iran will be just the same, another Zealot state of fanatics pushing their Book. America/Iran both ran by extremist who can only think in those narrow religious terms. Now lets see what did the Bible/Koran say on the issue of popcorn after dark?:err: These are the folks that will destroy this world. For their selfish system of belief. We cant do much about Iran but we can clean house here in the U.S.A. Vote out all incumbants. its the only way.

This is idiotic. The leftists on the supreme court took more Freedom away from us in the last two weeks than if George Bush ruled for another 50 years.

First, they turned us into a communist communal property state with their absurd and horrific eminent domain ruling. You and I no longer have property rights. We only own our homes until the government decides it can use the land better than we can. Then, they continued the push to remove religion from every public place, and disguised it witha follow up ruling that was intended to create the perception of balance.

Aurora

06-28-2005, 05:54 PM

Republicans & Democrats are to blame for our problems but at the moment the Republicans run the whole show. Lets not forget that we had had how many republican presidents vs democrats in the past 30 years or so and guess who appoints those judges? Republicans are being ran by their extremist just as the democrats are for sure
. .....But back on Iran the Free world cant just sit around. its way to dangerous. Iran doesnt understand these right wing republicans who run our govt at the moment. Talking tough after 5 years of George they should know better. Didnt they watch any of our airstrikes? The Stick..... IF they wanted my 2 cents i would scrap the whole thing and let Russia build them a different plant that has no weapons conversion possibilities. Use that for opening trade with other countries.The Carrot....

steve666

06-28-2005, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by New
so why are you not more worried about them? Pakistan is far more unstable than Iran.

In some ways, yes, some ways, no.
Pakistan is ruled by the military, which is allied with the US. I use the term ally loosely, because I believe they know where Bin Laden is, they are just afraid to capture him and rile the masses.

New

06-28-2005, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by steve666
In some ways, yes, some ways, no.
Pakistan is ruled by the military, which is allied with the US. I use the term ally loosely, because I believe they know where Bin Laden is, they are just afraid to capture him and rile the masses.

The millitary is allied with the US? rich...

Gene Clean

06-28-2005, 07:12 PM

iPoster:

B) Israel has defeated the aggressors conventionally in every previous war

I'm sorry, but you're either uninformed, or just plain lying. No one has attacked Israel in the wars it won - Israel attacked first, committing an aggression.

DO NOT FORGET TO MENTION THAT FACT.

Gene Clean

06-28-2005, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by New
The millitary is allied with the US? rich...

...:lol:

Pakistan is not ruled by the military. There was a military coup d'etat, but seeing as large parts of the country were not controlled by the military since at least 1980s, there was not much to rule militarily except perhaps Islamabad.

Pakistan is divided into different zones, with tribes who have their own militaries or quasi-militaries ruling their own set territory. That's why some months ago Pakistani military was in need to fight back when they got attacked by those tribesmen who thought that the military was not respecting the agreement.

steve666

06-28-2005, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by Gene Clean
iPoster:

I'm sorry, but you're either uninformed, or just plain lying. No one has attacked Israel in the wars it won - Israel attacked first, committing an aggression.

DO NOT FORGET TO MENTION THAT FACT.

False.
The Arabs attacked Israel the second the UN declared Israel to be a nation.
The other 2 wars, Israel once acted at the behest of France and Britain.
The other, Israel attacked premptively when Egypt, Syria, and Jordan massed troops at their border.

DO NOT FORGET TO MENTION THAT FACT

steve666

06-28-2005, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by Gene Clean
...:lol:

Pakistan is not ruled by the military. There was a military coup d'etat, but seeing as large parts of the country were not controlled by the military since at least 1980s, there was not much to rule militarily except perhaps Islamabad.

Pakistan is divided into different zones, with tribes who have their own militaries or quasi-militaries ruling their own set territory. That's why some months ago Pakistani military was in need to fight back when they got attacked by those tribesmen who thought that the military was not respecting the agreement.

The Govmnt that we deal with is run by the military. Whether they control the entire country is another question. They certainly dont.

Gene Clean

06-28-2005, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by steve666
False.
The Arabs attacked Israel the second the UN declared Israel to be a nation.

Not according to what Wikipedia says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War). Pay close attention to who started attacking the British and villages:

First phase: November 29, 1947 - April 1, 1948

Right after the UN partition plan was approved, heavy fighting broke out in Palestine. The British Army frequently intervened, but as the end of British involvement in Palestine drew nearer and attacks on them by Irgun* and Lehi** increased, their intervention grew steadily more inconsistent and reluctant.

