It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran....here we go again?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Q
I do recall Iran's condolences on 9-11. It was surprising, to me at least.


- well that's a start, I'm glad someone remembers it!


However, there is a big difference between the Iranian people and their government. While we had the sympathies of the people, I'm sure the government officials danced in the halls and fired up stogies.


- How on earth can you possibly say this? Said who? Are you guessing?

Are you claiming to know lots of Iranians personally, did they contact you about this?

You want it both ways I think. One the one hand you seem to think it's such a crushing neo-fascist dictatorial theocracy in the strictest control of everything and on the other the 'people' were free to express the natural sympathy they did. That doesn't make any sense.

IIRC you/we only heard about it because the Iranian Governement gave it's official sympathies. You only heard about it because western news teams were free to go about Iran telling you of the reaction.

Individual Iranian idiot zealots may have expressed views to the contrary but such is life and previous US involvedment in Iran/ME is probably the real reason rather than any genuine 'joy' at 9/11 happening.


Personally, I sympathize with the Iranian people's plight, and would wish to help get them out from under the thumb of their government.


- Oh I'd love to know just how much you actually know about Iran.

The Aayatollah died some time ago you know. They just had elections you know. How free do you think they were? ....and how did the limitations they place on such matters compare with the limitations the US or any western country place in similar circumstances?


(ANY people under ANY theocratic government, really.) Unfortunately, I think that to many people there is no distinction, much like the rest of the world's current opinion of the US. Sad really, on both counts.


- Hmmm, your President apparantly has meetings with 'Bible-believing Christians' and has been known to run policy by them, is that theocratic? It mightn't be quite as the ME types do it but it is very weird and rather scary to me.

....and as for sad what do you call this 'with us or against us and to hell with differing opinion' that is considered 'normal' by some (many?) in the USA now? What about the latest idea of withdrawing from the UN? How closed is that? How 'free' is that meant to be, really?

....and what craziness is it that has us all dioscussing war after war as if it were the most normal thing going? Iran has not attacked the USA - despite a history where the USA propped up a repressive and murderous monarchy and for decades exploited the wealth of Iran - so why on earth is the USA considering attacking Iran?



[edit on 25-7-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



Q

posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 03:56 AM
link   
Sminkey: lay off the caffene, hoss. You seem a little uptight.


You seem to be under the impression that I have no idea WTF I'm talking about. This would be a mistaken assumption. We all know what happens when we ass-u-me!


I takes no torturous amount of research to figure out the Iranian government hates the US. It's no big secret, and has not been for many years. While I used the analogy of 'firing up stogies and dancing in the halls', this would of course be an exaggeration. In all seriousness, I think that the main reaction of the hard-liners of the Iranian government was disappointment in the fact that they were not directly responsible for 9-11. Believe what you want, the Iranian government hates the US with a passion, has said so publicly, to the point of announcing they're going to destroy us. This is unarguable fact. A pipe dream, but the statement was made nonetheless.

Of course, it is not the entire Iranian government who is so warped, only the stodgy old Mullahs who still haven't figured out that the people of Iran don't want their rule. While the elections were indeed held, most real progress attempted by the moderates is neatly quashed. The Iranian people just want the same things as everyone else: modern conveniences and freedom from being under the thumb of a totalitarian theocratic regime. It's not that they 'want to be like the US', that would be an unrealistically vain and arrogant statement. However, many of the same core wants and needs of any modern civilized society are there. The college students protest, and the Mullahs send in their thugs to bust some heads and quiet them down for awhile.

I/we only heard about the "official" Iranian reaction to 9-11 because we were allowed to, true enough. It was great PR for them, made them look downright humanitarian for a while even-this obviously being the motive behind it. However, any sympathy from any people was appreciated; even if it was only released as a PR tool for the government, the feelings of the people were there. No, I didn't ask any Iranians about it, but I don't really think the majority of any people wish such a thing to happen to others.

While it's true that the US president is indeed a Christian, and he does let it guide him to an extent, but that is not necessarily unhealthy so long as it is not the deciding factor. Most world leaders do belong to one faith or another, but do not allow it to dictate the policy of the entire nation. It's not something that gets rammed down everyone's throat--our hulking behemoth of a government doesn't allow for any one faction to impose their will upon the masses. You wouldn't hear such a fuss about 'one nation under god' and having the 15 (uhhh-ten! Ten commandments!) in courtrooms if this were the case. Everyone would just have to suck it up and bear it-there are those here who would have it that way were it possible. Fortunately, cooler heads prevail.

Funny, I don't remember mentioning the UN. But hey, since you threw it out there: The UN is worthless and corrupt. That's right. They do nothing, they are nothing. The UN indeed would not exist without the US. Face facts: they cannot do so much as pay for their own electricity. If the UN cannot function as the multinational forum it was intended to be at it's inception, then it is as useless as such and the US' support should be summarily discontinued. Really, after oil-for-food and the joke that the UNHRC has become, can you really say you support the UN with a straight face?

As for the 'with us or against us', that's not too unreasonable either. If you're for modern civilization that all of humanity has worked so hard to achieve, then you're with us. If you're for the likes of people who consider beheading truck drivers and suicide bombing civillians the epitome of political correctness, for the very people who would unflinchingly kill you in an attempt to keep humanity in the stone age, then you're against 'us'. While the statement was made referring to the US, on a larger scale it is the whole of humanity. If it's that much of a moral conundrum, then there are some bigger issues that need to be dealt with personally. Honestly, if one places oneself in the 'against' category, then this would seemingly make one a traitor to their own species, and therefore subject to 'systematic removal, like you would any kind of termite or roach'. If one chooses to be an angry pimple on the very butt-cheek of humanity, it should come as no surprise when one gets 'popped'.

Countless people have met their demise despite being 'not afraid of death'. Fear of death doesn't enter into it, it only makes those not intelligent enough to posess it easier targets. "The voice of the preachers of death ring out everywhere: and the earth is full of people to whom death needs to be preached--or "eternal life": it makes no difference to me--as long as they leave here soon!"

noooo, they don't want war with us...

gee, don't protest there...

[edit on 27-7-2004 by Q]



posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Q
Sminkey: lay off the caffene, hoss. You seem a little uptight.


- no, not at all, thanks.


You seem to be under the impression that I have no idea WTF I'm talking about. This would be a mistaken assumption. We all know what happens when we ass-u-me!


- no, I just disagreed with you, that's all.


I takes no torturous amount of research to figure out the Iranian government hates the US. It's no big secret, and has not been for many years. While I used the analogy of 'firing up stogies and dancing in the halls', this would of course be an exaggeration. In all seriousness, I think that the main reaction of the hard-liners of the Iranian government was disappointment in the fact that they were not directly responsible for 9-11. Believe what you want, the Iranian government hates the US with a passion, has said so publicly, to the point of announcing they're going to destroy us. This is unarguable fact. A pipe dream, but the statement was made nonetheless.


- Well as I said that may have once been true and it maybe still true of some but the days of the '79 revolutionary regime are long gone.....so, a war with Iran is OK because.....?


Of course, it is not the entire Iranian government who is so warped, only the stodgy old Mullahs who still haven't figured out that the people of Iran don't want their rule. While the elections were indeed held, most real progress attempted by the moderates is neatly quashed. The Iranian people just want the same things as everyone else: modern conveniences and freedom from being under the thumb of a totalitarian theocratic regime. It's not that they 'want to be like the US', that would be an unrealistically vain and arrogant statement. However, many of the same core wants and needs of any modern civilized society are there. The college students protest, and the Mullahs send in their thugs to bust some heads and quiet them down for awhile.


- That still doesn't negate the fact that life in Iran is becoming 'freer' and that the religious fundamentalists have less and less of a grip on the people.

......and even if true just because (some of) the Iranian leadership don't like you this makes a new war with them ok because......?


I/we only heard about the "official" Iranian reaction to 9-11 because we were allowed to, true enough. It was great PR for them, made them look downright humanitarian for a while even-this obviously being the motive behind it.


- So you are now not ignoring or dismissing the event just questioning the motive? We can all spend eternity going in circles like that!


However, any sympathy from any people was appreciated; even if it was only released as a PR tool for the government, the feelings of the people were there. No, I didn't ask any Iranians about it, but I don't really think the majority of any people wish such a thing to happen to others.


- I think (seeing as the topic was the idea of a new war in Iran) that the one thing you can be certain of is that the Iranian people do not wish to be attacked and dragged into a war. Fundamentalist leadership or not.


While it's true that the US president is indeed a Christian, and he does let it guide him to an extent, but that is not necessarily unhealthy so long as it is not the deciding factor.


- Yeah OK, but I find so-called 'Christian fundamentalists' pretty much as scary as Muslim fundamentalists and reports that Bush consults with literal 'Bible believing' 'Christians' is damn worrying to me.


Most world leaders do belong to one faith or another, but do not allow it to dictate the policy of the entire nation. It's not something that gets rammed down everyone's throat--our hulking behemoth of a government doesn't allow for any one faction to impose their will upon the masses. You wouldn't hear such a fuss about 'one nation under god' and having the 15 (uhhh-ten! Ten commandments!) in courtrooms if this were the case. Everyone would just have to suck it up and bear it-there are those here who would have it that way were it possible. Fortunately, cooler heads prevail.


- Here's hoping. But I have to say watching the advance fo the so-called 'Christian right' in the USA since the 70's I am not convinced.


Funny, I don't remember mentioning the UN. But hey, since you threw it out there: The UN is worthless and corrupt. That's right. They do nothing, they are nothing. The UN indeed would not exist without the US. Face facts: they cannot do so much as pay for their own electricity.


- Ummm, they're meant to be like a cooperative club....'they are the membership' type of thing. If members don't pay their dues (like the USA didn't for years) no wonder 'they' can't pay their bills, hmm?


If the UN cannot function as the multinational forum it was intended to be at it's inception, then it is as useless as such and the US' support should be summarily discontinued. Really, after oil-for-food and the joke that the UNHRC has become, can you really say you support the UN with a straight face?


- If people would operate the UN as intended rather than fear and avoid working with and through it then things might be a damned sight better. One way or another we need greater cooperation not this further splintering that is being encouraged by these attitudes.


As for the 'with us or against us', that's not too unreasonable either. If you're for modern civilization that all of humanity has worked so hard to achieve, then you're with us.


- hang on, according to whom? What gives you the 'right' to impose your ideals and version of "modern living" elsewhere? These ideas of imposition are a lot of the problem.


If you're for the likes of people who consider beheading truck drivers and suicide bombing civillians the epitome of political correctness, for the very people who would unflinchingly kill you in an attempt to keep humanity in the stone age, then you're against 'us'.


- This is plain nuts. A strawman arguement. I am not supporting beheadings for goodness sake. Get real.

The people that are are indeed very angry people - and yes dangerous - because they have either been starved, used or attacked by the west or the wests' proxies for years. They reject the west and western values whicxh they see as utterly corrupt.....and considering the long sorry history of western involvement in the region who can blame them?

....or are you so blinkered that the causes of this anger are of no consequence to you? That seems pretty stupid to me seeing as it is causing great hurt to your (and my) people.


While the statement was made referring to the US, on a larger scale it is the whole of humanity. If it's that much of a moral conundrum, then there are some bigger issues that need to be dealt with personally.


- Hang on, it wasn't. That speech was made to the whole world and very deliberately so. Get real.

It's stupid, it's counterproductive, it's too small, it's too simplistic and it deliberately chooses to ignore wider realities; so yes I agree, I'd say those are big personal issues to deal with, how come you're looking to everyone else to sort these rather than suggesting the actual jerk responsible?


Honestly, if one places oneself in the 'against' category, then this would seemingly make one a traitor to their own species,


- yeah very funny, who's suffering too much caffeine now, huh?

To hell with these idiotic limited neo-fascist 'either or' forced options. Start talking sensibly like an adult and not a conceited idiotic adolescent for God's sake.

.....and to return to the original topic; this justifies a new Iranian war, how?


and therefore subject to 'systematic removal, like you would any kind of termite or roach'. If one chooses to be an angry pimple on the very butt-cheek of humanity, it should come as no surprise when one gets 'popped'.


- still on the blinkered fascist fantasy, still cheering on the day of the mono-culture huh? Let us know when you're finished and ready to talk reasonably with your fellow man, eh?


Countless people have met their demise despite being 'not afraid of death'. Fear of death doesn't enter into it, it only makes those not intelligent enough to posess it easier targets. "The voice of the preachers of death ring out everywhere: and the earth is full of people to whom death needs to be preached--or "eternal life": it makes no difference to me--as long as they leave here soon!"


- yeah, ra ra ra hooray for war, very pointless, very boring.

noooo, they don't want war with us... - hmm, so I guess one link proves it all then does it?

gee, don't protest there... - and this proves what beyond great anger?

[edit on 27-7-2004 by Q]


Q

posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey - no, I just disagreed with you, that's all.


That's healthy. Other than being called 'an idiotic limited neo-facist', I've enjoyed our discussion.



- Well as I said that may have once been true and it maybe still true of some but the days of the '79 revolutionary regime are long gone.....so, a war with Iran is OK because.....?


Times have changed, this is true, and there is much to be hopeful for in these dark times. Were some things different, we could be on a much clearer road in regard to Iran-US relations.


- That still doesn't negate the fact that life in Iran is becoming 'freer' and that the religious fundamentalists have less and less of a grip on the people.


This is true. So why did you criticize me when I expressed support for the Iranian people in pursuit of this freedom in my earlier post?


......and even if true just because (some of) the Iranian leadership don't like you this makes a new war with them ok because......?


It's not so much a matter of not being liked-that's a matter of opinion and frankly, we really don't care about that. The case in point is not likability, but being publicly threatened with annihilation on a near-daily basis. The US turned the other cheek for the past 20 years at everyone in the ME jumping up and down screaming about how they were going to kill us all. As has become painfully obvious, we can no longer afford that luxury.


- So you are now not ignoring or dismissing the event just questioning the motive? We can all spend eternity going in circles like that!


I didn't ignore or dismiss the event to begin with! As a matter of fact, I do believe I was one of the only posts that actually acknowledged it at all. Again, why the flaming of me when we were essentially in agreement on the matter? You get 20 'kill all Iranians' posts, yet you pick the one who actually somewhat sided with you to jump on?



- I think (seeing as the topic was the idea of a new war in Iran) that the one thing you can be certain of is that the Iranian people do not wish to be attacked and dragged into a war. Fundamentalist leadership or not.


Of course they don't. We'd rather not be put in a position where aggression is required, either. Abondoning the "great Satan" bit would be a nice start. Relentless determination in pursuit of nuclear weapons despite worldwide condemnation doesn't exactly inspire confidence either. If things could be taken in the other direction, I think there could be meaningful non-military engagement between the US and Iran. Apparently no-one's informed Khameni that 'you catch more flies with honey than vinegar'.


- Yeah OK, but I find so-called 'Christian fundamentalists' pretty much as scary as Muslim fundamentalists and reports that Bush consults with literal 'Bible believing' 'Christians' is damn worrying to me.


Most understandable. I'd think this is more of an attempt to woo a sizable voter bloc than any actual politico-religious agenda.


- Here's hoping. But I have to say watching the advance fo the so-called 'Christian right' in the USA since the 70's I am not convinced.


I'm with you on this. I do still think that there are enough balances in place to prevent such a 'holy roller takeover'.


- Ummm, they're meant to be like a cooperative club....'they are the membership' type of thing. If members don't pay their dues (like the USA didn't for years) no wonder 'they' can't pay their bills, hmm?


Again, you prove my point for me. If we don't make our payment 'as a member', then the rest of the UN body cannot cough up enough amongst themselves to cover it? There you have it, without the US, the UN is nothing.


- If people would operate the UN as intended rather than fear and avoid working with and through it then things might be a damned sight better. One way or another we need greater cooperation not this further splintering that is being encouraged by these attitudes.


This is also true. The concept of the UN is good, but I think a few things just got lost somewhere along the way. Had it really been 'oil for food' rather than 'oil and big phat bribes for food, banned military tech, and political clout', things may not be in such a sorry state as they are.


- hang on, according to whom? What gives you the 'right' to impose your ideals and version of "modern living" elsewhere? These ideas of imposition are a lot of the problem.


I don't mean to imply some sort of Pax Americana here, what I'm talking about are basic human freedoms and the pursuit of happiness without having to worry about being beaten if too much hair is sticking out of your burqa, or getting thrown in prison for having a satelite dish, or...


- This is plain nuts. A strawman arguement. I am not supporting beheadings for goodness sake. Get real.


I was merely trying to communicate the seriousness of the depravity of the 'against us' faction. These sort of actions are exactly what TWAT is trying to put a stop to.


The people that are are indeed very angry people - and yes dangerous - because they have either been starved, used or attacked by the west or the wests' proxies for years. They reject the west and western values whicxh they see as utterly corrupt.....and considering the long sorry history of western involvement in the region who can blame them?


Starved...by their own despots? The very people whom we'd like to see removed from power as much as the 'starvees' would? Granted, "the west" has made mistakes in relations, as have the countries in question. This is all so much in the past, though! Like you said, it isn't 1979 anymore and we should all be able to move on. Unfortunately, some people just want to stir the sh** just to see how bad it still smells after 25 years.


....or are you so blinkered that the causes of this anger are of no consequence to you? That seems pretty stupid to me seeing as it is causing great hurt to your (and my) people.


To my knowledge, I've never done a thing to cause all this anger. I work for a living same as anyone else...heck, all the petrol I consume is actually putting loads of cash in the hands of countries who would have virtually no other industry or exports otherwise. I didn't have anything to do with the Shah, I didn't have anything to do with Afghanistan, I didn't have anything to do with 90% of these so-called "causes" you speak of. Yet, I'm supposed to accept that there's a price on my head, and that of everyone I know because they're so angry?


- Hang on, it wasn't. That speech was made to the whole world and very deliberately so. Get real.


Very deliberately indeed, there needed to be no miscommunication or confusion. What I was trying to convey in my last post was that the statement transcends a simple "US vs. the world" attitude. This is a war being fought to keep all of humanity from being devolved into the same barbaric state that we existed in hundreds of years ago, and the stakes are indeed that far-reaching.


It's stupid, it's counterproductive, it's too small, it's too simplistic and it deliberately chooses to ignore wider realities; so yes I agree, I'd say those are big personal issues to deal with, how come you're looking to everyone else to sort these rather than suggesting the actual jerk responsible?


Wider realities...such as? Please elaborate. If we're the aggressor trying to bully everyone else around, how can we be looking to everyone else to sort things out for us at the same time? On one hand you have the "US is a superpower and should take care of things" viewpoint, on the other hand there is the "US should work with everyone else" viewpoint. No matter which route we choose, we're sure to do wrong in the eyes of one or the other.

By 'the actual jerk', I assume you're referring to OBL & company. In that case, I'd have to say we've probably already dealt with the jerk in question and are currently rounding up his partners in crime. Al-Qaeda is a big organization, and their fingers are buried in deep all over.


- yeah very funny, who's suffering too much caffeine now, huh?


Point taken. I was trying to underscore the importance of TWAT, in that there must be no quarter given to terrorists.


To hell with these idiotic limited neo-fascist 'either or' forced options. Start talking sensibly like an adult and not a conceited idiotic adolescent for God's sake.


Now, that was just uncalled for. And we were doing so well!



.....and to return to the original topic; this justifies a new Iranian war, how?


Ummm...I never said it did? I personally feel that a war with Iran would benefit no-one, save those brought out from under the yoke of the mullahs, and that would come at a terrible price. I would much rather see either a reformed government, or a revolt from within install a new one. Khatami and his bunch have made some progress, and do seem to try very hard, with the support of the people, to make things better. Unfortunately, Khameni and his bunch are only tightening their weakening grip on the people in an attempt to stave off the inevitable.


- still on the blinkered fascist fantasy, still cheering on the day of the mono-culture huh? Let us know when you're finished and ready to talk reasonably with your fellow man, eh?


You really like this word, 'blinkered', don't you?
As I said before, I harbor no illusions about Iran becoming a "mono-culture, little America". Duuh--that's not gonna happen. However, I do think there is the potential there to become a much better example of mideast democracy than Iraq can attain at this time. Also, please understand that the 'systematic removal' I quoted (from a very good song by Tool) was directed toward those who would see us exist as little more than clothed apes, rather than my fellow man.


- yeah, ra ra ra hooray for war, very pointless, very boring.


Yet, you seem to key right in on my posts for rambling responses, rather than others who were obviously way farther from your viewpoint, don't you?



- hmm, so I guess one link proves it all then does it?


Not really. I only provided this one as "case in point" example. If you care to do your own Googling, you'll find many references to the events in question on many other pages.


- and this proves what beyond great anger?


That the people of Iran don't like Khameni any better than we do, are trying to make changes, and are being brutally dealt with by a regime that is clutching at any straw it can to maintain control. You disagree?





posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Q

Other than being called 'an idiotic limited neo-facist', I've enjoyed our discussion.


- now come on, be fair, I actually said "idiotic limited neo-fascist options, didn't I?


Times have changed, this is true, and there is much to be hopeful for in these dark times. Were some things different, we could be on a much clearer road in regard to Iran-US relations.


- yes, agreed, here's hoping it's not too late.


So why did you criticize me when I expressed support for the Iranian people in pursuit of this freedom in my earlier post?


- I thought you were painting a picture of the Iranian regime that was unfounded. It is indeed in places repressive but it is undeniably losing it's grip and is nothing like what it once was.


It's not so much a matter of not being liked-that's a matter of opinion and frankly, we really don't care about that. The case in point is not likability, but being publicly threatened with annihilation on a near-daily basis.


- I suppose here is where we start to differ significantly. I don't accept that 'you' or 'we in the west' truely face annihilation. Attack yes, but horrible as it is to admit......um, welcome to the world the rest of us thave been living in for the last xyz years my friend. Such is modern living at times and in most places. It's risky.....and I'm not saying it's ok but it is the reality.


The US turned the other cheek for the past 20 years at everyone in the jumping up and down screaming about how they were going to kill us all. As has become painfully obvious, we can no longer afford that luxury.


- No one is going to kill 'all' of anybody. WMD'as require a massive infrastructure at vast expense that only the wealthiest countries can afford.....you don't think 'we' all spent the fortunes we did in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's etc etc for nothing do you?

.....and even in the unlikely event that some country was to manage (somehow) a single junior version 'event' the inevitable accompanyiong 'calling cards' guarantee the sender has just committed suicide.

I don't believe for a moment that it's going to happen.

Even the Tokyo subway nerve gas attack showed that the most lethal of weapons (in theory) require an understanding private groups do not have and cannot 'just' attain through mere possession of the weapon itself.


why the flaming of me when we were essentially in agreement on the matter?


- sorry, I didn't think I was.



You get 20 'kill all Iranians' posts, yet you pick the one who actually somewhat sided with you to jump on?


- consider it a compliament, why would I want to debate to and fro with 20 obvious war-perv *blinkered* lunatics?
:


Abondoning the "great Satan" bit would be a nice start.


- actually I don't think we're too far from that now. Iran is building relations with the UK so I don't think it'll be too many years away for the USA.....provided other 'events' don't interrupt.


Relentless determination in pursuit of nuclear weapons despite worldwide condemnation doesn't exactly inspire confidence either.


- but we do have a massive double-standard on this. We seem to just accept if not be actually happy about it that Israel has them, Pakistan now has them, India has them but the ME Arabian countries can't? I'll agree about the confidence issue but since when was that the law? If anything recent events have given an incentive to nations to acquire WMDs asap - and not for any reason other than their national security. Wouldn't you say?

Having said that it also seems that some are determined that Iran's actions are all about weapons acquisition when that is far from clear.


Apparently no-one's informed Khameni that 'you catch more flies with honey than vinegar'.


- I'd say he's not alone in needing that little lesson retelling, huh?


I'm with you on this. I do still think that there are enough balances in place to prevent such a 'holy roller takeover'.


- I hope you're right.


I don't mean to imply some sort of Pax Americana here, what I'm talking about are basic human freedoms and the pursuit of happiness without having to worry about being beaten if too much hair is sticking out of your burqa, or getting thrown in prison for having a satelite dish, or...


- well I get the principle and obviously I am not going to agree in repression over satellite dishes etc....but you will find, for instance, many Muslim women who believe that in lifes' trade-offs some of the things we see as repressive and unfree are acceptable to them because they believe it gives them freedoms in other spheres of live. Basic human freedom does not go by the one definition. Maybe you agree with the death penalty, I don't. I see that as fundamental, maybe you don't.

Now I'm not a Muslim so I don't know how widespread or true this idea is but I can see that maybe my western ideas aren't necessarily to everyones' taste, culture or teaching and that which seems straight-forward to me might not be in all cases.


I was merely trying to communicate the seriousness of the depravity of the 'against us' faction. These sort of actions are exactly what TWAT is trying to put a stop to.


- Hmm, again I'll say OK in principle, but I don't believe you can actually have a war against a noun.

I live in Northern Ireland, we had 'terorism' (depending on your point of view) for over 30yrs. It stopped due to the political changes here not because of any military victory.

A genuine military victory proved impossible and the sacrifices we had to make to suppress 'terrorism' to a low level would have been thought unacceptable in most places.....and still it happened.

We got into viewing each other as 'mindless', 'we couldn't ever trust them', 'barbarians', 'pure evil', 'that we were incapable of any kind of dialogue with monsters like them' etc etc....oh yes, it's easily done and I've heard a lot of this before.

From a British point of view many Americans found 'them' perfectly reasonable and logical in what 'they' wanted. Many Americans felt the violence justified despite the British describing it as terrorism.

From an Irish nationalist point of view the British were state terrorists.

Black and whites, huh? It's worth remembering IMO.


Starved...by their own despots?


- sometimes, yes. Sometimes starved by their own despots we helped into power and sustained in power......just like Saddam, in fact. Sometimes the despot arose as a proxy supported by our cold-war opponents in their cold warring with us. Never the less we have involved ourselves (especially in the ME) and not always in a positve manner.


This is all so much in the past, though! Like you said, it isn't 1979 anymore and we should all be able to move on. Unfortunately, some people just want to stir the sh** just to see how bad it still smells after 25 years.


- some of that is true enough but after a century of western experience, some British, some French some German recently American one can maybe appreciate that the memories run deep and long.....and new wars don't help.


To my knowledge, I've never done a thing to cause all this anger.


- me neither personally speaking. But I know my countries' history and I know they have not a lot to feel happy about with my lot and I think it's similar with yours.


I didn't have anything to do with the Shah, I didn't have anything to do with Afghanistan, I didn't have anything to do with 90% of these so-called "causes" you speak of. Yet, I'm supposed to accept that there's a price on my head, and that of everyone I know because they're so angry?


- I suppose the point is that we recognise that reality and try and do something to change it. Of course you personally didn't 'do' it just like I didn't either.

You're not happy about it, I'm not happy about it but for as long as we ignore or deny it and - most importantly - put people in positions of power who will just ignore or make matters worse then we have not done our bit to resolve the matter either.


This is a war being fought to keep all of humanity from being devolved into the same barbaric state that we existed in hundreds of years ago, and the stakes are indeed that far-reaching.


- well I'll agree 'that's what it says on the tin'. I can't say I agree that it's true as I have been reading about the plans of the neo-con right and their ME plans. IMO this was a war they were just itching to start if only they could have a sufficiently convenient reason come up.

I don't believe that you or I risk that state of barbarism you say you fear....except for the possibility that it might come about from our own damaging paranoia as we over-react.


Wider realities...such as?


- well Israel and the rest of the ME for one.....and possibly more importantly a global economic system that supports the gross over-consumption of the west at the expense of the rest of the world for another.


If we're the aggressor trying to bully everyone else around, how can we be looking to everyone else to sort things out for us at the same time?


- because according to some much of politics works on the basis of 'will' and 'direction'. By creating certain conditions it can be believed that despite a unilateral act others may follow the path laid out.

That I believe was the hope of the neo-cons in this but it has not worked out IMO.


On one hand you have the "US is a superpower and should take care of things" viewpoint, on the other hand there is the "US should work with everyone else" viewpoint. No matter which route we choose, we're sure to do wrong in the eyes of one or the other.


- It's a tough world, granted and that's always a possibility but in this case I think Bush closed down the coalition building far too soon. He might never have built a coalition akin to gulf war mk1 but in giving up the attempt so soon he condemned the subsequent action to hostility and suspicion from the start.....which, let's face it, in view of where the US started this in world opinion (ie the vast well of sympathy and good will world-wide) was incredible.


By 'the actual jerk'


- naaa, I meant Bush by that. He's the idiot that blew all that positive will that was available IMO. How do you go from a world full of allies and support to almost none like he did and get away with it?


I assume you're referring to OBL & company.


- I would refer to him as a monster myself, nothing so mild as 'jerk'.


I'd have to say we've probably already dealt with the jerk in question and are currently rounding up his partners in crime.


- Well, Richard Clark and others would say you blew your chances there by first delaying and then diverting the Afghanistan efforts.


Al-Qaeda is a big organization, and their fingers are buried in deep all over.


- yes, sadly I have to agree that is very true.


Point taken. I was trying to underscore the importance of TWAT, in that there must be no quarter given to terrorists.


- ok, but seriously Ireland has shown clearly that wherever you are coming from in the 'terrorist' arguement it is all to easy to descend to the barbarian. It happens in every war, hopefully in small scale and it doesn't poison society too deeply but the manner of fighting the war is something to consider seriously too.

Wars have a habit of always making very persuasive arguements in favour of cranking up the ante when the really hard but sensible thing to be considering - or at least never lose sight of - is how to stop them.


Now, that was just uncalled for. And we were doing so well!


- Naaa mate, a rejection of simplistic 'black and white', 'either or' arguements is always a good thing....especially in something so serious.


I personally feel that a war with Iran would benefit no-one
save those brought out from under the yoke of the mullahs and that would come at a terrible price.


- - I agree.


I would much rather see either a reformed government, or a revolt from within install a new one. Khatami and his bunch have made some progress, and do seem to try very hard, with the support of the people, to make things better.


- True, given a little time I see great possibilities. I think this is totally realistic too.


Unfortunately, Khameni and his bunch are only tightening their weakening grip on the people in an attempt to stave off the inevitable.


- Priviledge always fights to protect itself. But I think they have lost and they know it. This IMO is last rear-guard action stuff......unless they get a new lease of life thanks to the 'help' of national unity in the face of an outside aggressor.


You really like this word, 'blinkered', don't you?


- It's a good one, huh?


As I said before, I harbor no illusions about Iran becoming a "mono-culture, little America". Duuh--that's not gonna happen. However, I do think there is the potential there to become a much better example of mideast democracy than Iraq can attain at this time.


- I agree. The pity of it is that this could all have happened years ago if 'we' hadn't made such a hash of things during the time of the Shah.


Also, please understand that the 'systematic removal' I quoted (from a very good song by Tool) was directed toward those who would see us exist as little more than clothed apes, rather than my fellow man.


- opps, I didn't know the song.

I wouldn't take the propaganda of the zealot as reflecting anything but an angry slogan from a shut mind. They got theirs and we have to watch out for ours.

IMO people the world over just want to be left alone to live their lives and see their folks get on. Religious nutters the world over have similar strident black and white stuff to say but the circumstances in which they say them are the difference IMO.


you seem to key right in on my posts for rambling responses, rather than others who were obviously way farther from your viewpoint, don't you?


- awww and I thought I was doing you the courtesy of a series of comments point by point to yours.


Wow long one. Apologies. Hope you find enough in it to be worth it.





posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Um_Gazz I don't get this idea that people have that if Israel attacks the US would be drawn in no they wont Israel is more than capable by itself why would the Us be drawn in?


Just look at the history. To those in the Middle East, Isreal might as well be the 51st state. They see Isreal and the US as one in the same, just that one is closer geographically, and occupies the "holy lands".... THIS is why we will be drawn into it, at least politically, especially with the rhetoric we've been firing at Tehran lately...


Q

posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- now come on, be fair, I actually said "idiotic limited neo-fascist options, didn't I?


Fair enough. I misread your intent as a flame on the person, rather than on the idea. (Perfectly understandable mistake on this board!)



- yes, agreed, here's hoping it's not too late.





- I thought you were painting a picture of the Iranian regime that was unfounded. It is indeed in places repressive but it is undeniably losing it's grip and is nothing like what it once was.


Progress does continue...and of course, "you can't stand in the way of progress". Not for long, anyhow.


- I suppose here is where we start to differ significantly. I don't accept that 'you' or 'we in the west' truely face annihilation. Attack yes, but horrible as it is to admit......um, welcome to the world the rest of us thave been living in for the last xyz years my friend. Such is modern living at times and in most places. It's risky.....and I'm not saying it's ok but it is the reality.


Being located where you are, I do think "we" would be appropriate. According to all I've read, you're as much a target as we are. Insofar as facing annihilation, the risk is admittedly lower than the threat. Terrorism implements the eternal "what if?..." as it's trademark. It doesn't take 100 attacks, rather only a few to inspire the fear of one. Also note that I used the phrase "threatened with". Even if the actions are lacking, the threats are indeed made, which helps to ratchet the tension up a notch or two. I agree that there is a lack of capability for annihilation of either of us in entirety, but I'd surely hate to be caught with my proverbial pants down at the wrong place/time.


- No one is going to kill 'all' of anybody. WMD'as require a massive infrastructure at vast expense that only the wealthiest countries can afford.....you don't think 'we' all spent the fortunes we did in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's etc etc for nothing do you?
.....and even in the unlikely event that some country was to manage (somehow) a single junior version 'event' the inevitable accompanyiong 'calling cards' guarantee the sender has just committed suicide.


Most WMD programs do indeed cost big $$. However, as proven on 9/11, it does not take a weapons program to cause mass destruction--only intent and deviousness to pull it off. Of course, by this logic, every country with a civillian aviation program becomes a suspect, and obviously this can't happen.

If enough money/trade resources are put into play, WMD can also be purchased sans the expense of having your own program. As we've seen with the Pakistani/N. Korean missles-for-nuke-tech tradeoff, it can no longer be depended on that development in only one area would preclude capability in another. Honestly, if N. Korea would stop slinging ICBM's/ICBM designs at any shady regime with a sackful of wheat to offer, it would help immensely. I know...easy to say "if only...", especially after the fact.

Of course, if such an "event" were to occur, there would be swift and deadly retribution on the perpetrators. Case in point: bye-bye Taliban. However, this has been somewhat effectively countermeasured by the decentralized nature of Al-Qaeda. You can't well justify razing a city of 2 million just because there's 1,000 terrorists mixed in amongst them.

I understand your "welcome to the rest of the world" viewpoint. I'd say that there is just a lot of letdown here in America because we've worked so hard to try and make a country where these things don't happen. At least not with any regularity or state support. There will of course always be nutjob cults, etc. who bust out with delusions of grandeur. Such as those mentioned in your next statement...


Even the Tokyo subway nerve gas attack showed that the most lethal of weapons (in theory) require an understanding private groups do not have and cannot 'just' attain through mere possession of the weapon itself.


Yeah, what a screwup that was. Savvy enough to make the sarin, but not savvy enough to use it correctly. I am of course glad their ineptitude caused their failure-I have many Japanese friends and care for their countrymen as I do my own. Hell- it could've been any one of them in that subway, you know? The worry is that a less stupidity-prone group would be able to pull off such a caper sucessfully. For example: were a terrorist group to lay hands on the equivalent of a soda can full of VX, all they'd have to do is find one "martyr" with enough talent to infile without arousing suspicion. This individual could then essentially 'pop the top' on the can in say, the middle of NYC (or London, or any large target city) in order to kill millions. For that matter, a single atropine injector would even remove the need for a "martyr", and require only a triggerman.

Of course, that's just me playing the "what if..." game again. I have been accused of having an overactive imagination, but I don't think this scenario is too implausible.



- consider it a compliment, why would I want to debate to and fro with 20 obvious war-perv *blinkered* lunatics?
:


I'll take that.


- actually I don't think we're too far from that now. Iran is building relations with the UK so I don't think it'll be too many years away for the USA.....provided other 'events' don't interrupt.


Provided, indeed. That's the real 'bugger' of this situation (hope I used your slang correctly there
), is that there is so much potential for things to go the other way. Here's hoping that one gov. or the other doesn't bring things to a head before that happens.


- but we do have a massive double-standard on this. We seem to just accept if not be actually happy about it that Israel has them, Pakistan now has them, India has them but the ME Arabian countries can't? I'll agree about the confidence issue but since when was that the law? If anything recent events have given an incentive to nations to acquire WMDs asap - and not for any reason other than their national security. Wouldn't you say?


I wouldn't so much call it a double standard as judging each case individually. Israel isn't going to nuke anyone unless they (once again) get ballsy and try to wipe them out. Noting how long they've had them, and not used them despite several clear temptations will attest to this. Pak-India posession, while troublesome, isn't that threatening because, at most, they'd just wipe one another out. That and the rumour that we actually have de facto "control" of the Pak arsenal (whether through official or unofficial means). Rogue nations with WMD are like sitting in a small room with a monkey who has a loaded revolver in his hand--sure, he may not know what kind of power he's dealing with, but he does have opposable thumbs and the capability to shoot. Add to this a mean temperment, and you have a recipe for disaster. Take N. Korea for example (a much greater threat than Iran, IMO), who uses WMD as a tool to extort aid from their neighbors and the whole rest of the world on a continual basis. If everyone had these things, the world would be a cinder by now.


Having said that it also seems that some are determined that Iran's actions are all about weapons acquisition when that is far from clear.


I'm afraid there isn't much doubt there anymore. Their actions in the nuclear area speak for themselves (building heavy water reactor vs. light water, etc.), and they have publicly announced their intent, "challenging" everyone to accept them as a member of the nuke club.


- well I get the principle and obviously I am not going to agree in repression over satellite dishes etc....but you will find, for instance, many Muslim women who believe that in lifes' trade-offs some of the things we see as repressive and unfree are acceptable to them because they believe it gives them freedoms in other spheres of live. Basic human freedom does not go by the one definition. Maybe you agree with the death penalty, I don't. I see that as fundamental, maybe you don't.


You know, I've read that. Using the burqa as an example, I would say "good if that's your choice". Being stoned or beaten if it's not is where things go wrong. That's what freedom is about-being able to make the choice for yourself, so long as it doesn't harm anyone.

Not a believer in the death penalty, eh? Heh, we're definitely far apart on that one. A topic for another thread, however...


Now I'm not a Muslim so I don't know how widespread or true this idea is but I can see that maybe my western ideas aren't necessarily to everyones' taste, culture or teaching and that which seems straight-forward to me might not be in all cases.


Of course. It's not always the reality that is so important as the perception of that reality.


- Hmm, again I'll say OK in principle, but I don't believe you can actually have a war against a noun.


Darn. And I was about to suggest a 'war on perception'!



I live in Northern Ireland, we had 'terorism' (depending on your point of view) for over 30yrs...


You know, that was a conflict I never quite understood. Admittedly, I don't know that much about it, so I guess that's not so surprising. Not saying I'm totally ignorant of it, but I haven't absorbed enough to really understand to an extent I'd feel I have an informed opinion. Anyone can have an opinion...


- sometimes, yes. Sometimes starved by their own despots we helped into power and sustained in power... ..just like Saddam, in fact. Sometimes the despot arose as a proxy supported by our cold-war opponents in their cold warring with us.


Indeed. It's tragic, really. After all those years, the cold war just kind of melted away. Now the US and Russia (among others) have their hands full dealing with the messes made during.


Never the less we have involved ourselves (especially in the ME) and not always in a positve manner.


No arguing that. As a mediocre president once said "mistakes were made..."


- some of that is true enough but after a century of western experience, some British, some French some German recently American one can maybe appreciate that the memories run deep and long.....and new wars don't help.


This is somewhat true, grudges can be hard to let go. It is not impossible, though! As I mentioned earlier, I have many Japanese friends and coworkers. Sure enough, 50 years ago, my grandfathers (and I mean this quite literally) and theirs fought bitterly with each other, resulting in millions of unneccessary deaths on both sides. Not going into the mechanics of all that's happened between then and now (as I'm sure there's no need to), the hatred that was this reality is no more. Now I stand side by side with those whom my people once called enemies, and vice versa. Though there are many differences, people are more alike than different. Change is possible, and should be striven for in this respect.


- me neither personally speaking. But I know my countries' history and I know they have not a lot to feel happy about with my lot and I think it's similar with yours.


Historically speaking, yes. But again, we haven't done anything, yet we seem to have inherited the old hatreds and problems thereof. Not that bitching about it changes anything...it's just frustrating having to try and clean up a mess you didn't make, metaphorically speaking. Which of course leads to your next point...


- I suppose the point is that we recognise that reality and try and do something to change it. Of course you personally didn't 'do' it just like I didn't either.


Unreservedly agreed.
I might point out that you (to my understanding) are of Iranian descent, I am of American (as it gets!) descent, and the two of us seem to be having a most civil (dare I say, "friendly") discussion on a pretty touchy topic. Now, we just need some good translator software, and get about a billion or so more people posting on ATS and this whole silly 'war' matter will be resolved...



- well I'll agree 'that's what it says on the tin'. I can't say I agree that it's true as I have been reading about the plans of the neo-con right and their ME plans. IMO this was a war they were just itching to start if only they could have a sufficiently convenient reason come up.


Understandable. I'd take what I read concerning this with a grain of salt. I don't believe there will be a 'neo-con' world order any more than a 'zionist', or any other faction-dominant conspiratorial takeover. With the possible exception of a PC liberal takeover, which I find truly terrifying. (I'm a centrist!
Too much left OR right is not healthy, IMO.)


I don't believe that you or I risk that state of barbarism you say you fear....except for the possibility that it might come about from our own damaging paranoia as we over-react.


Not a true risk so long as there isn't a lack of resolve against it. No matter what angle it's spun from, I'm damn proud of humanity's achievements and would not see them undone.


- well Israel and the rest of the ME for one.....and possibly more importantly a global economic system that supports the gross over-consumption of the west at the expense of the rest of the world for another.


As for 'Israel and the rest of the ME'...see it, understand it (much as anyone can), don't like it. The people of the ME just need to chill and not take everything so seriously. Lighten up, eh? Of course, it'll never happen.

As for the gross over-consumption of the west... Hey man, I'm here, and I don't see it!
A decent standard of living is categorically not over-consumption. The problem is that others are less demanding (or in no position to be so) of theirs. I've always said that this is one of, if not THE world's biggest problem(s).

Would a Jihadi be so eager to strap on that explosive belt and take his last waltz into a restaurant if he knew he could just go home, kick back on the couch, pop in a DVD and have a nice dinner with the missus instead? Sounds like a no-brainer to me. This is of course unrealistic-communism tried to right this inequity, but only ended up with everybody having nothing, which is even worse. Due to the fact that some are more willing to work than others, there will always be haves and have-nots. (Don't misread this, I'm not saying the ME is full of people who won't work--I'm saying this is the human condition everywhere.)


- because according to some much of politics works on the basis of 'will' and 'direction'. By creating certain conditions it can be believed that despite a unilateral act others may follow the path laid out.

That I believe was the hope of the neo-cons in this but it has not worked out IMO.


Probably right.


which, let's face it, in view of where the US started this in world opinion (ie the vast well of sympathy and good will world-wide) was incredible.


Not quite in agreement there. I think a lot (not all) of the "sympathy and good will" was just lip service. Note the quick evaporation of all that as soon as we did anything that wasn't agreed upon.


- naaa, I meant Bush by that. He's the idiot that blew all that positive will that was available IMO. How do you go from a world full of allies and support to almost none like he did and get away with it?


Hee Hee. Boy, was I on the wrong page there! As I said, I doubt the sincerity of the aforementioned "sympathy and good will" on the part of many. Not saying there weren't mistakes made...


- Well, Richard Clark and others would say you blew your chances there by first delaying and then diverting the Afghanistan efforts.


I dunno. Haven't seen 'ol beardy on TV taunting us in quite some time now, have we? Audiotapes and printed statements don't cut it with me. I think the man's "shuffled off his mortal coil and joined the bleedin' choir invisibUle" a good ways back. That being said, I do agree it could have been done better.


- ok, but seriously Ireland has shown clearly that wherever you are coming from in the 'terrorist' arguement it is all to easy to descend to the barbarian. It happens in every war, hopefully in small scale and it doesn't poison society too deeply but the manner of fighting the war is something to consider seriously too.

Wars have a habit of always making very persuasive arguements in favour of cranking up the ante when the really hard but sensible thing to be considering - or at least never lose sight of - is how to stop them.


I'd have to say that this is probably due to the very nature of a terroristic act being barbarous. Case in point: the beheadings. You can't respect an enemy who does such things. The fact that the beheadees are categorically not the threat they're allegedly fighting aside, even if these were military personnel (a "legitimate" target), a simple bullet to the head would accomplish the militaristic goal of killing the enemy all the same. What sort of mentality prefers the first option? Neutralize the target neatly and efficiently as possible, or with as much pain and mess as can be mustered? Some may argue that the US' war tactics are equally barbarous, but that's just bunk. The biggest reason our military runs into problems is because we're trying to be nice to our enemy while defeating them. Really, how many countries would blow you to smithereens, and then go about spending billions to rebuild you back better than before, at great personal cost?

Bringing a war to it's conclusion in the fastest manner possible is always the goal. The US could've done this in Iraq-deposed Saddam, wiped out his regime, packed up, and hopped on the first boat home. Instead, we stay and try to bring the country back to some semblance of normality-thus showing that our goal was not conquest of Iraq or it's people, but only to get him out of there.


- Naaa mate, a rejection of simplistic 'black and white', 'either or' arguements is always a good thing....especially in something so serious.


Not entirely agreed with, but understood.



- Priviledge always fights to protect itself. But I think they have lost and they know it. This IMO is last rear-guard action stuff......unless they get a new lease of life thanks to the 'help' of national unity in the face of an outside aggressor.


Well said.


- I agree. The pity of it is that this could all have happened years ago if 'we' hadn't made such a hash of things during the time of the Shah.
IMO people the world over just want to be left alone to live their lives and see their folks get on. Religious nutters the world over have similar strident black and white stuff to say but the circumstances in which they say them are the difference IMO.


Again, too bad we can't change history. Pretty on target there.



- awww and I thought I was doing you the courtesy of a series of comments point by point to yours.

Wow long one. Apologies. Hope you find enough in it to be worth it.


Courtesy, and worth it indeed. As I said, I'm rather enjoying our discussion.


[edit on 30-7-2004 by Q]



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Q


Funny, I don't remember mentioning the UN. But hey, since you threw it out there: The UN is worthless and corrupt. That's right. They do nothing, they are nothing. The UN indeed would not exist without the US. Face facts: they cannot do so much as pay for their own electricity.


How can this be true if the US didn't even pay its UN dues all through the 90s, and are still catching up on them?



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Q


Fair enough. I misread your intent as a flame on the person, rather than on the idea. (Perfectly understandable mistake on this board!)


- Yeah, absolutely agreed!


Most WMD programs do indeed cost big $$. However, as proven on 9/11, it does not take a weapons program to cause mass destruction--only intent and deviousness to pull it off. Of course, by this logic, every country with a civillian aviation program becomes a suspect, and obviously this can't happen.


- That's my point though. IMO in almost every conceivable possible realistic case it's not WMD's in the accepted sense we need to fear. (and there's also the matter of the forgotten about network of detectors for some of this stuff....nuclear in particular)

Why bother with something so difficult and expensive? Use a plane, an 18wheel gas tanker, an ocean-going gas tanker....you play, how many ordinary devices can be twisted into.....you know what I mean?


If enough money/trade resources are put into play


- well I'm sure a bunch of half-informed guys could in theory launch a scud or pershing style missile with small nuclear tip - I'm not saying that is nothing but it isn't quite as easy, concealable - or when it comes to it the level destruction - the usual notion of a rogue nation with a moden ICBM is.

Anything with serious range (and therefore a serious threat to millions in country and mine) and destructive power just isn't feasible outside of the realms of a country with years of enormous budget and research effort....even China - now - is reckoned to have less than 30 ICBMs.....ie with such an enormous lot to lose. I really can't see it myself.


WMD can also be purchased sans the expense of having your own program.


- I think this is theoretically so but this 'market' is heavily watched, 'stung' and closed that there is more than something of the James Bond myth about it.

As a last resort 'we' got the deepest pockets when it comes to it.


As we've seen with the Pakistani/N. Korean missles-for-nuke-tech tradeoff, it can no longer be depended on that development in only one area would preclude capability in another. Honestly, if N. Korea would stop slinging ICBM's/ICBM designs at any shady regime with a sackful of wheat to offer, it would help immensely.


- Unfortunately Nth Korea is another part of the world that was ravaged so cruelly in the not so distant past that their people seem to put up with the current regime if only because it isn't quite so cruel and most of all it isn't done by 'outsiders' anymore. They're a tough one but not impossible IMO.....versus the possibilities we got time and we got money. A nuked Japan just isn't worth it.


Of course, if such an "event" were to occur, there would be swift and deadly retribution on the perpetrators.


- no question.


However, this has been somewhat effectively countermeasured by the decentralized nature of Al-Qaeda.


- but with an organisation like AQ you are at least back to a lesser scale of possibility rather than the fear that 'they could nuke New York, London, Paris.....and er um, Belfast'.


You can't well justify razing a city of 2 million just because there's 1,000 terrorists mixed in amongst them.


- No you cannot at all. Something which bugs the hell out of me in times like these is just how casual comments about turning the ME to glass etc etc get tossed about (not to mention the stupidity - even from such a 'redneck' point of view - of closing off the oil reserves of the ME, thanks to the radioactivity etc etc for a few hundred years!.)

We shouldn't be so free with that kind of talk IMO, it should outrage us just as much as someone talking with approval of an attack on 'our' innocents.


Savvy enough to make the sarin, but not savvy enough to use it correctly.


- But that was always going to be the case. It took years of research to discover that....after the material was developed in the first place.


For example: were a terrorist group to lay hands on the equivalent of a soda can full of VX, all they'd have to do is find one "martyr" with enough talent to infile without arousing suspicion.


- But that's just it. Everyone (not in the know) would have said exactly the same thing about Sarin (tiny amounts, a few cc's could kill millions etc etc). Fortunately it is nothing like as simple. Don't get me wrong, Tokyo could have been worse but - done by amatuers - it was never going to be the mass-murder we fear.


Provided, indeed. That's the real 'bugger' of this situation (hope I used your slang correctly there
)


- you did



I wouldn't so much call it a double standard as judging each case individually. Israel isn't going to nuke anyone unless they (once again) get ballsy and try to wipe them out.


- I hope so, but the constant low-level war is not inspiring much confidence for me. I'm not one to say Israel is always in the wrong but I do think they have 'not exactly helped' at times. This has led to the current horrors - a situation which now has ex-Israeli soldiers protesting it. Hardly your leftist liberal radical element, huh?


Noting how long they've had them, and not used them despite several clear temptations will attest to this.


- Well my worry is that they are incapable of existing peaceably and comfortably unless they dominate the region....and who - other than Israelis - is ever seriously be happy with that? Could you imagine a situation where the US allowed itself to be dominated, permanently, by a foreign power like that, even for peace?


Pak-India posession, while troublesome, isn't that threatening because, at most, they'd just wipe one another out.


- Yeah but it isn't just them is it? IMO the whole reason why they were 'allowed' to acquire the weaponary in the first place was a counterweight to China. India and China have a 'history' too.

....and in this casual conversation about a small exchange here or a brief nuclear war there we're all in grave danger of forgetting that these things reall screw up the planet for a long long time. That's what I mean about this falling into easy conversation about things that should outrage us.


That and the rumour that we actually have de facto "control" of the Pak arsenal (whether through official or unofficial means).


- Really? I hadn't heard that one.


Rogue nations with WMD are like sitting in a small room with a monkey who has a loaded revolver in his hand--sure, he may not know what kind of power he's dealing with, but he does have opposable thumbs and the capability to shoot. Add to this a mean temperment, and you have a recipe for disaster.


- I have trouble with this analogy. I honestly can't believe that any nation is so dumb as to genuinely commit suicide in this way. Even a group as fundamentalist and detached as the Taliban at times attempted engagement with the outside world.


Take N. Korea for example (a much greater threat than Iran, IMO),


- I agree. But then again what is the nature of the threat? Is 'our' threat not much greater still? I cannot understand why we seem to have lost faith in the proven tactic of containment with positve engagement. Sure it has it's faults but it has worked.


who uses WMD as a tool to extort aid from their neighbors and the whole rest of the world on a continual basis. If everyone had these things, the world would be a cinder by now.


- True. Such are the realities of the situation. They would say that were they to give up their WMD's they would be attacked, invaded and occupied....and they have a point do they not?

But there are more ways to skin a cat, no? Situations change and possibilities open up. IMO Korea will settle but not by being pushed too hard too obviously from the outside.

IMO it'll come about through Sth Korea who will find a way for sufficient 'face' to be saved.


I'm afraid there isn't much doubt there anymore. Their actions in the nuclear area speak for themselves (building heavy water reactor vs. light water, etc.), and they have publicly announced their intent, "challenging" everyone to accept them as a member of the nuke club.


- well I don't know about that. I would not be surprised if in the current ME climate it was felt 'politic' to make these claims. They have 'constituency audiences' to be talking to too you know.......and making noises that are known to upset and worry Israel and the US go down well especially at the moment with the US in a war next door and Israel threatening what they see as their sovereignty, something they see as especially hypocritical given Israel's possession of that kind of weapon.

I have yet to see much news in the way of evidence that an actual weapons program is underway.


You know, I've read that. Using the burqa as an example, I would say "good if that's your choice".


- yeah seems fair enough.


Being stoned or beaten if it's not is where things go wrong. That's what freedom is about-being able to make the choice for yourself, so long as it doesn't harm anyone.


- Totally agree.


Not a believer in the death penalty, eh? Heh, we're definitely far apart on that one.


- Naaa, I may be a 'God-less' liberal but I don't believe we should kill each other no matter what except for the personal defense of ones' self and family....that kind of thing.

Stand by for another shock......I don't believe an armed citizenry is a good idea either!



You know, (N. Ireland) was a conflict I never quite understood.


- Then you are in good company. It's taunted many over the years. Hopefully thing are settling down (by historical standards they are).


Now the US and Russia (among others) have their hands full dealing with the messes made during.


- ain't that the truth.



This is somewhat true, grudges can be hard to let go.


- True. It's a weird one. In some cases I'd say the time involved makes for a tough resolution. Ireland for instance has gone on for hundreds of years at varying intensities but a solution can appear as far off as ever at times.

There again, in continental europe they were in and out of each others' countries with regularity slaughtering the hell out of each other every few decades for hundreds of years and the opposite is the case. War within europe is utterly unthinkable.

Unfortunately some in the ME seem to hold their grudges.


I might point out that you (to my understanding) are of Iranian descent,


- LOL. This is one of the things I love about the net. You may assume nothing you just deal with the subject at hand.

Naa mate, I'm a 41yr old guy in Northern Ireland of British, Irish and continental European descent. I have an (my wife would say excessive) interest in current affairs and a big gob (mouth) on me at times.

You may now start to assume things about me becasue of that information but then again you cannot be 100% certain it is true.....maybe I'm really an American in the next street/town/city to you!? Maybe you're really Irish in Ireland?



I am of American (as it gets!) descent, and the two of us seem to be having a most civil (dare I say, "friendly") discussion on a pretty touchy topic.


- We should all be at least able to talk in a civil fashion whether we agree with each other or not.


Now, we just need some good translator software, and get about a billion or so more people posting on ATS and this whole silly 'war' matter will be resolved...


- if only.


I don't believe there will be a 'neo-con' world order any more than a 'zionist', or any other faction-dominant conspiratorial takeover. With the possible exception of a PC liberal takeover, which I find truly terrifying. (I'm a centrist!
Too much left OR right is not healthy, IMO.)


- Yeah well I'll agree with that....but it dsoesn't stop the buggers truying though!


I'm damn proud of humanity's achievements and would not see them undone.


- Agreed.....and we could do with understanding where the credit belongs for some of those achievements too. Lately we seem to forget that in the scale of these things we owe the ME a lot. Mathematics, writing and medicine for example all have their root there. They are absolutely not to written off as 'never produced nothing but horrific beheading video sand n*******s'. Those kind of attitudes underlie the whole damn problem IMO - whether it be our people historically or their nutters.


The people of the ME just need to chill and not take everything so seriously. Lighten up, eh? Of course, it'll never happen.


- You pulling my leg?

I'd say it's very hard to lighten up when you are condemned to a life - like your parents and their parents etc etc - of struggling cruel subsistance knowing you will most probably have children follow on in exactly the same vein.


As for the gross over-consumption of the west... Hey man, I'm here, and I don't see it!


- Of course we have trouble seeing it, it's our 'normal'.

Nevertheless you can't escape the fact that over 90% of the world's wealth is consumed by less than 10% of it's population. That is unsustainable. Period.


A decent standard of living is categorically not over-consumption.


- I'm not saying it is. I am saying that we have lost sight of what 'decent' is and the cost we impose on the rest of humanity in maintaining our 'standards'. Thay have an entitlement to a decent life too, do they not?


The problem is that others are less demanding (or in no position to be so) of theirs. I've always said that this is one of, if not THE world's biggest problem(s).


- OK, I'll not say there is no truth in that but it still doesn't address the fundamental point. There is only so much wealth in the world and we got almost all of it and they have nearly none (with what there is of it concentrated in the hands of monarch 'we' have a tendancy to keep in power etc etc).


Would a Jihadi be so eager to strap on that explosive belt and take his last waltz into a restaurant if he knew he could just go home, kick back on the couch, pop in a DVD and have a nice dinner with the missus instead? Sounds like a no-brainer to me.


- But that's just it, that kind of normality we have come to expect either doesn't exist at all or only exists for the very few.....in between armed uprisings, wars etc etc. We have no idea is the truth of it.


This is of course unrealistic-communism tried to right this inequity, but only ended up with everybody having nothing, which is even worse. Due to the fact that some are more willing to work than others, there will always be haves and have-nots. (Don't misread this, I'm not saying the ME is full of people who won't work--I'm saying this is the human condition everywhere.)


- I'm not talking about a soviet style communism. I'm talking about a system that will work a man - if the work is available at all - for hours we would not tolerate for a pittance. Even with the skilled men. That is unsustainable. Then we sit around and wonder why they want to come to our countries as illegal immigrants.

The bit that really seems crazy to me is that our leaders will talk about how little can be done and our aid budgets are so tiny (not one western country gives more than 2% of its national budget in aid, tyhe US and UK are under 1%)....yet every so often due to the conflict that arises from these circumstance we are happy to throw tens of billions (in munitions) at the region in periodic wars.


Hee Hee. Boy, was I on the wrong page there! As I said, I doubt the sincerity of the aforementioned "sympathy and good will" on the part of many. Not saying there weren't mistakes made...


- Hee hee, you were indeed. I think that's a hard view on the situation about the good will though. Maybe among the usual suspects but not in relation to most of the developed world.


Haven't seen 'ol beardy on TV taunting us in quite some time now, have we?


- The rumour is he's Bushs' final flourish around late Oct. Who knows. I read a while back he was dead from his kidney disease, then again some seem convinced he's living well in Pakistan.


I think the man's "shuffled off his mortal coil and joined the bleedin' choir invisibUle" a good ways back.


- I'm sure theres a place in hell (if I were to believe in such a place!) being warmed for the bugger as we speak if he hasn't....you a Python fan?



I'd have to say that this is probably due to the very nature of a terroristic act being barbarous.


- Hmm, I think there is always a reason to be found if one wants. It happens every time.


Case in point: the beheadings. You can't respect an enemy who does such things.


- Well you're never going to like them that's for sure.


The fact that the beheadees are categorically not the threat they're allegedly fighting aside, even if these were military personnel (a "legitimate" target), a simple bullet to the head would accomplish the militaristic goal of killing the enemy all the same.


- yes but it doesn't accomplish the secondary goal anything like as well. Namely spreading fear and debilitating your enemies resolve.


What sort of mentality prefers the first option? Neutralize the target neatly and efficiently as possible, or with as much pain and mess as can be mustered?


- Yeah but Q that is war. It's horrible I know but that can be part of what it is all about....and ok, it may not have been beheadings for a long long time byt it's not like 'we've' never understood or done this deliberate terrorising, right?


Some may argue that the US' war tactics are equally barbarous, but that's just bunk.


- Well all I will say is go and have a look at the effects of certain munitions, they do much the same thing, decapitations, blowing to literal bits etc. If you were a villager whos child had been on the receiving end of a 'stray' 500lb-er, or a Hellfire missile etc etc would you make such distinctions.....or would you see any means of scaring the enemy away as legitimate?

I'm not saying it's ok, it's a disgusting crime to me too but when you get into these things suddenly they stop being quite so straight-forward and so you get pushed to ignore details and take black and white stands despite the gray. I hate that. It's asking that we apply our humanity in oe direction only and I think that's wrong.


The biggest reason our military runs into problems is because we're trying to be nice to our enemy while defeating them.


- The British Army used to say all that kind of thing too. They saw themselves as hamstrung by having to act within the law. The thing is that how can it ever be otherwise? If our people aren't going to act within the law have they not just become a different version of terorist, 'our' terrorists?

IMO you can't have it both ways. We either are or are not like them.....and if we are just like them then we really have little to complain about surely?


Really, how many countries would blow you to smithereens, and then go about spending billions to rebuild you back better than before, at great personal cost?


- But Q by that reckoning any invasion is ok if the aggressor fronts up the cost (or some of the initial costs) of rebuilding.


Bringing a war to it's conclusion in the fastest manner possible is always the goal.


- Yes that should be the way of it......so long as you understand there is another side who will be doing the best to achieve similar within the context of their situation.


The US could've done this in Iraq-deposed Saddam, wiped out his regime, packed up, and hopped on the first boat home.


- That was never going to be possible.....unless the US had decided that an utterly (permanently?) chaotic ME was desirable. The oil has to be brought west. There's why it never happened like that.


Instead, we stay and try to bring the country back to some semblance of normality-thus showing that our goal was not conquest of Iraq or it's people, but only to get him out of there.


- well in fairness 'shock and awe' like the several operations before it did ruin their infrastructure totally, it only seems fair, hmmm?


Courtesy, and worth it indeed. As I said, I'm rather enjoying our discussion.


- Yeah agreed & for me too. This makes a nice change from some of the 'usual'!



Q

posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey - That's my point though. IMO in almost every conceivable possible realistic case it's not WMD's in the accepted sense we need to fear. (and there's also the matter of the forgotten about network of detectors for some of this stuff....nuclear in particular)

Why bother with something so difficult and expensive? Use a plane, an 18wheel gas tanker, an ocean-going gas tanker....you play, how many ordinary devices can be twisted into.....you know what I mean?


That's my point. Not only are actual WMD's a concern, but anything some deluded nutjob can make into one as well--and this is impossible to make a 'foolproof' defense for.


- well I'm sure a bunch of half-informed guys could in theory launch a scud or pershing style missile with small nuclear tip - I'm not saying that is nothing but it isn't quite as easy, concealable - or when it comes to it the level destruction - the usual notion of a rogue nation with a moden ICBM is.

Anything with serious range (and therefore a serious threat to millions in country and mine) and destructive power just isn't feasible outside of the realms of a country with years of enormous budget and research effort....even China - now - is reckoned to have less than 30 ICBMs.....ie with such an enormous lot to lose. I really can't see it myself.


Point taken.


- I think this is theoretically so but this 'market' is heavily watched, 'stung' and closed that there is more than something of the James Bond myth about it.

As a last resort 'we' got the deepest pockets when it comes to it.


True, as the shipload of scuds intercepted a couple of years back would seem to indicate. ...And if that fails, we just buy them ourselves?
An expensive defense, but the 'greenback bomb' is undoubtedly one of the most useful and effective in the 'ol arsenal, to be sure. (I hear it was used to great effect in the run-up to GW2.)


- Unfortunately Nth Korea is another part of the world that was ravaged so cruelly in the not so distant past that their people seem to put up with the current regime if only because it isn't quite so cruel and most of all it isn't done by 'outsiders' anymore. They're a tough one but not impossible IMO.....versus the possibilities we got time and we got money. A nuked Japan just isn't worth it.


Well...the N. Koreans really don't have a choice. And truth be told, 90% of them probably think they're the ones living at the top of the world, seeing as news from outside doesn't make it in to tell them any different. I can go on a tear about 'glorious leader' Kim Jong-Il all day long, but I'll spare you this time.


And a nuked Japan is, as you said, just not worth it.



- but with an organisation like AQ you are at least back to a lesser scale of possibility rather than the fear that 'they could nuke New York, London, Paris.....and er um, Belfast'.


Hee hee...had to throw in the 'ol hometown there, didn't ya?
While they can't get them all, the threat of them being able to get even one is horriffic--doubly so in that they'd love to if they possibly could.


- No you cannot at all. Something which bugs the hell out of me in times like these is just how casual comments about turning the ME to glass etc etc get tossed about (not to mention the stupidity - even from such a 'redneck' point of view - of closing off the oil reserves of the ME, thanks to the radioactivity etc etc for a few hundred years!.)

We shouldn't be so free with that kind of talk IMO, it should outrage us just as much as someone talking with approval of an attack on 'our' innocents.


Again, no argument there. Gotta have the dead dinosaur juice! While I obviously don't condone the 'casual comments' referred to, I can understand their origin. It comes as an easy solution to those who cannot think of a better one. i.e. It's easier not to worry about things if it's done that way. "What? We need to separate the 1,000 terrorists from the rest of the city? Bah! Just Burn the whole place and be done with it." This of course would be on a smaller scale than 'the whole ME', but I can't say I've not felt the sentiment before myself (Fallujah!).

It could also be argued that the destruction of many holy sites in the ME could be a good thing, as it would remove them as objects to be fought over. While the idea does have it's merits (in an admittedly twisted way), I personally think they'd just find something else to fight over.


- But that's just it. Everyone (not in the know) would have said exactly the same thing about Sarin (tiny amounts, a few cc's could kill millions etc etc). Fortunately it is nothing like as simple. Don't get me wrong, Tokyo could have been worse but - done by amatuers - it was never going to be the mass-murder we fear.


VX is a much more lethal agent. I've spent my entire life within spitting distance of one of the largest stockpiles in the world...
It's nothing to play down, believe it! Your point of 'amateurs' being predispositioned to screw things up is indeed quite valid. God help anyone who gets caught around if they don't.


- I hope so, but the constant low-level war is not inspiring much confidence for me. I'm not one to say Israel is always in the wrong but I do think they have 'not exactly helped' at times. This has led to the current horrors - a situation which now has ex-Israeli soldiers protesting it. Hardly your leftist liberal radical element, huh?


Yeah...while I do generally support Israel, they have certainly screwed the pooch themselves on a number of occasions.


- Well my worry is that they are incapable of existing peaceably and comfortably unless they dominate the region....and who - other than Israelis - is ever seriously be happy with that? Could you imagine a situation where the US allowed itself to be dominated, permanently, by a foreign power like that, even for peace?


In the beginning, dominating the region wasn't even a consideration. They were just happy to have a country. Their neighbors, almost immediately, decided "nope, can't let that happen", and started several wars in which they got the snot kicked out of them repeatedly. (Wars which, to this day, they still have the gall to try and claim back won territory from. Face it--you gambled and lost!) As an end result of this, along with many other factors, Israel did indeed rise to the top of the heap. Not hard to do when the heap itself is so small, really...


- Yeah but it isn't just them is it? IMO the whole reason why they were 'allowed' to acquire the weaponary in the first place was a counterweight to China. India and China have a 'history' too.


Hmmm. I hadn't considered that angle. I guess that's just because all you see in the news of India is dealing with their own internal affairs, dealing with Pakistan, getting filthy rich off of US outsourcing, etc...


....and in this casual conversation about a small exchange here or a brief nuclear war there we're all in grave danger of forgetting that these things reall screw up the planet for a long long time. That's what I mean about this falling into easy conversation about things that should outrage us.


The world's a mean place. Notions that made us tremble 50 (hell-20!) years ago are now the stuff of idle conversation. Not that the events themselves are any less horrific, but through sheer desensitization, IMO.


- Really? I hadn't heard that one.


Yeah, there's a big thread on that here if you care to search. The thinking is that either A) We made a deal with Musharraf to safeguard his nukes from hostile elements , thereby giving us de facto control of such B) Running on relatively 'primitive' launch codes/software etc., we are able to clandestinely access and control all functions. or C) We have other contigency plans in place to deal with them on a conventional level before things went bad. Not saying any of this is true, but the overall theme is that we don't trust them to handle them on their own, and have become 'nuclear stewards', for lack of a better term. (Actually I just made that one up, and I rather like it!
)


- I have trouble with this analogy. I honestly can't believe that any nation is so dumb as to genuinely commit suicide in this way. Even a group as fundamentalist and detached as the Taliban at times attempted engagement with the outside world.


Like blowing up the statues at Bamiyan?
Sorry, I couldn't resist. My point was that I think in most cases your '3rd world' nations can't produce a stable enough governing body to be trusted with WMD. It's too big a gamble (hence my monkey analogy).


- I agree. But then again what is the nature of the threat? Is 'our' threat not much greater still? I cannot understand why we seem to have lost faith in the proven tactic of containment with positve engagement. Sure it has it's faults but it has worked.


The 'ol "carrot and stick", eh? Been tried for years with Kim. He just takes the carrot, takes his sweet time eating it, and by the time he's done he's whittled himself a stick big enough to make you think twice...and then tells you he wants another carrot and he'll stop whittling.



- True. Such are the realities of the situation. They would say that were they to give up their WMD's they would be attacked, invaded and occupied....and they have a point do they not? But there are more ways to skin a cat, no? Situations change and possibilities open up. IMO Korea will settle but not by being pushed too hard too obviously from the outside.
IMO it'll come about through Sth Korea who will find a way for sufficient 'face' to be saved.


I'm down with the reunification, but not quite the way Kim envisions-rather the opposite. I would see the Koreas reunited, with Kim and his cronies completely uninvolved. Situations do change, and I hope this one does so without things coming to a decidedly nasty head.

S. Korea has pushed their 'sunshine policy' pretty hard, and so far has gotten virtually nothing in return for it than an ever-growing threat. An awful lot of expense for nothing, IMO.

I'd hope to see the Korean situation resolved by...A) Kim dropping over of a heart attack B) A revolt from within by factions who realize he's completely off his rocker, or C) A "silent" collapse much as happened to the USSR. (Who we now warily regard as a friend and ally for the first time since WW2, I might add!)


- well I don't know about that. I would not be surprised if in the current ME climate it was felt 'politic' to make these claims. They have 'constituency audiences' to be talking to too you know.......and making noises that are known to upset and worry Israel and the US go down well especially at the moment with the US in a war next door and Israel threatening what they see as their sovereignty, something they see as especially hypocritical given Israel's possession of that kind of weapon.


True, blustering about how badass you are seems to be almost a governmental imperative in the ME, regardless of whether you are or not. Iraq can be looked at as somewhat of an example of this. While I do still firmly believe that WMD has/will be found in Iraq, it is undeniable that part of the hype was that there was so much intel out there saying that he had it-whether it was there or not. Even Saddam himself was fooled on this to great extent. i.e. "Scientist" says "I can make a missle to shoot down stealth planes!" Saddam says, "good, here's a bunch of money, make it.". Later on, progress is checked, and it is reported that the project is doing well, although not yet fully functional. In reality, no work at all had been done, only a sham to get the money! Meanwhile, Saddam still went around thinking that he had such a thing... sadly, this is a true story.


I have yet to see much news in the way of evidence that an actual weapons program is underway.

Dig deeper man, it's out there.


- Naaa, I may be a 'God-less' liberal but I don't believe we should kill each other no matter what except for the personal defense of ones' self and family....that kind of thing.


Maybe things are just different over here. I'm of the opinion that some people are simply unredeemable. If a person's committed a heinous enough crime to provoke lifetime incarceration, then there's no point in leaving them loitering about and sucking up resources that productive citizens could use elsewhere. Again, that's not for this thread, so I'm merely sharing my views without getting too off-topic.



Stand by for another shock......I don't believe an armed citizenry is a good idea either!


My, my, my. I suppose that if I'd grown up in your neck of the woods, my views might be different. But they're not, and I'll keep my piece within easy reach as I sleep so that I can do so in peace.
Again, maybe a bit of a different clime over here across the pond?


- Then you are in good company. It's taunted many over the years. Hopefully thing are settling down (by historical standards they are).


Indeed. I'm glad that things have relatively chilled out for ya over there.


- LOL. This is one of the things I love about the net. You may assume nothing you just deal with the subject at hand.


Eeek! It would seem as though I've made a ghastly error. I can only say that perhaps I misread zi2525's post and mistakenly attributed their dual-nationality status to you? At any rate, I do apologize and refer to my completely erroneous but heartfelt "to my understanding" sidebar.



Naa mate, I'm a 41yr old guy in Northern Ireland of British, Irish and continental European descent. I have an (my wife would say excessive) interest in current affairs and a big gob (mouth) on me at times.

You may now start to assume things about me becasue of that information but then again you cannot be 100% certain it is true.....maybe I'm really an American in the next street/town/city to you!? Maybe you're really Irish in Ireland?


Or maybe you're one of the Giant Pygmies of Beckles?
At any rate, that interestingly does give us a wee bit in common. I described myself 'as American as it gets', and I stand by that. However, my heritage is partially Native American and partially from your neck of the woods, coincidentally enough. Ever hop across the channel to a little place called Preston? I hear it's not that great nowadays, but seeing as that's as far back as I can trace my heritage, it's all I can claim. (Dating back to the mid-10th century isn't too shabby anyway, IMO.)


- We should all be at least able to talk in a civil fashion whether we agree with each other or not.


Well, we certainly should, but many of us are obviously incapable. Though you and I may not agree on many things, I do try to understand your viewpoints, and I respect them.


- Yeah well I'll agree with that....but it dsoesn't stop the buggers trying though!


Sadly, it doesn't. Just one more mosquito to swat...


- Agreed.....and we could do with understanding where the credit belongs for some of those achievements too. Lately we seem to forget that in the scale of these things we owe the ME a lot. Mathematics, writing and medicine for example all have their root there. They are absolutely not to written off as 'never produced nothing but horrific beheading video sand n*******s'. Those kind of attitudes underlie the whole damn problem IMO - whether it be our people historically or their nutters.


While I would argue some of the achievements you would put 'rooting' there, I do not argue that there were many advances made...say, 1,000 years ago. What have they done for us lately? Self-imposed cultural and intellectual stagnation are almost a hallmark of the ME. Not to say that there aren't great minds there--hell, 1/2 of our doctors over here are of ME descent--but the culture doesn't favor progression so much as blind obedience to tradition. It makes it difficult to make advances.


I'd say it's very hard to lighten up when you are condemned to a life - like your parents and their parents etc etc - of struggling cruel subsistance knowing you will most probably have children follow on in exactly the same vein.


Ah, yes. It would seem that we were on the same track after all.


- Of course we have trouble seeing it, it's our 'normal'.
Nevertheless you can't escape the fact that over 90% of the world's wealth is consumed by less than 10% of it's population. That is unsustainable. Period.


I don't pretend to. Why do you think this is? Because we are responsible for making that 90%. Nothing I have, or could reasonably desire to obtain, is really that extravagant at all. It merely requires that people keep making stuff.

Q's theory on the economy: I go to work every day and make stuff. (Simplified, but reasonably accurate). Other people go to work, and they make stuff, grow stuff, process stuff, whatever. At the end of the week, we all get paychecks for doing our part. After the gov't gets their grossly inordinate cut, I use the rest to go buy the stuff that other people made. They, in turn, are using what they earned making their stuff to buy my stuff...which keeps demand up for everybody's stuff, money in everyone's pocket, and plenty of jobs around for all those willing to work. This is of course oversimplified, but so long as everyone keeps doing this, we're really not in that bad a shape overall-none of the involved parties are.

Granted, people in other countries don't get the same as I get for making some stuff, and I as a consumer don't pay as much for it. That's a tradeoff-I don't expect a no-name wrench from Taiwan to perform like a Craftsman, and I therefore don't expect to pay as much, which doesn't make as much for the person in Taiwan. Still, the little that is made goes much farther, due to the differences in economy there. Is the guy in Taiwan paying $4 for a gallon of milk? (That's 3.78L to you, sminkey!
) Does he have a $300/month car payment, a mortgage at 14.78% A.P.R. in US $?


- I'm not saying it is. I am saying that we have lost sight of what 'decent' is and the cost we impose on the rest of humanity in maintaining our 'standards'. Thay have an entitlement to a decent life too, do they not?


I don't believe we've lost sight of 'decent' at all. If the guy in Taiwan wants me to pay the same for his wrench as I do a Craftsman, then he'd bloody well start thinking about making one that doesn't strip out the 3rd time I go to turn a bolt with it. If they can do that, then I've got no problems paying for it. Until then...I'll either buy the cheap stuff and deal with the smashed fingers and cursing thereof, or I'll keep buying the good stuff.

I use the 'guy in Taiwan' only as an example. It could be anywhere...and IS quite literally so, with all the globalization. (Which I'm not entirely down with, but that's again another topic...)


- OK, I'll not say there is no truth in that but it still doesn't address the fundamental point. There is only so much wealth in the world and we got almost all of it and they have nearly none (with what there is of it concentrated in the hands of monarch 'we' have a tendancy to keep in power etc etc).


Those who do well, do well to keep doing so. That aside, the global market does make it anybody's game if the capability is there.


- But that's just it, that kind of normality we have come to expect either doesn't exist at all or only exists for the very few.....in between armed uprisings, wars etc etc. We have no idea is the truth of it.


Granted, this is not the normality that exists for most. However, if it did, would there be so much problem, or would my ficticious Jihadi indeed go home to a heaping plate of chow and a Zombie flick? My point was that if this reality can be made, I think many problems would not exist.


- I'm not talking about a soviet style communism. I'm talking about a system that will work a man - if the work is available at all - for hours we would not tolerate for a pittance. Even with the skilled men. That is unsustainable. Then we sit around and wonder why they want to come to our countries as illegal immigrants.


Work does not simply pop into existence. Someone has to make the effort to create something, to do something, before any work is to be made available. If the reality does not match up to the expectation, make a new reality. If there were competition that treated their workers well versus the 'system' you spoke of, wouldn't all the workers want to go there? The problem is that the competition is 'here', hence the illegal immigration. Until the business owners there are willing to match that, that's how it's going to be. You can still make extremely healthy profits in other countries without robbing your employees of human dignity. This is one of the things that disturbs me so much about China's fledgling manufacturing industry-the fat cats make all the money at the expense of the people, who still aren't benefitting from the privatization. It's capitalism without the perks...


The bit that really seems crazy to me is that our leaders will talk about how little can be done and our aid budgets are so tiny (not one western country gives more than 2% of its national budget in aid, tyhe US and UK are under 1%)....yet every so often due to the conflict that arises from these circumstance we are happy to throw tens of billions (in munitions) at the region in periodic wars.


Why should we be expected to? Even though the US and UK slide in at under 1%, that 1% exceeds everyone else's contributions combined. Are we to be the source of welfare for the world? Is that why 1/3 of my check is gone before I ever see it?


- Hee hee, you were indeed. I think that's a hard view on the situation about the good will though. Maybe among the usual suspects but not in relation to most of the developed world.


Not saying that, I'm just saying that perhaps some of the 'goodwill' was not as purely intentioned as made out to be.


- The rumour is he's Bushs' final flourish around late Oct. Who knows. I read a while back he was dead from his kidney disease, then again some seem convinced he's living well in Pakistan.


That's a possibility, OBL the election-clincher. Either that, or he is dead from one cause or another. Killed or captured, not really a part of the equation either way. I do think Zawahiri's still on the loose, however...


....you a Python fan?


Ah, so you caught the reference. Good man! :up Of course I'm a Python fan. All us 'yanks' aren't entirely devoid of cultural sensibilities, you know!



- Well you're never going to like them that's for sure.


Congratulations! You are the proud recipient of "Q's Understatement of the Week" award!



- yes but it doesn't accomplish the secondary goal anything like as well. Namely spreading fear and debilitating your enemies resolve.


Begrudgingly granted, insofar as the objective. I question how debilitating this is to our resolve, however. Just hardens our determination, by and large. There's of course the minority who immediately cries for complete withdrawl at the first rolling head, but they were saying the same thing before anyway.


- Well all I will say is go and have a look at the effects of certain munitions, they do much the same thing, decapitations, blowing to literal bits etc. If you were a villager whos child had been on the receiving end of a 'stray' 500lb-er, or a Hellfire missile etc etc would you make such distinctions.....or would you see any means of scaring the enemy away as legitimate?


Our munitions aren't made to do anything but eliminate the enemy. Not to torture to death, not to inflict pain--to kill, and to do so most efficiently. Do you see anyone else pursuing precision-guidance with such effort? I won't say that there is never 'the stray 500-pounder', but by and large, and I quote, "That wasn't a stray bomb. It went right where we wanted it to."


I'm not saying it's ok, it's a disgusting crime to me too but when you get into these things suddenly they stop being quite so straight-forward and so you get pushed to ignore details and take black and white stands despite the gray. I hate that. It's asking that we apply our humanity in oe direction only and I think that's wrong.


Everything's relative, and debatable from differing points of view. Matters are usually more complicated than they appear on the surface.


- The British Army used to say all that kind of thing too. They saw themselves as hamstrung by having to act within the law. The thing is that how can it ever be otherwise? If our people aren't going to act within the law have they not just become a different version of terorist, 'our' terrorists? IMO you can't have it both ways. We either are or are not like them.....and if we are just like them then we really have little to complain about surely?


I see where you're coming from. Still, it puts a lot of inner turmoil on a soldier to be told 'kill these people' on Monday, then by Friday you're rebuilding the house you just burnt. A lot of our boys in Iraq are burnt out bad by being expected to function as a humanitarian aid/police force. That's not what armies are designed to do. I agree with your moral trappings, though: how else can it be done?


- But Q by that reckoning any invasion is ok if the aggressor fronts up the cost (or some of the initial costs) of rebuilding.


I'm not saying that it makes it 'all good'. I am saying that it's damn charitable compared to what one would get fighting pretty much anyone else.


- That was never going to be possible.....unless the US had decided that an utterly (permanently?) chaotic ME was desirable. The oil has to be brought west. There's why it never happened like that.


Sure enough, we could've done it. First boat home, "have fun rebuilding your country!". But we didn't. And not just for the dead dinosaur juice.


- well in fairness 'shock and awe' like the several operations before it did ruin their infrastructure totally, it only seems fair, hmmm?


Hey, that's war. But again, we wipe it out, and rebuild it better. Then of course, some schmuck comes along and blows it up again...that I just don't understand. If the terrorists in Iraq really want us gone, all they gotta do is go sign up for the rebuilding. Boom, pow, the place is rebuilt, the people are happy, and the US is outta there waay sooner than we will at this rate. But noooooo......


- Yeah agreed & for me too. This makes a nice change from some of the 'usual'!


Although we've gotta start making shorter posts...I'm losing sleep, here!


[edit on 3-8-2004 by Q]



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Q

That's my point. Not only are actual WMD's a concern, but anything some deluded nutjob can make into one as well--and this is impossible to make a 'foolproof' defense for.


- Yeah a pal of mine has severe trouble accepting this. It's todays world IMO. It's not good or right (obviously) and we can lessen the risk by undertaking certain strategies but that risk is permanent....but then so much risk in modern living is.


the 'greenback bomb' is undoubtedly one of the most useful and effective in the 'ol arsenal, to be sure. (I hear it was used to great effect in the run-up to GW2.)


- Not just then either. Just pre-WW2 just about all of Turkey's chromium production was contracted (for years) to the UK and similarly with a few other significant strategic materials (tungsten for instance). It had a major, though unseen, influence on later events.


I can go on a tear about 'glorious leader' Kim Jong-Il all day long, but I'll spare you this time.


- I saw an interview with him in one of our Sunday rags. From the way he spoke he gave the impression that he fully realises the situation (to the point where his own comments wouldn't be tolerated if stories of NK are completely true) but reckoned there was little he could do about it - quickly. I believe he was educated in the west, he certainly surprised me with his comments. No doubt their are careerists in their military who keep an eye on him too - IIRC his 'enthronement' wasn't assurred or smooth?


Hee hee...had to throw in the 'ol hometown there, didn't ya?
While they can't get them all, the threat of them being able to get even one is horriffic--doubly so in that they'd love to if they possibly could.


- Of course!


I'll take an unfulfilled desire over the actuality any day.


VX is a much more lethal agent. I've spent my entire life within spitting distance of one of the largest stockpiles in the world...
It's nothing to play down, believe it!


- Jayzuss, didn't you ever try to move?


Your point of 'amateurs' being predispositioned to screw things up is indeed quite valid. God help anyone who gets caught around if they don't.


- I guess this is back to choosing what we are going to worry about. We can worry over the likely things (in which case, IMO, this is very low down the scale) or absolutely everything....and book that padded room now.



The 'ol "carrot and stick", eh? Been tried for years with Kim. He just takes the carrot, takes his sweet time eating it, and by the time he's done he's whittled himself a stick big enough to make you think twice...and then tells you he wants another carrot and he'll stop whittling.


- but nevertheless not with some results either? This approach has been a tactic for years (centuries - hell, millenia) because it works. You buy the opposition and stop them being the opposition....however unfair or wasteful it seems now it's almost invariably worth it in the long run.


S. Korea has pushed their 'sunshine policy' pretty hard, and so far has gotten virtually nothing in return for it than an ever-growing threat.


- I disagree. The very fact there has been contact at all between the two will have set some positives in motion. Relationships started, some fears dispelled or at least questions raised. The heart of it though IMO is that the situation is unsustainable and yet resolvable. They'll find a (peaceful) way, it's just a matter of time and 'face' IMO.


I suppose that if I'd grown up in your neck of the woods, my views might be different.


- I reckon.



I'm glad that things have relatively chilled out for ya over there.


- Ultimately IMO it's the same deal as everywhere. Who wants destruction, risk and loss as anymore of a permanent feature than it is always going to be anyway?



Ever hop across the channel to a little place called Preston?


- Preston is not very far from where my wife grew up.



I hear it's not that great nowadays, but seeing as that's as far back as I can trace my heritage, it's all I can claim. (Dating back to the mid-10th century isn't too shabby anyway, IMO.)


- yeah, usual post-industrial decline. 10th C eh? That's some way back.....I hear the Mormons are the people to go to about all that stuff. Apparantly trhey have the expertise - whether you want/need the religious involvement is anyther matter.



I do try to understand your viewpoints, and I respect them.


- Back at you, that's how it should be.



I do not argue that there were many advances made...say, 1,000 years ago. What have they done for us lately? Self-imposed cultural and intellectual stagnation are almost a hallmark of the ME.


- I don't know Q. I know that is the popular perception but whether it is quite so I wouldn't like to say. I'm not having a pop at US 'tv or popular culture' cos I'm sure the UK version is much the same but how much beyond a narrow slice of even our own heritage do we see often? I wouldn't like to comment on what was or is coming out of the ME at the moment culturally, I don't know enough to say.


Not to say that there aren't great minds there--hell, 1/2 of our doctors over here are of ME descent


- True here too.


but the culture doesn't favor progression so much as blind obedience to tradition. It makes it difficult to make advances.


- IMO the funny thing is that their religion is about 500yrs younger than ours and I find some of the attitudes such a parallel. Inflexible theocracies, litteral, very aggressive for faith and 'God'.


Why do you think this is? Because we are responsible for making that 90%.


- well there is the small matter of international markets and subsidies that favour the developed nations. It's neither a fair nor free market. However things got as they are 'we' have done our damnedest to keep them that way.


Nothing I have, or could reasonably desire to obtain, is really that extravagant at all.


- I don't think the solutions come from you or I at that kind of a personal level. 'We' don't have the power or wealth so the repair can't come from us.


Is the guy in Taiwan paying $4 for a gallon of milk? (That's 3.78L to you, sminkey!
)


- that's a little lower than here.


Does he.....have a mortgage at 14.78% A.P.R. in US $?


- your mortgage rates are nearly 15%! Wow, Jayyzuusss Chreeaasst on a bike! That must sting. How long have you been being gouged like that? Ours are below 6% right now and have been for years.

(We had the central bank rate touch 15% for, litterally, about 10minutes in 1992 untill everyone realised that that was just not possible or tollerable and it quickly went down to 12% it started the day at. Our mortgage rates were at about 15% for a year while that central bank 12% rate was current. Man that hurt so many people here.

Couples would be working with one entire wage going on the mortgage. Repossessions were at record rates. Lot's of people had 'negative equity' where your house is worth less - sometimes a lot less - than the mortgage on it....that lasted over 10yrs for some.

Some handed back keys to the banks and tried to walk away, but the banks just sold the house cheap - adding insult to injury - and years later came looking for the difference = massive debts, big big bucks too. It was cruel. Sympathies)


the global market does make it anybody's game if the capability is there.


- That's the bit I don't agree with. Naturally if you're one of 'our' farmers (or any of the host of people that benefit from the various tarriffs and protections 'we' have you would see this differently....and strategic interest does of course play it's part too BUT) rigged markets are a major problem. (Just this week the WTO announced some further progress in relaxing certain restrictions but it is a far from free and fair situation - IMO that places a responsibility on 'us')


Work does not simply pop into existence.


- True not on it's own but demand can be created, easily if the will is there.


If there were competition that treated their workers well versus the 'system' you spoke of, wouldn't all the workers want to go there?


- Naa, there's only one system now that communism has died, in a perverse way it's a pity cos up till then capitalism felt the need to take the worker into account at least some of the time rather than risk they be attracted by the competition.


You can still make extremely healthy profits in other countries without robbing your employees of human dignity.


- Oh I agree. I also agree that not everything can be 'out-sourced' but the problem is that we have markets that are long past the 'old' idea of whether or not you have made a profit (which was perfectly reasonable, I have no problem with that at all) but are now concerned only with how great a profit you made and whether this is accelerating at a rate they approve of. That type of thinking can only exaggerate the problems we already have IMO.


Why should we be expected to?


- Because by denying free and open markets we are condeming countries to a retarded level of development and progress - in addition to (in many cases) the results of decades/centuries of interference.


Are we to be the source of welfare for the world?


- Um, well, yes amongst others. Who else is there?


Is that why 1/3 of my check is gone before I ever see it?


- Well I think you'll find the costs of our protectionism is much higher, but it'll be in there as a cost, undoubtedly. Consider it just another one of those insurances you have to have to help avoid an even more unstable and dangerous world. It sucks but that's, IMO, how it is.


Of course I'm a Python fan. All us 'yanks' aren't entirely devoid of cultural sensibilities, you know!


- Fantastic. Paramount channel run them pretty much constantly, some of it has dated but so much is still as funny as it ever was. Fawlty Towers was pure genius too IMO. I like a fair bit of US stuff myself. Becker is a favourite and I'm sorry it's been axed. Cheers and Frasier I liked big time and Michael Fox (poor sod) was a (surprising?) star in Spin City.

If you like Python you might enjoy Chris Morris. He's pretty out there and does offend many with his take on things but I rate the guy I think more often than not he is spot on and folks are more pissed off at him 'holding up the mirror' than him actually offending for real. Morris has done Blue Jam as a radio show and a tv version Jam, The day today (a spoof news show) and a few one-off specials.


Congratulations! You are the proud recipient of "Q's Understatement of the Week" award!


- Dry, wasn't it?



I question how debilitating this is to our resolve, however. Just hardens our determination, by and large.


- Agreed and it's about time someone explained to these guys the idea of 'diminishing returns' and they packed it in.

IMO 'terror' only 'works' for a short time. It's been shown everytime....bloody hell if bombing Germany to bits (and anyone who cares to look at it will see we're talking the full 7 shades beaten out of her) couldn't cow a population.......!?


There's of course the minority who immediately cries for complete withdrawl at the first rolling head, but they were saying the same thing before anyway.


- True, but IMO a vigorous anti-war crowd is a healthy thing. IT might be uncomfortable and irritating but thats the necessary counterbalance to a society that gives itself completely over to total war. We neither want nor need that IMO.


Our munitions aren't made to do anything but eliminate the enemy. Not to torture to death, not to inflict pain--to kill, and to do so most efficiently.


- I know what you're saying but all I'm saying is have a look at accounts from WW2 when people were bombed. Those kinds of distinctions very quickly become pretty meaningless when faced with the truth of what those kinds of munitions do do.


it puts a lot of inner turmoil on a soldier to be told 'kill these people' on Monday, then by Friday you're rebuilding the house you just burnt.


- It does indeed. Yet we do keep asking them.


A lot of our boys in Iraq are burnt out bad by being expected to function as a humanitarian aid/police force. That's not what armies are designed to do. I agree with your moral trappings, though: how else can it be done?


- There's our current little $64 000 question. My best answer, for what little it's worth, is training and support to try to remain 100% within the law. If we can do that and they can do that when it's all over they have at least the certainty that whatever else might have gone on they have maintained their own values.

WW2 asked many of the same questions. Some of my family were involved and several killed in it.

It damaged some of them, deeply, but I think they always felt like they had done their duty legally. They wrestled with the horrors of it but not their own criminality. To face both would drive someone beyond their limits I reckon. I think it's a big deal.


If the terrorists in Iraq really want us gone, all they gotta do is go sign up for the rebuilding. Boom, pow, the place is rebuilt, the people are happy, and the US is outta there waay sooner than we will at this rate. But noooooo......


- Naaa, that's unfortunately just a nice idea for being out of there asap.

I think they would see that as setting themselves up for a long terrible prolonged fight with whatever well equipped entrenched (lap-dog, lacky, puppet....can't you hear it?) regime 'we' left there.

I'm sorry I wish I could see them co-operating but I can't. Really. I have a friend out there in the Basra area and there's nothing more that I'd like to see than him back safe and sound.


Although we've gotta start making shorter posts...I'm losing sleep, here!


- Believe it or not I tried to curtail this one!







[edit on 3-8-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 01:14 PM
link   
The Political Leadership of the U.S.A. has already acknowledged that Our Military is Spread Thin. So in my Huble Opinion - NO we won't Attack Iran.
Israel migh do a "Pre-Emptive Attack" however. There is Presidence for this - they did this to Sadam's Iraq in the Early 1980's. Plus they are a bit Renegade themselves - they just do whatever they want to!
They just got done Telling the U.N. to go **** itself regarding the
"Greal Wall of Israel" that they are Building (Wow what a great "Roadmap" - a Berlin Wall in the Middle East - Really Innovative guys). If they do Attack Iran - I am sure America won't say anything - we will probably say something like "They Had it Coming".

I saw a Documentry on Iran made recently. The people seemed like nice people. I felt bad for them - If you thought you were being Repressed as an American Citizen - you have not seen anything yet. It you open up your Mouth & say ANYTHING that the Governmental Regime doesn't like - they throw you in Jail & keep you there for a LONG TIME!!!

The thing that fascinates me is this: Iran's Regime IS thier Islamic Fundamentalist Clerics. It is kind of like the same thing that we have here in U.S.A. but in Reverse (i.e. Judeo-Christian Fundamentalist Regime)!!!
Oh well - that might change this November at least!!!



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   
interesting topic at all i'd have a word or two, but not trying to make this thread a predictions place.

it's just really interesting, and also terrifying what's happening in the world nowadays. Some months ago i've found some site where was some Nostradamus predictions. And as i can recall in the topic of the end of the world he wrote something that could really be this situation. Somewhere he mentioned that 3 countries will be attacked, so maybe Iran will be the third. And also wrote about something he called the "False Crusade". Could this be the war on terrorism? If these predictions belong here, this agressive behaviour of the mighty land of freedom will cause something really nasty and bloody event. Eg. worldwar of some kind. But that's only my opinion.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Q
now dont get me wrong.
i havent read the entire thing up to this point.
i couldnt be bothered.
it just seemed to me that it was the same argument going round in circles.
please correct me if im wrong.
but,
have you ever actually been to any of these countries you talk about?
I have.
and i at least accept that while i may not agree with everything my government does and has done in the past on behalf of New Zealand,
i am not so ignorant as to suggest that that makes me blameless.
that is simply untrue.
you also suggest that the only people who may benefit from a war in Iran would be the people of Iran.
I distinctly remember hearing the same thing before the invasion of Iraq.
yet who are the only people to benefit from that?
A. The US, in that they are the ones making so much $ from the whole thing.all of the petrol you use does not in fact end up going back to benefit those people of those countries, it mostly benefits those in power over there and those in control of the oil name ly the people who invaded in the first place.
B. the terrorist factions because they end up with so much positive publicity.
no.
i dont think it is positive.
but no doubt, they do qand all the people who support them think so also.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

- yeah I believe so, and Canada and the USA so is the US to attack Canada and itself!?


uh no canada has no nuclear weapons....and neither does germany....



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 07:38 PM
link   
If there is any attack on the NA continent linked in anyway to Iranian interests then 3 hours later Isfahan will be a glassy knoll - it's really that simple - I wouldn't be surprised if the Israeli's didn't already have a plan in the can too. I don't doubt that Iranians love their country any more than us Canucks love the Dominion' - but I wouldn't want to see Iran glassified cuz then the Americans (Dick Cheney) will come and get their oil in Alberta - no sir, 'wouldn't like that one bit. Iran may get one or two punches - then it'll be a smokin' hole unfit for habitation. That would be a tragic loss.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   
The "official" reason to go to Iran is stop WMD-have we heard this before?
I think Europe doesn't want this either, but are too afraid to step up to the plate, so again, the US will have to.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   
The Chinese might be a little nervous... and should have an orbital assest on station this fall... Hmm wonder if it'll be a polar orbit? Good insurance policy? en.rian.ru...



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   
I think Bush has the idea that we can just go in and nuke a few targets and walk away with no problem. Iran is a proud country and they will never let the US walk all over them. I am sure some countries like Syria will come to their aid, maybe even China and we will have a big mess.

The only way to stop it would be to foil Cheney's plans for another attack. Everything they did before they invaded Iraq the first time and the second time, they are doing now with Iran so it is highly probable that we will attack them.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   
If the Iranians are smart they will put away their nuclear
weapons programs. I am pretty sure they are smart
and that they will do exactly that. Make no mistake,
the US is not going to send an army into Iran. The
only quarrel the US has with Iran is their nuclear
weapons program. No army and no occupying Iran
is required to stop that dead in its tracks. Iran realizes
that and will soon give up their nuke weapons programs.
The cowboy looking after American interests knows all
of this. Bush, the cowboy, knows when to attack and
when to sit back with his 30-30 winchester and ambush
the opposition. Iran is definitely a perfect example for
ambush. The cowboy knows where the nuclear facilites
in Iran are and he has the forces to ambush them. This
was something unknown in Iraq. Nobody knew where
the nuke program was in Iraq, until the war disclosed
it with the top Iraq nuke scientist giving up all the
details.


[edit on 18-8-2005 by MajorCee]

[edit on 18-8-2005 by MajorCee]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join