On December 18 the Palmach, the kibbutz-based force of the Haganah commanded by Moshe Dayan, attacked the village of Khissas. Three weeks later the first Arab irregulars arrived and the Arab leadership began to organize Palestinians in order to wage guerrilla war against the Jewish forces. The largest group was a volunteer army, the Arab Liberation Army, created by the Arab League and led by Arab nationalist Fawzi Al-Qawuqji. In January and February, Arab irregular forces attacked Jewish communities in northern Palestine but achieved no substantial successes.

The Arabs concentrated their efforts on cutting off roads to Jewish towns and Jewish neighborhoods in areas with mixed populations. They also massacred several Jewish convoys. At the end of March, the Arabs completely cut off the vital road going from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem where one sixth of Palestine's Jews lived.

The Haganah armed itself with arms bought from Czechoslovakia. The Yishuv began working on a plan called Plan Dalet (or Plan D).

The other 2 wars, Israel once acted at the behest of France and Britain.

So they attacked because Britain and France told them to, right? How does that make the Arabs aggressors?

The other, Israel attacked premptively when Egypt, Syria, and Jordan massed troops at their border.

Once again, how does Israel's attack make Arabs aggressors?

DO NOT FORGET TO MENTION THAT FACT [/B]

This pile of rubbish, you mean.

* A nationalist-terrorist group consisting of Zionisist-minded people active in Palestine from 1931 to 1948. A.K.A "National Military Organization".

** Lehi (Hebrew acronym for Lohamei Herut Israel, "Fighters for the Freedom of Israel") a radical self-described terrorist group that had as its goal the eviction of the British from Palestine to allow unrestricted immigration of Jews and the formation of a Jewish state. (wikipedia).

Gene Clean

06-28-2005, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by steve666
The Govmnt that we deal with is run by the military.

Perhaps.

Whether they control the entire country is another question. They certainly dont.

So, how does the military rule the country in this case? By ruling the government building in Islamabad?

steve666

06-28-2005, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Not according to what Wikipedia says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War). Pay close attention to who started attacking the British and villages:

So they attacked because Britain and France told them to, right? How does that make the Arabs aggressors?

Once again, how does Israel's attack make Arabs aggressors?

This pile of rubbish, you mean.

* A nationalist-terrorist group consisting of Zionisist-minded people active in Palestine from 1931 to 1948. A.K.A "National Military Organization".

** Lehi (Hebrew acronym for Lohamei Herut Israel, "Fighters for the Freedom of Israel") a radical self-described terrorist group that had as its goal the eviction of the British from Palestine to allow unrestricted immigration of Jews and the formation of a Jewish state. (wikipedia).

The Arabs were against the formation of Israel from the beginning and they attacked the moment the State was formed. I dont know what that 'source' of information is, but it is common knowledge that the Arabs were ready to pounce immediately. Unfortunately for you, Israel succeeded.
The War over the Suez was started by France and Britain and israel joined them. Even the US opposed it at the time.
The Yom Kippur War, Arabs started a surprise attack against Israel. Again, unfortunately for you Israel won anyway.
The last war to mention, Israel attacked first after seeing Arab armies massing on the border ready to attack. That is not a war of aggression by any sense of the definition.

So, Israel had one War which was an act of aggression, the rest were not.
And THOSE are the facts, Jack

steve666

06-28-2005, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Perhaps.

So, how does the military rule the country in this case? By ruling the government building in Islamabad?

We have to talk to someone, dont we? And the military controls the Nukes.

e1618978

06-28-2005, 08:58 PM

Gene - you seem to have a real chip on your shoulder with regard to Israel.

I think the Egypt deserved to get its butt kicked when they aggressively massed troops on the Israeli border, and (at the same time) the leader of Egypt said that he was going to kill all the jews in Israel.

You don't share that view, I understand from previous threads, but to me you seem irrational in this particular area.

Gene Clean

06-28-2005, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
[B]Gene - you seem to have a real chip on your shoulder with regard to Israel.

And you seem to love what they did and still do.

I think the Egypt deserved to get its butt kicked when they aggressively massed troops on the Israeli border, and (at the same time) the leader of Egypt said that he was going to kill all the jews in Israel.

Just like the US deserved to get its butt kicked when they lined up their (our) troops in the border with Afghanistan and Iraq and the leader of USA said "we gonna smoke 'em out". But you call them terrorists, don't you?

You don't share that view, I understand from previous threads, but to me you seem irrational in this particular area.

No rational individual shares that view. Read the link I provided, it's a credible source. It doesn't share your and 666's view either.

Sad, I know, but Israel is not an angel.

Gene Clean

06-28-2005, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by steve666
We have to talk to someone, dont we? And the military controls the Nukes.

I thought Nukes were baaaaaaaad. Are they, or are they not?

NaplesX

06-28-2005, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by Gene Clean
And you seem to love what they did and still do.

Just like the US deserved to get its butt kicked when they lined up their (our) troops in the border with Afghanistan and Iraq and the leader of USA said "we gonna smoke 'em out". But you call them terrorists, don't you?

No rational individual shares that view. Read the link I provided, it's a credible source. It doesn't share your and 666's view either.

Sad, I know, but Israel is not an angel. Nor is any government... so now that we have that out of the way. so what?

Iran is making all the preparations to acquire nuclear weapons, or maybe they just want it for energy purposes.

So what do we do? Just wait and see, I suppose?

Sounds like a solid plan.

:no:

Gene Clean

06-28-2005, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
Nor is any government... so now that we have that out of the way. so what?

I'll tell you what: when others point that out, don't start whining and crying. It's irrational to blame the Arabs for all the wrong-doings in that part of the world, as is, of course, irrational to blame all the Jews/Israelis.

Iran is making all the preparations to acquire nuclear weapons, or maybe they just want it for energy purposes.

The same weapons that Israel, Pakistan, India, et al have. All notable allies of the US.

So what do we do? Just wait and see, I suppose?

No, we tell them that they should use the stuff they produce for their energy sector - the same way they claim they'll use it - and that we will help them do it. If we start threatening them, that will only turn them into a radical society - the symptoms are already showing, re: the new President of Iran. You think they voted him for his mayoral skills as ex-mayor of Tehran?

No. They voted for him because they saw in him a man that will stand up to the threats of US and EU. He's a by-product of threats and the ignoring of their legitimate needs (re: energy).

Sounds like a solid plan.

:no:

Certainly better than Operation Iraqi Freedom.

NaplesX

06-28-2005, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by Gene Clean
I'll tell you what: when others point that out, don't start whining and crying. It's irrational to blame the Arabs for all the wrong-doings in that part of the world, as is, of course, irrational to blame all the Jews/Israelis. But it's fair to blame the US for all the problems in that part of the world? Not that I don't agree with you, but who exactly do we hold accountable for absolute gutter that part of the world has become in the last decades? It makes sense to hold those that lead in that area responsible to some degree, no?

There is no denying that the Arab world is hostile toward Israel. Most major governments support directly and indirectly the killing of innocent Israelis through their support of Palestinian terrorist homicide-bombers. Do you deny this? They are not discouraging this kind of behavior, rather demand that Israel pull back and tear down their protective walls. Who do we hold accountable for that?

Originally posted by Gene Clean
The same weapons that Israel, Pakistan, India, et al have. All notable allies of the US. Iran openly supported/supports terrorism against the US. They also want to threaten Israel. Do you not realize this?

Originally posted by Gene Clean
No, we tell them that they should use the stuff they produce for their energy sector - the same way they claim they'll use it - and that we will help them do it. If we start threatening them, that will only turn them into a radical society - the symptoms are already showing, re: the new President of Iran. You think they voted him for his mayoral skills as ex-mayor of Tehran?

No. They voted for him because they saw in him a man that will stand up to the threats of US and EU. He's a by-product of threats and the ignoring of their legitimate needs (re: energy). You trust Iran to do what we say? You are very trusting of longtime enemy of the US, I'll give you that.

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Certainly better than Operation Iraqi Freedom. I'm not sure how you came to that decision.

steve666

06-28-2005, 11:40 PM

>]And you seem to love what they did and still do. <

Why shouldn't he support Israel. You find me a better country in that region of the world.

>Just like the US deserved to get its butt kicked when they lined up their (our) troops in the border with Afghanistan and Iraq and the leader of USA said "we gonna smoke 'em out". But you call them terrorists, don't you? <

The US had no reason to go into Afghanistan? That one statement alone shows what we are dealing with here. You are virulently anti-American, Anti-Israeli, Anti-West. How about you go live with your brothers in arms?

<No rational individual shares that view. Read the link I provided, it's a credible source. It doesn't share your and 666's view either. <

No rational individuals share your views of the world on almost anything. You are a radical leftist who views the world through Arab eyes. I suppose Bin Laden is one of your heroes.

>Sad, I know, but Israel is not an angel. >

Noone said they were. But your obsession with it leaves one to wonder what kind of agenda you wield. Israel is a country with pluses and flaws like any other country.
But heres the deal-they dont try to kill Americans. Or Europeans for that matter. Your Muslim friends do. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

:devil: