|
| Posted by: ukula
- [211381511] Thu, Feb 15, 2007, 12:50
I figured I'd start this thread early since we all know it's coming especially after last night's address by Bush. The Iran "links" to this and that have started. |
| | | 1 | Rios
ID: 260413010
Sat, Feb 17, 2007, 04:59
|
i sense an incoming false flag operation by pnac and the neocons.
|
|
| | | 2 | soxzeitgeist
ID: 291101710
Sat, Feb 17, 2007, 11:16
|
Good god I hope you're wrong Ukula.
The real irony of the whole situation is that if we could exhibit one
iota of national restraint and/or patience, (plus some diplomacy)
Iran is our most likely friend in the region.
|
|
| | | 3 | ukula
ID: 309521021
Sun, Feb 18, 2007, 23:07
|
Rios - I agree 110%. In order to justify an invasion into Iran, the neocons have to have some sort of false flag terror operation that they can blame on Iran. They're already starting to "link" things to Iran. Venezuela is next.
|
|
| | | 4 | Perm Dude
ID: 53140189
Sun, Feb 18, 2007, 23:15
|
There's no time. And no bodies to throw at Iran. We literally don't have enough troops to make it happen, and Bush will be out of office before it can happen in any case.
What is likely is that Bush & Co. are looking for scapegoats as to why they have failed. Weaponry from Iran is just part of the blame game.
|
|
| | | 5 | ukula
ID: 309521021
Mon, Feb 19, 2007, 21:56
|
No bodies? It's called the draft. Bush has two years to create another false flag terror operation - plenty of time.
|
|
| | | 6 | Perm Dude
ID: 50134197
Mon, Feb 19, 2007, 21:59
|
Not at all. It would take that long to get a draft going, get the men trained, and then get over there. And that's assuming a Democratic Congress would go along with it.
Tell you what: I'll pay $100 to Guru in your name if we have a declared war against Iran before Bush leaves office. You pay $100 to Guru in my name if we don't. Deal?
Otherwise, stop the fearmongering. You're worse than a neocon.
|
|
| | | 7 | Pancho Villa
ID: 37154320
Tue, Feb 20, 2007, 08:01
|
Sneaky, PD. You know very well we don't declare war any more when we decide to invade a country based on false allegations of national security.
|
|
| | | 8 | soxzeitgeist
ID: 441192217
Sat, Feb 24, 2007, 13:45
|
Call it fearmongering, PD, but 2 of my friends from my
Marine days have recently gotten lucrative bonus offers from the
US government to reenlist, and the only thing they have in
common is they both are DLI certified in Farsi. Other than that
you're talking about a mechanic and an intel specialist.
I can see approaching the latter, but the former? You mean to
tell me the Corps is hurting for qualified wrench turners?
These are men in their late 30's who are in no shape to be active
duty Marines, but the DoD is willing to give several waivers to
each to utilise their services.
|
|
| | | 9 | Perm Dude
ID: 31112247
Sat, Feb 24, 2007, 13:57
|
Lots of money being tossed around, because lots of guys aren't re-enlisting. Capitalism at work!
PV #7: I'm willing to pony up in the case of an "almost-declared war" like Iraq, in which Congress at least engaged some of their war powers in authorizing the President to use military force.
|
|
| | | 10 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Feb 24, 2007, 14:56
|
Servicemember just now leaving the military, say an E-4 cook...was making maybe 2k/m Army pay. Gets on with a civilian contractor, works the mess hall at a contractor supported DoD facility in Iraq/Pakistan...goes to 6k/m.
Those bonuses, are being paid in order to keep people in uniform...at all.
|
|
| | | 11 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Fri, Mar 02, 2007, 14:14
|
March 2, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
The Silence That Kills
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
On Feb. 20, The A.P. reported from Afghanistan that a suicide attacker disguised as a health worker blew himself up near “a crowd of about 150 people who had gathered for a ribbon-cutting ceremony to open an emergency ward at the main government hospital in the city of Khost.” A few days later, at a Baghdad college, a female Sunni suicide bomber blew herself up amid students who were ready to sit for exams, killing 40 people.
Stop and think for a moment how sick this is. Then stop for another moment and listen to the silence. The Bush team is mute. It says nothing, because it has no moral authority. No one would listen. Mr. Bush is losing a P.R. war to people who blow up emergency wards. Europeans are mute, lost in their delusion that this is all George Bush’s and Tony Blair’s fault.
But worst of all, Muslims, the very people whose future is being killed, are also mute. No surge can work in Iraq unless we have a “moral surge,” a counternihilism strategy that delegitimizes suicide bombers. The most important restraints are cultural, societal and religious. It takes a village — but the Arab-Muslim village today is largely silent. The best are indifferent or intimidated; the worst quietly applaud the Sunnis who kill Shiites.
Nobody in the Arab world “has the guts to say that what is happening in Iraq is wrong — that killing schoolkids is wrong,” said Mamoun Fandy, director of the Middle East program at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. “People somehow think that killing Iraqis is good because it will stick it to the Americans, so Arabs are undermining the American project in Iraq by killing themselves.”
The world worries about highly enriched uranium, but “the real danger is highly enriched Islam,” Mr. Fandy added. That is, “highly enriched Sunnism” and “highly enriched Shiism” that eats away at the Muslim state, the way Hezbollah is trying to do in Lebanon or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or Al Qaeda everywhere.
One result: there’s no legitimate, decent, accepted source of Arab-Muslim authority today, no center of gravity “for people to anchor their souls in,” Mr. Fandy said. In this welter of confusion, the suicide bombers go uncondemned or subtly extolled.
Arab nationalist media like Al Jazeera “practically tell bin Laden and his followers, ‘Bravo,’ ” Mr. Fandy said. “The message sent to bin Laden is that ‘You are doing to the West what we want done, but we can’t do it.’ This is the hidden message that the West is not privy to. Unless extreme pressure is applied on Muslims all over the world to come up with counter-fatwas and pronounce these men as pariahs, very little will happen in fighting terrorism.”
“The battleground in the Arab world today is not in Palestine or Lebanon, but in the classrooms and newsrooms,” Mr. Fandy concluded. That’s where “the software programmers” reside who create symbolic images and language glorifying suicide bombers and make their depraved acts look legitimate. Only other Arab-Muslim programmers can defeat them.
Occasionally an honest voice rises, giving you a glimmer of hope that others will stand up. The MEMRI translation Web site (memri.org) just posted a poem called “When,” from a Saudi author, Wajeha al-Huwaider, that was posted on Arab reform sites like www.aafaq.org.
When you cannot find a single garden in your city, but there is a mosque on every corner — you know that you are in an Arab country.
When you see people living in the past with all the trappings of modernity — do not be surprised, you are in an Arab country.
When religion has control over science — you can be sure that you are in an Arab country.
When clerics are referred to as “scholars” — don’t be astonished, you are in an Arab country.
When you see the ruler transformed into a demigod who never dies or relinquishes his power, and nobody is permitted to criticize — do not be too upset, you are in an Arab country.
When you find that the large majority of people oppose freedom and find joy in slavery — do not be too distressed, you are in an Arab country.
When you hear the clerics saying that democracy is heresy, but seizing every opportunity provided by democracy to grab high positions — do not be surprised, you are in an Arab country. ...
When you discover that a woman is worth half of what a man is worth, or less — do not be surprised, you are in an Arab country. ...
When land is more important than human beings — you are in an Arab country. ...
When fear constantly lives in the eyes of the people — you can be certain you are in an Arab country.”
|
|
| | | 12 | Perm Dude
ID: 17225214
Fri, Mar 02, 2007, 15:26
|
When religion has control over science — you can be sure that you are in an Arab country.
Really? How about the good old USA?
|
|
| | | 13 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Fri, Mar 02, 2007, 16:34
|
Yeah, I thought the same thing, PD. I guess from this writer's viewpoint, the same deal exists over there (and maybe for a linger period of time, and maybe more intense...? I dunno).
- walk
|
|
| | | 14 | Perm Dude
ID: 17225214
Fri, Mar 02, 2007, 16:44
|
It's the problem with trying to paint "them" as anything other than what conservatives here might lean toward.
"They" are terrorists, who attack countries with minimal or nonexistant evidence, who torture the innocent, with a head who claims they alone can interpret the law. "They" attack moderation, compromise, and diplomacy as "weakness." "They" restict choice for women, insisting that the male-dominated rule-makers have the better ability to make choices for them.
"They" believe both global warming and evolution are fictions, made up whole cloth by liberals with the intention of underminding the authority of the Almighty.
Or is that "us"?
|
|
| | | 15 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Fri, Mar 02, 2007, 16:52
|
I need to read more about the writer. IIRC, I though he was also an Arab resident.
- walk
|
|
| | | 16 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Fri, Mar 02, 2007, 16:54
|
I think I am wrong. He's an expert on Middle Eastern studies, and has done a lot of work in various settings, but is based on DC and runs a DC think tank. I got this info:
Dr Mamoun Fandy
Senior Fellow for Gulf Security
Responsibilities: Dr Fandy is working in collaboration with the Director of Studies and the IISS Director-General and Chief Executive to develop a research programme and conference activities focusing on the Gulf Region and the Middle East. He also contributes to a range of IISS publications on related topics.
Background: Dr Fandy previously served as Senior Fellow of Arab and Middle East Politics at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in the US, and as Editor of the bi-monthly Qadaya ‘Alamiyya (Global Issues). Prior to that he was a Senior Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace in Washington DC, Professor of Middle East Politics at the Near East–South Asia Center for Strategic Studies (NESA) at the National Defense University, and Professor of Arab Politics at Georgetown University. His publications have included Saudi Arabia and the Politics of Dissent; Kuwait as a New Concept of International Politics; and (Un) Civil war of Words: The Politics of Arab Media (forthcoming). Dr Fandy’s popular articles have appeared the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and more regularly in the Christian Science Monitor. He is a columnist for the Pan-Arab daily Asharq Al-Awsat. He appears on various TV channels such as CNN, FoxNews, BBC and PBS , al-Arabiya and many other Arabic TV channels.
Fandy
|
|
| | | 17 | Perm Dude
ID: 17225214
Fri, Mar 02, 2007, 17:00
|
I think he's right on with much of the argument. But, since 9/11, the irony of the US taking on the attributes of our "enemy" is missed by many.
|
|
| | | 18 | nerveclinic
ID: 1923234
Sat, Mar 03, 2007, 06:33
|
There was an interesting development concerning this thread last week in my opinion.
I don't know how much press it got in the States, but while the VP was visiting Pakistan to encourge their fight against Quayda, and dropping in and dodging bombs in Afghanistan, he made a little side trip to Oman.
Oman?
This is a little, insignificant, nothing country. I don't mean it in an insulting way, just as a statement of fact. I was talking with people here in the UAE at a party last night about it and they agreed the visit to such an insignificant country on this trip is odd, at face value.
It's one of the worlds smallest countries, and while they have oil, the total proven reserves are less then 5 billion barrels, not exactly an oil powerhouse.
The population of the entire country was 3,102,229 in 2006. There GDP is less then 50 billion dollars.
So why did the VP, a busy man at the moment, take time from his busy schedule meeting with Pakistan and Afghanistan to stop by and say "cheers" to Oman?
A closer look helps make sense of it.
Vice President Dick Cheney landed in the U.S.-allied Arab monarchy of Oman yesterday and went directly to talks with its foreign minister, Omani government officials said. A U.S. embassy spokesman in Oman declined to detail Cheney's plans or the focus of his visit to the sparsely populated oil-producing state, which allows the United States use of four air bases. But an Omani government official said Cheney was to discuss regional security issues, including the U.S. standoff with Iran over its nuclear program.
It's not by any chance because they are directly across the ocean from Iran is it?
|
|
| | | 19 | Perm Dude
ID: 4722937
Sat, Mar 03, 2007, 08:30
|
Great find, nerve. I knew having a man "on the scene" would prove useful to the boards!
|
|
| | | 20 | nerveclinic
ID: 27051103
Sun, Mar 04, 2007, 03:39
|
PD "On the scene" is an understatement. Take a look at the map, I'm just a stones throw away.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 23 | bibA
ID: 3122376
Tue, Apr 03, 2007, 19:41
|
Terms such as terrorism, and terrorists, sure are relative, aren't they?
|
|
| | | 24 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Sat, Apr 07, 2007, 13:44
|
PD "On the scene" is an understatement. Take a look at the map, I'm just a stones throw away.
Well as the man on the scene I have to tell you it's getting pretty tense over here.
The problem, what has people in the Dubai talking, is our proximity to Iran.
PD Tell you what: I'll pay $100 to Guru in your name if we have a declared war against Iran before Bush leaves office. You pay $100 to Guru in my name if we don't. Deal?
Otherwise, stop the fear-mongering. You're worse than a neocon.
I'm kind of surprised you would be so certain of this. The feeling here is not if the USA is going to attack Iran but when.
Now if we are talking semantics OK it may not be a "declared war", just a major bombing raid to take out the nuclear facility.
WE don't need extra troops to drop a bunch of bombs.
What has people concerned is whether or not there will be any nuclear fall out here.
As you can see from the map I posted earlier we are right across the water. There's even been talk of the US or Israel using tactical nuclear bombs which could further increase the danger of surrounding countries being contaminated.
This has been in the press a number of times over here including an article today.
I'm actually starting to think through if this is really a danger and if so do I need to think about getting out of here.
Anybody have any ideas on how I might be able to research the potential danger so I can make an educated decision?
I'm dead serious. If anyone has seen anything about this, read anything, has ideas on how to research this or knows anyone I can drop an email to pick their brain I would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
| | | 25 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Sat, Apr 07, 2007, 14:12
|
In case you are interested, here is the article that came out today concerning possible Nuclear fallout here in the case of a US attack.
link
Here are some excerpts but the whole piece is worth a read although many will find points to disagree with.
BEING based in Dubai offers you a rare, vantage point view over the Middle East. And Iran is not far from where we are.
The Bushehr nuclear power plant — at the heart of Iran’s standoff with the West — and the strategic port of Bandar Abbas are a stone's throw away from Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Doha and many Gulf cities. We are too close to the Persian giant for comfort. We can often feel the currents and shocks of geopolitical upheavals in Iran — almost literally. Which explains why we are more than apprehensive about the shape of things to come.
Not surprisingly Iran is currently the favourite subject of small talk as well as media chatter in our part of the world.
And journalist friends from around the world breathlessly ask us: “What do you think? Is the war imminent?”
Like all good, old-fashioned hacks, they are secretly hoping for bad news. After all, there’s nothing like a good war to boost your circulation figures or viewer ratings.
In fact, what would we journalists do without leaders like Bush and Ahmadinejad? Life would be so dull without the shenanigans of the two gentlemen. Of course, you can’t put the two in the same league. Indeed, they live on different planets.
While Bush’s own party, American people and the US allies and friends are at their wits’ end making sense of the royal mess that he has unleashed at home and abroad, the leader of the free world himself appears to revel in it.
Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, wouldn’t miss any opportunity to beat the ‘Big Satan’ and the rest of his allies with the big stick of fiery rhetoric and cold reason he always carries with him....
If the US and its ever-willing allies are today spoiling for a duel with Iran, Ahmadinejad’s style of leadership has played not too insignificant a role in it. But the Iran leader is not entirely to blame for the current confrontation with the West and tensions in the neighbourhood.
Bush and his neocon pals never needed an invitation to take on the Islamist Iran. Just as they didn’t require a provocation to strike at Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
...the attack on Iran — absolutely nutty as the idea may sound — may still be coming. In fact, the possibility of a US-Israel combine strike on the Islamic republic is growing by the day and the hour.
So it’s not a matter of IF but WHEN Iran is likely to get hit by the Coalition of the Willing.
The Iran-UK row over the 15 British sailors is only a tiny piece of the Middle East jigsaw that will unravel in the days and months to come...
Indeed, Blair has every right to protest Iran’s treatment of the detained Britons. For God’s sake, don’t the mullahs know how to treat the enemy combatants? When will the Arabs and Muslims learn the rules of engagement of the civilised world? Why there were no hoods, no dogs or leashes! Instead the British sailors were given new suits and traditional gifts by the Iranians before their release.
Is this the way to treat the enemy? It seems the Iranians drew no lessons from Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. It’s understandable then as soon as the sailors landed in Britain, Blair slammed the Iranian regime for its ‘involvement in terrorism’.
Looks like the Iranians will have to learn it the hard way. Just as the Iraqis have.
The Oxford Research Group has warned that up to 10,000 people would die immediately if the US bombed Iran’s nuclear sites, and that an attack on the Bushehr nuclear reactor could send a radioactive cloud over the Gulf. If the US uses nuclear weapons, such as earth-penetrating bunker buster bombs, radioactive fallout would become even more disastrous.
Which is why I wonder how the American people can allow their administration to undertake such a disastrous campaign after all that it has done over the past seven years? Especially when Iraq and Afghanistan, the two other fronts in America’s war, are still burning.
Is there no one who can stop Bush from visiting this madness on us all?
If Bush does blow up the nuclear power plant, and thousands die from the fall out, including those in uninvolved countries, it will be the USA that used nuclear weapons. They are concerned that Iran is building a bomb, we will in fact have exploded a nuclear bomb with the attack and nuclear fall-out from it.
|
|
| | | 26 | Baldwin
ID: 3503618
Sat, Apr 07, 2007, 14:16
|
The leader of Iran has been quoted as saying the problem of Isreal's existance will be solved when they get the bomb.
Could be some fallout from that.
|
|
| | | 27 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Sat, Apr 07, 2007, 14:38
|
Baldwin post 26...
So that statement justifies the US taking action that may cause nuclear contamination to innocent people/nations that just happen to be close geographically to Iran?
Care to expand on that Baldwin...
By the way if you read the article the writer brings up and criticizes some of the remarks Ahmadinejad has made including the one concerning "wiping out" Israel and denying the holocaust.
|
|
| | | 28 | Perm Dude
ID: 5435476
Sat, Apr 07, 2007, 16:11
|
The feeling here is not if the USA is going to attack Iran but when.
That's not a surprise. Bush has developed a reputation of being a damn the torpedoes war President.
But it isn't going to happen. Because he still needs Congress to approve of it, and after Iraq it would have to be pretty damn convincing.
|
|
| | | 29 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Sun, Apr 08, 2007, 03:13
|
Because he still needs Congress to approve of it, and after Iraq it would have to be pretty damn convincing.
Are you saying Bush needs congresses permission to Bomb the Nuclear sites in Iran? I don't believe that's correct. He only needs congress to approve additional funding if he declared actual war with Iraq.
If he claims a national security issue he can go in as commander and chief and do a strategic, temporary bombing operation without congress's permission, as long as it doesn't require additional funding.
For example, when Clinton bombed Iraq I don't believe there was an advanced vote in congress to give him permission.
Can anyone else weigh in on this?
|
|
| | | 30 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Sun, Apr 08, 2007, 03:29
|
Here is another Editorial from a Dubai Newspaper columnist who lives in the USA and observed the Media coverage of the 15 captured Brits in the US.
This is actually a rather small, somewhat unimportant free of charge publication but it's read like water here.
This is to give you some perspective on what the coverage is like here, in a country that is one of our allies and is the most moderate of any middle eastern country.
I would link to the article but it doesn't link by page so easier just to publish here...
I’ve been at home, in the I United States the past few weeks, watching the United Kingdom-Iran drama play out in the US media. The actual incident – Iran’s seizure of 15 British naval troops in debated waters – was not remarkable to me.
Seizure of foreign troops trespassing in another’s territorial waters is any country’s prerogative. If Iranian forces had been skirting around – let alone infiltrating – the United Kingdom’s territorial waters, they would have got the same treatment or far worse.
What surprised me was the way the incident was handled by US news channels and what they’re doing with it today. I’ve never been a big fan of our cousins in broadcast, and the US TV journalism is my least favourite, but I had expected the pretense of objectivity from them.
But the way they presented the sensitive episode, Iran was completely in the wrong. There was no issue of the debatability of border demarcations. Iran’s culpability and inherent evilness was only cemented with each late breaking update.
With gleeful anticipation, the US media was waiting for the worst. Iran’s certain violent treatment of Britain’s completely blameless soldiers was all we in the United States wanted to prove our fears.
Soon the Evil Empire would release footage of severed heads or some other mutilated remains of the brave British men and woman, and then our Cowboy-In-Chief would do the needful and take out Iran.
As the West considered war – its news channels readied their own war machines – goofy graphics to zoom across screen to give coverage a videogame-esque feel and experts who could judge the likelihood of Iran actually having nuclear warheads by the colour of Ahmedinejad’s suit alone. Momentum of anti-Iran sentiment was being hurried along like a juggernaut, and was to reach its climax in time for World War Three.
But that didn’t happen.The tension brewed after days of diplomatic wrangling was broken with Iran’s unexpected decision to release all 15 in one go. Exhibiting an impressive grasp of public relations, Iran played the benevolent and put-upon civilisation and decided to release the group after subjecting them to little worse than manhandling and a coerced apology.
A better result could not have been hoped for by the families, friends and government of the 15 sailors. That they would be given back in good health in just a few days, is beyond fortunate. In Iran’s place, many other countries would have got away with far worse with far less justification.
Britain’s only complaint was Iran violated the Geneva Convention by releasing footage of the captives. But whether or not the released taped confessions of guilt and apologies subjected the soldiers to the “insults and public curiosity” Article 27 warns against is debatable.
With the captives sent home, my US brethren in broadcast were caught with their pants down. They may have got away with their unfair tilt against Iran if it had reacted with the violence they predicted. Suddenly, their analysis of every Iranian move as a portent of evil is seen for the spin it is. They were unprofessional, as always, except this time it was more obvious.
But do we see any shame, backtracking or retractions? No. Still the US nightly news has the odd “expert” predicting the next incident to push the Iran crisis to its boiling point. “So what if we messed up this time? It’ll come through eventually,” they think.
The sad thing is, it may. Because in the end, if you say a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. That is the danger of propaganda.
|
|
| | | 31 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, Apr 08, 2007, 06:03
|
For example, when Clinton bombed Iraq I don't believe there was an advanced vote in congress to give him permission.
Can anyone else weigh in on this
I don't ever recall any sort of Congressional permission being given for any number of bombings that we've done in the past regardless of Administration. For instance, when Clinton bombed the aspirin factory or whatever it was to try and get OBL those years ago there was no congressional seal of approval.
Right after 9/11, IIRC, Congress passed a couple resolutions that affirm this.
I looked it up. I think I'm right.
It does refer to The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations., but tying Iran to terrorism should be as easy as tying a pair of shoes.
|
|
| | | 32 | Pancho Villa
ID: 42231410
Sun, Apr 08, 2007, 12:49
|
suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.
Suspected? Talk about your broad guidelines, especially given the track record of this administration. And the phrase, tying Iran to terrorism should be as easy as tying a pair of shoes begs for an objective definition of the word terrorism, which has lost any relationship to its original meaning. Using the current generic term of terrorism, one could tie scores of countries to terrorism, some of them we consider allies.
The problem is that it's impossible to have intelligent debate when an issue is prefaced with such an emotional base, which is the 9/11 attacks, the one single event that truly defines terrorism pertaining to this country. And just like Bush and Cheney repeatedly used the 9/11 attacks and Iraq in the same sentence prior to the invasion, using Iran and terrorism in the same sentence as justification for a military strike is equally a use of propoganda that most Americans would reject if given a more objective overview.
|
|
| | | 33 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Sun, Apr 08, 2007, 14:09
|
but tying Iran to terrorism should be as easy as tying a pair of shoes.
Pre-Invasion, most (I'd wager) of shrubs advisors, would have freely substituted Iraq for Iran in the above. I guess, that explains why they are all wandering around barefoot these days.
|
|
| | | 34 | Perm Dude
ID: 8344813
Sun, Apr 08, 2007, 15:54
|
PV: You're right. The Congress appeared to grant to the President some wide discretion when it comes to the self-declared "War on Terror." But he still went to Congress to give him the authority to invade.
And he would have to do the same with Iran, IMO. And that's why it won't happen--he knows Congress (Republicans included) would smack him down if asked if he can kill even more young Americans.
Nerve: I know that is the fear over there, and it is a direct result of Bush's sabre-rattling. But even someone who has lived by the sword like Bush would pause if he thinks he can invade Iran without American public support. Or British support at all, for that matter. Iran has managed to cleave Britain away from the US by their agreement to a diplomatic solution to the British hostage crisis.
|
|
| | | 35 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, Apr 08, 2007, 16:45
|
But even someone who has lived by the sword like Bush would pause if he thinks he can invade Iran without American public support.
Just glancing thru this thread makes me believe that a lot of you guys feel that an invasion of Iran is right around the corner or pretty close.
Do you guys really think we are that close or am I misperceiving your opinions? I just don't see it happening. There's too much going on in Afghanistan and Iraq and in order to have that sort of campaign in Iran we'd probably need a draft. I don't anybody would support that.
Also, perhaps invasion is not the best tool to use to deal with Iran.
|
|
| | | 36 | Pancho Villa
ID: 42231410
Sun, Apr 08, 2007, 17:07
|
I think the fear is not a full-blown invasion, but a strategic bombing campaign that Bush could coordinate without Congressional approval, like Clinton's Serbian excursion.
Ironically, given Iran's push for the bomb and Ahmadinejad's armageddon rhetoric concering Israel, Bush would have more justification than Clinton. But at this point, not only does that risk an economic calamity in the oil world, it begs further proliferation of an arms race with both Russia and China, each of whom are much stronger(economically and militarily) than they were a decade ago.
|
|
| | | 37 | nerveclinic
ID: 57327119
Wed, Apr 11, 2007, 11:45
|
I agree with PV, I don't think it will be an invasion for many of the reasons you stated Boxman. I just think they take out at a minimum the nuc capability and using support of the insurgents in Iraq as the excuse possibly other military infrastructure.
That's it, done, see ya.
|
|
| | | 38 | Perm Dude
ID: 39326119
Wed, Apr 11, 2007, 12:46
|
I think there is a heck of a lot more evidence of Iran having WMD capability (if not now, then soon) than Iraq.
|
|
| | |
| | | 40 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Apr 11, 2007, 13:25
|
oh, and before someone points out that the linked article says "up as much as six-fold", keep reading. Reserve/Guard bonuses are upo from 27 million to 335 million. Thats 12.XX times as much.
|
|
| | |
| | | 42 | Pancho Villa
ID: 42231410
Fri, May 18, 2007, 00:19
|
You'd think someone with the experience of Podhoretz would understand what constitutes a world war, and have the corresponding arguement to support his claims.
I'll cede that the Cold War can be considered world War 3, because it involved the major powers on the planet at the time confronting each other, even if in proxy wars.
But the criteria he offers for World War 4 fails to meet the standard. He's actually dishonest about it, as he fails to outline the alliances necessary for the description, other than to mimic Mark Steyn-style hysteria that Europe will succumb to an internal Islamic invasion, either that or the major military powers of the world - the US, China, Russia and Great Britain - will stand by in horror as Iran lobs nukes on Paris, London and Berlin. He also mentions the Iran/North Korea connection in an almost comical reminder of the Axis of Evil. He completely fails to expalin how World War 4 could be fought without the participation of not only the great armies of the world, but the great economies of the world as well.
Now, had he made a case that World War 4 would be fought over securing the last bit of easy energy on the planet, with Islamists securing an alliance with China and Russia against the great powers of the West, he would have a more believable scenario. Had he explained that Chavez's Venezuela and a future Islamic Nigeria, both huge oil producers, were part of the alliance equation, he would have had a more potent arguement.
It's not paranoid to say that the world is positioning itself for another global military conflict. It's just really sad to see guys like Podhoretz wanting to expedite it.
|
|
| | |
| | | 44 | Perm Dude
ID: 474282310
Wed, May 23, 2007, 11:34
|
Worst. President. Ever.
|
|
| | | 45 | boikin
ID: 59831214
Wed, May 23, 2007, 12:23
|
PD i think i mean worst CIA blackops plan ever, i mean i how secret can a plan be when ABC news knows about it.
|
|
| | | 46 | Perm Dude
ID: 474282310
Wed, May 23, 2007, 12:27
|
I'd call that "greyopps."
You're certainly right about ABC. I think the President's support is just so low now that an idiotic plan like this, even a CIA plan, is bound to leak.
My comment on Bush is that he should never have approved it.
|
|
| | | 47 | ukula
ID: 40430238
Wed, May 23, 2007, 12:32
|
Well, this is scary to say the least.
The Third Antichrist?
I wonder what "terror" the Neo-Cons are planning in their last 1 1/2 years to make this come about. I'm guessing that we'll have some "suitcase nukes" go off, killing hundreds of thousands in the U.S., they'll blame Iran, Bush will become dictator, and it'll be the start of WWIII.
It's really sad, I fear this administration more than I could any "terrorist".
|
|
| | | 48 | Doug
ID: 113132214
Thu, May 24, 2007, 03:50
|
Confused... where was I that I missed the first two Antichrists? I didn't watch CNN at ALL last week...
But I'm with you on fearing this administration, at least in the broad sense.
|
|
| | | 49 | ukula
ID: 214242411
Thu, May 24, 2007, 12:59
|
The common opinion is that Napoleon and Hitler were numbers 1 and 2.
Bush's name and past have more links to 666, satanic symbols, and evil than Lucifer himself.
Anyone who worships a 40 foot stone owl should not be elected president in my opinion.
|
|
| | |
| | | 51 | Mötley Crüe
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Jun 12, 2007, 19:27
|
I'll be surprised at this point if the US doesn't bomb Iran and soon. There's plenty of evidence to suggest they've been helping our enemies and giving them comfort and quarter all along. Now it appears they've also been helping the Taliban organizationally and with weaponry.
You may have found Rumsfeld and Cheney incredulously dishonest, but who wants to call bull$hit on Tony Blair, Robert Gates, and the State Department?
In Afghanistan last week, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Iranian weapons were falling into the hands of Taliban fighters, but stopped short of blaming the government itself.
Tony Blair:“In Afghanistan it is clear that the Taliban is receiving support, including arms from ... elements of the Iranian regime."
Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns: “Iran is now even transferring arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan.”
I'm going to momentarily ignore the possibility that they're all lying (because it's preposterous), and try to envision what to do next. Iran is working directly to kill Americans and subvert the stabilization process in Iraq. They are doing this deliberately, while at the same time defying US government and UN Security Council demands to halt enrichment of nuclear materials. I don't feel it's necessary to wait until they overtly attack another nation or build nuclear weapons before we send them a message in the form of a few fat warheads soaring through those ancient Persian skies.
Blinding hatred of the American Presidential Administration is a poor justification for decrying action against Iran, particularly in the face of the mounting evidence of their rancorous mendacity and treachery. How about giving reasons that don't simply belie a mistrust of George Bush?
|
|
| | | 52 | Perm Dude
ID: 265111218
Tue, Jun 12, 2007, 19:45
|
How about: No one knows that the Iran government is arming them. This is an important point: We want to "bomb" Iran but what, exactly, will we bomb, and why?
Seriously--the administration is saying that the Taliban appear to be better trained as a result of getting better weapons, presumably from Iran? Does this make any sense? Since when does better training as a force come as a result of better guns?
I think the Americans will demand a higher level of proof than this.
The fact is, all those fighting against American forces in the Middle East are getting more and more sophisticated, as a result of on-the-job training. We are, in fact, holding al-Queda training camps.
As for Afghanistan, if we'd never left the job half-finished the Iranians (of whoever might be arming them) would have no one to arm.
Finally, you seem to refer to "blinding hatred" when, in fact, most Americans simply distrust the President to put an accurate spin on things. I don't trust this Administration to tell the truth about Iran.
[This all, BTW, should be no surprise, since Dick Cheney has become more involved in Afghanistan policy. Cheney wants to bomb Iran, period. And he's got a history of distorting information to fit his goals. Blind hatred on my part? More like a realistic assessment of a war hawk.]
|
|
| | | 53 | Boxman
ID: 251142612
Wed, Jun 13, 2007, 13:44
|
If we do fight them, it looks like the Iranian soldiers won't have porn to watch.
Iran's parliament on Wednesday voted in favor of a bill that could lead to death penalty for persons convicted of working in the production of pornographic movies.
With a 148-5 vote in favor and four abstentions, lawmakers present at the Wednesday session of the 290-seat parliament approved that "producers of pornographic works and main elements in their production are considered corruptors of the world and could be sentenced to punishment as corruptors of the world."
The term, "corruptor of the world" is taken from the Koran, the Muslims' holy book, and ranks among the highest on the scale of an individual's criminal offenses. Under Iran's Islamic Penal Code, it carries a death penalty.
|
|
| | | 54 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Wed, Jun 13, 2007, 14:04
|
I read some of the stuff about Iran's alleged involvement with the Taliban, MC, and it is not at all clear that the Iranian gov't is behind this. It was also speculated that arms to the Taliban could be coming from Iran via the black market (e.g. stolen weapons). I also read that the Iran was historically an enemy of the Taliban, so that would make strange bedfellows. I guess my reasons for not doing this are:
I don't trust that the Iranian gov't is sponsoring the Taliban. I am not saying that your figureheads are liars. I am saying that they, and we, do not know if this is an Iranian gov't thing.
We are already engaging in a covert mission to destabilize Iran's gov't with misinformation. We still have five Iranian guards in custody from months ago, captured in Kurdistan. We have nuclear weapons and a bunch of presidential candidates who have publicly said they'd make a tactical nuclear strike on Iran to take out Iran's budding nuclear program (ironic, no crazy). So, should they bomb us?
I don't think Iran wants to be attacked, to have the region further destabilized.
I don't want anymore wars. That's a good, non-"I hate Bush" reason.
We don't have the military infrastructure to back-up any bombing of Iran. If we bomb them, what next? Send in the toy army dudes from Toy Story I & II. There's nothing left.
Maybe, instead of bombing them, we should engage in some diplomatic talks with them? That's what Rice wants to do, but Cheney keeps on undercutting her.
I need a lot more compelling reasons than maybe the weapons the Taliban are using are from Iran, and maybe sponsored by the Iranian gov't. One ill-conceived, unilateral, strategic war mistake in the region is enough (or way too much).
Bush Authorizes Covert Action Against Iran
Gates: Iranian Arms Supplying Taliban but Unclear on Gov't's Role
Nato Intercepts Arms from Iran to Taliban
Rice Plays Down Hawkish Talk on Iran
- walk
|
|
| | |
| | | 56 | boikin
ID: 59831214
Thu, Jun 14, 2007, 12:44
|
How about: No one knows that the Iran government is arming them. This is an important point: We want to "bomb" Iran but what, exactly, will we bomb, and why? good point PD and i think any action we would take again Iran would be covert in nature. i agree with you walk on the idea that Iran does not want war. they will push the situation as far as they can to make themseleves look good in the region, we can take on the big bad US and what not. They are merely trying to make them selves look stronger to there neighbors and make there citizentry forget about all the problems they have at home.
|
|
| | | 57 | Mötley Crüe
Dude
ID: 439372011
Mon, Jul 02, 2007, 20:53
|
I appreciate Perm Dude and walk, especially, for replying to my earlier comments. I regret not providing them with the same courtesy as I did have some thoughts in reply to what they said. Unfortunately I'm not able to view this message board during the day at all anymore Monday through Friday, and that has affected my interest level in ongoing dialog certainly. Your tax dollars are safer now, surely!
I'd appreciate a discussion redux.
Yahoo News: Afghan officials admit that Iran is clearly aiding the Taliban
"Iran's foreign ministry is staging a friendly-relations show with Afghanistan, supporting the Afghan government, [while]
[i]ts religious armed forces and its intelligence is supporting political opponents of the government and, separately, helping Taliban."
That's from an anonymous Afghan official. Presumably he doesn't want to go on record by name contradicting the previous Afghan governmental rhetoric that Iran is not involved.
Iran's motives for helping the Taliban (and indeed the hated Iraqis, with whom Iran had a long and bitter war) is simple if you consider the old axiom: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Anything to make the Americans' lives more difficult is worth pursuing as long as there is a bit of plausible deniability. Further:
Voice of America: Hezbollah acting as Iranian 'proxy' in Iraq
"Quds Force along with Hezbollah instructors train approximately 20 to 60 Iraqis at a time, sending them back to Iraq organized into these special groups. They are being taught how to use EFPs [explosively formed projectiles], mortars, rockets, as well as intelligence, sniper and kidnapping operations." --American military spokesman Brigadier General Kevin Bergner
The Iranians are doing everything within their power to ensure we have all we can handle in the Middle East. They won't do anything overt, of course. They'll circle the cockfighting pit and intermittently fire bottle rockets into it. They'll launch a legally vacuous attack on a hapless British patrol boat; they'll host any troublesome criminal element who wants to wage war against American soldiers; they'll provide aid, comfort, training, and weaponry to our enemies; and they'll smile and denounce Crusader lies accusing Iran of these acts in addition to assertions that there's a weapons grade nuclear program in the making in Persia. There's a hell of a lot more damning evidence against Iran in 2007 than there was against Iraq in 2003. Even members of the Democratic party running for President have acknowledged that Iran necessitates our attention.
Lest I be accused of irrational jingoism, I submit the following Glenn Greenwald column commenting on the New York Times' Michael Gordon particularly (with hints at the American media in general) and his proclivity to slavishly devour the Bush Administration's spoon fed doctrines.
From the link: "Every paragraph in [Gordon's] article -- literally -- does one of two things: (1) uncritically recites the U.S. military's accusations against the Iranian government, and/or (2) offers assertions from Gordon himself designed to bolster those accusations.
I defy anyone to scour Gordon's article and point to a single difference, large or small, between its content and what a Camp Victory Press Release on this topic would say."
Greenwald has a completely valid point in my opinion: the American media often presents stories in a one-sided and feckless manner. Freshman Logic tells me, however, that this is no reason to ignore the strong possibility that Iran could still be a devious actor in the Middle East at the moment. I submit they are subverting as many of our operations as they possibly can surreptitiously. Just because Dick Cheney agrees doesn't mean I'm wrong.
|
|
| | | 58 | Perm Dude
ID: 2164428
Mon, Jul 02, 2007, 21:13
|
Greenwald takes Gordon to task for another problem: referring to the insurgents in Iraq as being "al Qaeda" fighters. There's no proof that any more than a small percentage of fighting (if any) in any particular area are al-Qaeda, yet the Administration and their media parrots don't refer to anyone else anymore.
You might recall the fierce fighting not long ago in Fallujah. In the original articles, Gordon consistently referred to the fighters as insurgents. In a recent referral, however, they suddenly became "al Qaeda."
As far as the Iranian connection is concerned, Greenwald appears to be dead on with his assessment, IMO. This sounds like a story on steroids, the germ of a story pumped up by some in the Administration and them paraded around on stage. In a hurry, before it explodes on them.
The big problem, IMO, is that the Administration is spending a lot of trouble looking for the next boogeyman. But if the job was done in Afghanistan, we wouldn't be worried about the weaponry there (for example). In other words, the Administration is still looking for reasons why they are failing in Iraq and Afghanistan by blaming the Iranians as a setup to the next invasion that they want to make.
|
|
| | | 59 | Baldwin
ID: 125312919
Mon, Jul 02, 2007, 22:01
|
no reason to ignore the strong possibility that Iran could still be a devious actor in the Middle East at the moment.
Strong possibility?
There is considerably more evidence, rock solid evidence in fact that Iran is a major player in arms supplies in Iraq and surrounding Isreal, particularly the Gaza Strip than there is for them being active in Afghanistan but they are unquestionably a major factor in the violence in the middle east.
|
|
| | | 60 | Baldwin
ID: 125312919
Mon, Jul 02, 2007, 22:51
|
I should have said particularly the Bekaa valley and southern Lebanon from which so many attacks have been launched.some Arab states (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) have condemned Hezbollah's actions, saying that "the Arabs and Muslims can't afford to allow an irresponsible and adventurous organization like Hezbollah to drag the region to war" and calling it "dangerous adventurism,"[44] - Source
urce
|
|
| | | 61 | Mötley Crüe
Dude
ID: 439372011
Mon, Jul 02, 2007, 23:57
|
PD, God love you, but the fact is we didn't finish the job in Afghanistan. That doesn't give Iran a license to play the class clown. Your assertions aside, I think we're to the point now where it's obvious to the world that Iran is directly responsible for the deaths of more than a few Americans lately.
Looking for a boogeyman implies that none existed to begin with. I think we have enough experience with Iran over the last 20+ years to interpret what we are seeing in exactly the right way.
|
|
| | | 62 | Perm Dude
ID: 2164428
Tue, Jul 03, 2007, 00:31
|
We've actually got a lot of smoke but not much fire. It wouldn't surprise me that Syria, Lebanon, Indonesia, and many other countries are trying to help out there, in the shadows.
But we have little hard proof, particularly of any official Iranian involvement. A lot of very confident people without much to back it all up.
I meant to make my point a little stronger above: An administration which consistently and deliberately mischaracterizes the people who are actually fighting in Iraq are in no position to start claiming they know that Iran (and Iran alone, it appears) is helping out behind the scenese in Iraq and therefore they deserve to be bombed. I'm sorry, but this Administration has caused the bar to be raised on what is accepted as the truth here.
Iran, of course, has no love lost with Iraq and and Iraqi people. While I'm absolutely certain that there are some in Iran who would love to see the US get beat up in Iraq (and might even send a little help) I think the Iraqi government is completely out of the loop, as witnessed by the US backtracking, quickly, from that claim of just a few months ago. I think the Iraqis realize, and many do, that the US needs no help to make themselves look bad.
|
|
| | | 63 | Baldwin
ID: 125312919
Tue, Jul 03, 2007, 18:22
|
What the government in Iran is after is to expel the USA so they can get on with installing a Shia-flavored Islamist theocracy in Iraq. This is not speculation, it's obvious fact.
|
|
| | | 64 | Perm Dude
ID: 2164428
Tue, Jul 03, 2007, 18:39
|
Iran has enough problems to worry about in their own country. I'd give it 50/50 odds on an open civil war in Iran in the next 18 months.
|
|
| | | 65 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Wed, Jul 04, 2007, 12:31
|
PD: What do you see as the warring factions? The hardliners versus the moderates? I don't ever wish for war, but I think a civil war in Iran would be beneficial to us in that there's a chance a more moderate and open society could take over.
|
|
| | | 66 | Perm Dude
ID: 763249
Wed, Jul 04, 2007, 13:30
|
I think that is exactly it, Boxman: Hardliners vs. moderates. Victor Davis Hanson has a pretty good piece on it. Money quote:
With oil prices at an all-time high, Iran can't provide gasoline for its own people, who resent the billions spent instead on Arab terrorists abroad. If oil were to dip from near $70 to $50-55 a barrel, the regime would face abject bankruptcy. For all the criticism of the U.S. position, from the left and right, we have now found the right blend of military determination not to let Teheran go nuclear, combined with economic and political efforts at containment. There is an array of future options — stronger embargoes, blockades, and military strikes on infrastructure — still on the table. The social unrest the mullahs desire in Iraq is starting to spill over the border into their own Iran, and its magnitude and final course are still unpredictable.
Iran has plenty of oil, but very limited refining capability. They actually ship out oil, then buy back the gasoline for themselves, and heavily subsidize the gasoline sales to its own citizens.
Some citizens have had enough and realize that the country has overextended itself economically while shortchanging their own citizens.
Like the Cold War, the War in Iran might end, after years of posturing, with the other side in an economic pile of crap.
|
|
| | | 67 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Wed, Jul 04, 2007, 14:40
|
Bolton apparently thinks bombing is the answer.
Bolton: I'm 'very worried' for Israel
Bolton said flatly that "diplomacy and sanctions have failed... [So] we have to look at: 1, overthrowing the regime and getting in a new one that won't pursue nuclear weapons; 2, a last-resort use of force."
Here's a problem. Let's say your prediction comes true and the moderates win. What if the moderates pursue nuclear weapons anyway even though they seek more normalized relations with the west? Is it possible to have a nuclear armed Iran, that is moderate, with relations to the west?
A nuclear Middle East is seemingly an inevitability. There is already a nuclear Pakistan that has had problems via AQ Khan. So then our best, and most realistic option, is to have a nuclear Middle East that is not hellbent on Armageddon. I honestly don't believe that's possible.
Once Iran goes nuclear I don't see how it's possible that we prevent Saudi Arabia and Jordan from achieving the same abilities. Then how do we keep Israel from publicly conducting nuclear tests somewhere.
The whole thing is a damn powder keg.
|
|
| | |
| | | 69 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Wed, Jul 04, 2007, 17:01
|
If W was half the communicator that Reagan was he could pull off a modern day "Tear down this wall!" speech. I just don't see him doing that.
It looks to me like moderate reform has been a long time coming in Iran. I wonder if the gasoline rations was the straw that broke the camel's back. Ahmadinejad's election was fuzzy at best.
Change Is A Long Time Coming
Mr. Ahmadinejad's strong showing came as a shock to the political establishment here. He had hovered at the back of the field of candidates in pre-election opinion surveys and his political base was said to be limited to the capital city. An element of the bizarre in the events on Saturday came as Mr. Ahmadinejad announced that he would be in the runoff hours before the ministry issued its own results.
The government did not immediately respond to the charges of vote tampering, but the cloud had been hanging over the race since the early morning hours when the Interior Ministry found its results being publicly contradicted on state television by the Guardian Council, the panel controlled by hard-line clerics that has the ultimate say over all government actions and often clashes with the reform-controlled elected government. The council has, for example, the power to unilaterally reject the outcome of the election.
Initially, the Interior Ministry had Mr. Rafsanjani first, Mr. Karroubi, the former speaker of the Parliament, in second, and Mr. Ahmadinejad third. Half an hour later the Guardian Council, which is not supposed to be involved in counting ballots, said Mr. Ahmadinejad was in first place.
Apparently hoping to head off an embarrassing public split, the departing president, Mohammad Khatami, visited the site where the ballots were being counted in the morning and offered words of assurance.
"All our efforts have been to hold a healthy election and to protect peoples votes," Mr. Khatami said in comments broadcast on national news. "I have come here to thank officials at the Interior Ministry and to make sure votes are being counted very carefully. If anyone has made any other comments, it is not right."
But the effort failed as Mr. Karroubi made his charges public. As the former speaker of Parliament, he was a member of the reform movement but often worked closely with the conservatives. He has made it clear that if he becomes president he will support working within the current system.
His charges gained some added currency on Saturday night when they were echoed by Dr. Mostafa Moin, the reform candidate who came in fifth after public opinion polls had shown him vying for second place. Dr. Moin said in a statement that military forces in the country joined together with some political organizations to rig the election and to promote a particular candidate, though he did not say which one.
"This is a warning for democracy," Dr. Moin said in the statement. "We must be aware that such efforts will eventually lead to militarizing the regime, and political and social supression. This is a threat for civil society and is blocking reform."
From the same website I found some stats on women in Iran. Slightly OT, but interesting anyway.
Official Laws against Women in Iran
|
|
| | | 70 | Jag
ID: 3064839
Wed, Jul 04, 2007, 17:30
|
Boxman, the irony of this is that women rights was the chief reason Jimmy Carter pulled support for the Shah, allowing the the Mullahs to take over. It makes me wonder how much better shape the world would be if Carter was never elected and how much trouble we will all be in if the Liberals gain the presidency, not just for America, but the economic catastrophe and free reign for terrorists would affect the world.
|
|
| | | 71 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Wed, Jul 04, 2007, 17:54
|
I do love how troglodyte rightists fault Carter for his opposition to an oppressive Middle Eastern government, which they claim has led to greater unrest in the region.
And then in the same breath support the invasion of Iraq.
|
|
| | | 72 | Jag
ID: 3064839
Wed, Jul 04, 2007, 18:07
|
This shows how scary it is if Liberals make command decisions in the future, they can't even admit horrendous mistakes from the past.
|
|
| | | 73 | soxzeitgeist
ID: 30627317
Wed, Jul 04, 2007, 18:09
|
*laughing*
And admitting mistakes is such a strong point for this
administration.
|
|
| | | 74 | Perm Dude
ID: 763249
Wed, Jul 04, 2007, 18:12
|
They continue to insist that Carter "stopped supporting the Shah" which is like saying "the earth is flat" with a straight face.
The revolution in Iran started because of Shah instituting Western-style reforms (including women's rights), and continued because Iran allowed the mullahs back into the country from exile in order to calm the revolution down. Carter not only never stopped supporting the Shah (in fact, allowing him to come into the US for medical treatment), but could not have stopped supporting the Shah over women's rights since they were of the same mind on the issue.
Yeah, that Carter guy was just terrible for the Middle East, especially the fantasy Middle East in which Egypt and Israel are still at war.
Another attempt to make this whole thing the "Liberals" fault.
What ever happened to personal responsibility?
|
|
| | | 75 | Jag
ID: 3064839
Wed, Jul 04, 2007, 18:12
|
I am not the administration and a retarded ape could of handled the Iraq situation better. Rumsfeld was a moron.
|
|
| | | 76 | Jag
ID: 3064839
Wed, Jul 04, 2007, 18:17
|
Bush sr. not taking out Saddam in the first war was almost as bad, hindsight is 20/20, except for Liberals, they would still make the same mistakes going with their Leftist playbook and try to rewrite history.
|
|
| | | 77 | Perm Dude
ID: 763249
Wed, Jul 04, 2007, 18:25
|
So, despite the fact that Republicans have been in charge now for some time, we've got a huge budgetary crisis in the US, Social Security about to blow up, Medicare going to drain taxpayers dry, the largest government ever, nearing 4000 dead Americans in Iraq, etc etc, you still hold out the hope that "Liberals" (if one were running) would have been worse?
What this Administration has actually done is the worst-case scenerio for what Republicans were saying would happen if Democrats took control.
Americans now realize that giving Republicans everything they want (control of the House, Senate, the Executive Branch, most state governorships and a majority of statehouse legislative branches) has been a disaster. Like it or not, you have to stand on what your party has done (and not done) since it got everything it wanted years ago.
I sincerely hope that Republican candidates continue to use your line about "liberals" (remember how it worked in November 2006? Not a single Democrat running for re-election in the House, Senate or state governoship lost. Not one). Go at it, Jag. It'll make the GOP even more irrelevant as we go about trying to clean up the mess your party has made.
|
|
| | | 78 | Jag
ID: 3064839
Wed, Jul 04, 2007, 18:43
|
So, despite the fact that Republicans have been in charge now for some time, we've got a huge budgetary crisis in the US, Social Security about to blow up, Medicare going to drain taxpayers dry, the largest government ever, nearing 4000 dead Americans in Iraq, etc etc, you still hold out the hope that "Liberals" (if one were running) would have been worse
Many Republicans are disgusted with Bush's over spending, but come on, you except anyone to believe Liberals are going to shrink the Government and reduce spending, if they did that, they would be Conservatives.
|
|
| | | 79 | Perm Dude
ID: 763249
Wed, Jul 04, 2007, 18:50
|
You mean like the "conservatives" who blew up the size of government?
I think many Americans realize that, the last time Democrats were in the White House, the size of government (both in terms of employees and dollars spent) was the smallest it had been the previous 35 years.
I'll grant that Republicans haven't been altogether "conservative" but the truly conservative among us are running, not walking, away from the GOP. And they are supporting moderate Democrats.
|
|
| | | 80 | Jag
ID: 3064839
Wed, Jul 04, 2007, 19:12
|
I think the Liberals here should create a Newt Gingrich fan club, they are always talking about what a good job he did with his 'Contract to America', of course, they try to give the credit to Clinton.
|
|
| | | 81 | Perm Dude
ID: 763249
Wed, Jul 04, 2007, 19:29
|
There would have been no balanced budget without Clinton/Gore. None.
How do we know? Because we haven't had one since.
I know it probably pisses you off that Democrats are acting more conservative on a wide range of issues than Republicans. But there you go.
|
|
| | | 82 | Jag
ID: 3064839
Wed, Jul 04, 2007, 19:34
|
Give me a break with the Hilary reidentifying, Permary. You are a Liberal, be proud of it or come out of dark and join us moderates.
|
|
| | | 83 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Wed, Jul 04, 2007, 19:37
|
moderate??? jag??? YOU???????? holy fvck. No wonder you havent got a clue. You dont even know who you you are.
|
|
| | | 84 | Jag
ID: 3064839
Wed, Jul 04, 2007, 19:41
|
Damn Sarge, I have you so flustered you are stuttering on the computer. Take Take a deep breath, it will be OK.
|
|
| | | 85 | Perm Dude
ID: 763249
Wed, Jul 04, 2007, 19:47
|
Jag, you're not a moderate. Sorry to break this to you, but moderates tend to have a much better grasp of reality than you've demonstrated on these boards.
I never said anything about Hilary. A sign of your "moderate" tendency?
|
|
| | | 86 | walk
ID: 365257
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 08:56
|
LOL, PD. I think he's correct in his assessment, Jag...your views don't seem moderate, but one could argue that since I am liberal, your moderate views are perceived as very conservative....
- walk
|
|
| | | 87 | walk
ID: 365257
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 08:56
|
July 5, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Time to Call In the Iran Chips
By ROGER COHEN
International Herald Tribune
NEW YORK
If one country should have been happy with the post-9/11 upheaval the United States has engineered in Afghanistan and Iraq, it was Iran.
The Shiite mullahs in Tehran were delivered from their sworn enemy, the Taliban, against whom they had amassed 200,000 troops on the Afghan border in 1997, and from Saddam Hussein in Iraq, against whom they had fought an inconclusive war in the 1980s that took one million lives.
Afghanistan came under the authority of President Hamid Karzai, who has called Iran a ''close friend.'' Iraq's social revolution brought Shiite brothers to power. All this came thanks to the ''Great Satan,'' at no cost in Iranian treasure (growing by the day with oil at $70 a barrel) or blood.
I know history has its ironies, not least the fact that the United States funded the creation of Muslim holy warriors, Osama bin Laden among them, as agents in the Afghan undoing of the Soviet Union, only to face these warriors reinvented as death-to-America jihadists once the Cold War ended.
This was harsh payback for Washington. But Iran's payback for the favorable power shift gifted upon it has been as bitter.
In contrast to Iran, the countries that ought to have been most unhappy with the regime changes were America's regional allies — Pakistan, Jordan and Saudi Arabia — Sunni powers with scant sympathy for the governments installed in Kabul and Baghdad.
They are indeed displeased by the power shifts. Everyone is irked, Iran chief and most dangerous among them.
The failure to parlay two American military interventions that served Iran's objective strategic interest into substantive engagement between the two countries constitutes the Bush administration's most costly diplomatic failure. Such expenditure of U.S. treasure and blood merited more creative diplomacy.
This failure hurts U.S. interests in Iraq and Lebanon and in finding an Israeli-Palestinian peace. It has even begun to hurt U.S. interests in Afghanistan where, in a fantastic turnabout, Iran is arming its erstwhile mortal enemy, the Taliban.
If America is engaged in another Cold-War-like generational conflict, which is the way the administration has chosen to characterize the war on terror, then Tehran is the closest equivalent to Moscow.
Iran combines ideological fervor, military vigor, strategic agility, domestic repression, economic weakness (petrol shortages despite having the world's second largest oil reserves) and serious social fissures in ways suggestive of the former Soviet Union. It is, in the assessment of one seasoned American diplomat, ''a worthy adversary.''
That adversarial role is now channeled into a proxy war in Iraq. U.S. accounts this week of Iranian involvement, through agents of its elite Quds Force, in the killing of five American soldiers in January were the most specific of a series of persuasive U.S. and British charges against Tehran.
What is Iran up to in Iraq and Afghanistan? It wants to keep America bleeding. Looking down the barrel of a gun over its nuclear program, Iran likes the idea of American forces stretched as thin as possible. It wants its Shiite proxies armed in the event of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. And, angered by the notion that Pakistan can have nukes but not Persia rising, it is looking for respect.
''Iran and the United States were closest on Afghanistan and Iraq, and farthest apart on the nuclear issue, Hamas and Hezbollah,'' said Vali Nasr, the author of ''The Shia Revival.'' ''The conciliatory logic of Iraq might have dominated, but the reverse has happened and Iranian moderates were never cultivated.''
Iran is an ugly regime. Its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a foul-mouthed buffoon. But it is also a sophisticated country and the only one in the Middle East with a government far more anti-Western than its generally America-loving population. Placing Iran in the ''axis of evil'' and isolating it has served no constructive purpose.
It is time to put the onus on the mullahs. The United States should propose broad, high-level talks with Iran across the range of issues confronting the two countries — Iraq, Afghanistan, nuclear weapons, Lebanon, Israel-Palestine — while dropping its meaningless insistence that Iran suspend nuclear enrichment activities before talks begin.
That will test whether the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Ahmadinejad feel they can survive without the ''Great Satan'' distraction from acute domestic woes.
If the answer to the invitation is no, and Iranian-orchestrated attacks in Iraq continue, America should play hardball. Iran, like Iraq, is a multiethnic country. Its Kurds, ethnic Baluchis and other minorities can find money and weapons flowing to them from a ''worthy adversary'' of the mullahs' regime.
Email: rocohen@iht.com
|
|
| | | 88 | Baldwin
ID: 125312919
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 23:01
|
I'll grant that Republicans haven't been altogether "conservative" but the truly conservative among us are running, not walking, away from the GOP. And they are supporting moderate Democrats. - PD
Care to put names to that?
|
|
| | | 89 | Perm Dude
ID: 3164859
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 23:17
|
In the last presidential election, the number of conservatives supporing Kerry, for example, was quite long.
More recently, in your own state, Kirk Dillard is supporting Obama, among others.
The run away from Republicans will only increase the closer we get to November 2008.
|
|
| | | 90 | Baldwin
ID: 125312919
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 23:19
|
Name a conservative who supported Kerry.
|
|
| | | 91 | Perm Dude
ID: 3164859
Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 23:32
|
Andrew Sullivan
Scott McConnell
Steve Chapman
Jesse Ventura
Lee Iacocca
William Milliken
Bob Smith (NH Senator)
David Bonderman
August Busch IV
Jude Wanniski
Francis Fukuyama
et al...
|
|
| | | 92 | Baldwin
ID: 125312919
Fri, Jul 06, 2007, 00:13
|
Let's take it from the top. In which universe is Sullivan a conservative?
|
|
| | | 93 | Perm Dude
ID: 3164859
Fri, Jul 06, 2007, 00:25
|
The one in which government is a lot smaller, most services now performed by the government are done by private companies, habeus corpus was more than a vague concept, and the sign of a working government is that the leaders are forced to follow the people, not the other way around.
He's a small government conservative who believes government doesn't need to be the country's nanny, that most private areas of our lives (from sexuality, smoking, recreational druges, to how we raise our children), so long as others are not adversely affected, should be taken out of the hands of government bureaucrats and politicians and put into the hands of the people.
Many conservatives don't like Sullivan because of his sexuality, which merely reflects the current conservative obsession with male anal sex. Most gays should be conservative (just like most blacks), as a hands-off government is probably in their best interest. Good news for the Democrats is that Republicans continue to reject them.
|
|
| | | 94 | walk
ID: 75112114
Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 12:44
|
July 19, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Cheney’s Long-Lost Twin
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Could Dick Cheney and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad be twins separated at birth?
The U.S. vice president and Iranian president, each the No. 2 in his country, certainly seem to be working together to create conflict between the two nations. Theirs may be the oddest and perhaps most dangerous partnership in the world today.
Both men are hawks who defy the international community, scorn the U.N. and are unpopular at home because of incompetence and recklessness — and each finds justification in the extremism of the other.
“Iranians refer to their new political radicals as ‘neoconservatives,’ with multiple layers of deliberate irony,” notes Gary Sick, an Iran specialist at Columbia University, adding: “The hotheads around President Ahmadinejad’s office and the U.S. foreign policy radicals who cluster around Vice President Cheney’s office, listen to each other, cite each others’ statements and goad each other to new excesses on either side.”
So one of the perils in the final 18 months of the Bush administration is that Mr. Cheney and Mr. Ahmadinejad will escalate provocations, ending up with airstrikes by the U.S. against Iranian nuclear sites.
Already we’re seeing a series of leaks about Iran that echo leaks in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. The reports say that Iran is turning a blind eye to Al Qaeda, is using Hezbollah to wage a proxy war against U.S. forces in Iraq, is transferring bomb-making skills to Iraq insurgents and is handing out armor-piercing bullets to fighters in Iran and Afghanistan so as to kill more Americans.
Yet the jingoists aren’t all in our government: These leaks may well all be accurate, for Mr. Ahmadinejad is a perfect match for Mr. Cheney in his hawkishness and contempt for the international community.
It’s worrying that Iran has just recalled its most able diplomat — Javad Zarif, ambassador to the U.N. — and sent him out to pasture as an academic. Hard-liners always hated Mr. Zarif; goons from a mysterious Iranian security agency detained me on my last trip to Tehran and accused me of being a C.I.A. or Mossad spy, apparently because they were trying to get dirt to use against Mr. Zarif (who had given me my visa).
Mr. Zarif’s departure last week suggests that Mr. Ahmadinejad doesn’t plan to solve his nuclear confrontation with the West through diplomacy.
So the danger is that the pragmatists on both sides will be sidelined, while the extremists will embolden and empower each other. The ultimate decision-makers may be President Bush and the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but Mr. Cheney may find a sympathetic ear when he makes an argument to Mr. Bush that goes like this:
How can we leave a nuclear Iran as our legacy? Tehran’s arms program will encourage Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey to seek nuclear weapons as well — and then there’s the worst-case scenario that Iran actually wants to destroy Tel Aviv. We just can’t bet on Iranian restraint.
These are real arguments, but a strike is no solution. For starters, it would delay the Iranian nuclear program by only about three years — and when it came back, the regime might be more likely than ever to use the weapons. And for Mr. Bush to launch a third war against a Muslim country would undermine Islamic moderates and strengthen radicals around the world.
Iran is also more complex and sophisticated than it pretends to be — and the fact is that standard deterrence has constrained it. Iran has a huge stockpile of chemical weapons, and the U.S. intelligence community suspects that it has sleeper agents in the U.S. who could be activated for terrorism. But we have deterred Iran from unleashing terror attacks against our homeland, and the best bet for eliminating the threat altogether is the collapse of Iran’s own neocons under the weight of their incompetence.
A recent opinion poll in Iran found that 70 percent of Iranians want to normalize relations with the U.S., and 61 percent oppose the current Iranian system of government. Any visitor to Iran knows that it is — at a people-to-people level — the most pro-American Muslim country in the region, and the regime is as out of touch and moribund as the shah’s was in the late 1970s.
The ayatollahs’ only hope is that we will rescue them with a military strike, which would cement them in place for many years to come. But look out, because that’s what may happen if bilateral relations are driven by those jingoistic twins, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Ahmadinejad.
|
|
| | | 95 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Wed, Sep 12, 2007, 13:12
|
U.S. Officials Begin Crafting Iran Bombing Plan
WASHINGTON — A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime, FOX News confirmed Tuesday.
Germany — a pivotal player among three European nations to rein in Iran's nuclear program over the last two-and-a-half years through a mixture of diplomacy and sanctions supported by the United States — notified its allies last week that the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel refuses to support the imposition of any further sanctions against Iran that could be imposed by the U.N. Security Council.
The announcement was made at a meeting in Berlin that brought German officials together with Iran desk officers from the five member states of the Security Council. It stunned the room, according to one of several Bush administration and foreign government sources who spoke to FOX News, and left most Bush administration principals concluding that sanctions are dead.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 98 | Perm Dude
ID: 17946246
Wed, Oct 24, 2007, 11:31
|
Interesting. I didn't know that the Kurds (formerly our best allies in Iraq, until the 4th or 5th time we stabbed them in the back) were attacking Iranian targets.
|
|
| | | 99 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Wed, Oct 24, 2007, 11:56
|
“Tehran even says Washington aids the Iranian guerrillas, a charge the United States denies,” Oppel writes.
PJAK is just an extension of the PKK. They share arms, bases, intelligence and culture. The CIA and Mossad have been supplying arms to PJAK for years, which is essentially supplying arms to the PKK.
So, we're arming a so-called terrorist group who attacks Turkey, while supplying arms to Turkey at the same time, reminiscient of Iran/Contra.
|
|
| | | 100 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Wed, Oct 24, 2007, 12:53
|
oh yeah, PD. I've read a lot about this lately. As PV says, the PJAK and PKK organizations are sorta sister orgs, and both are fighting for better conditions for Kurds in Iran and Turkey, respectively. Our country seemingly has listed the PKK as a terrorists org, but has not even really discussed the PJAK cos we may be helping them (!). Here's the article to which Dowd refers:
Iraq Kurd conflict simmers on two fronts
|
|
| | | 101 | walk
ID: 7952415
Thu, Oct 25, 2007, 09:45
|
Another Step Towards War with Iran?
My sentiments get to a point where I just wish the Dems would start impeachment hearings...someone has to stop this aggressor style of thinking. While I still believe that Cheney and Bush still believe they are doing what they believe is best for the country, I also believe they do not have any idea how stupid their beliefs are when turned into action. Everything they do backfires. I wish they would finally say something like: "You know, everything we do backfires, instead of just saying 'we'll be seen as correct in 20 years,' let's try something different and just do the opposite of what we're thinking." Like a what I do when I am in a rut in making my weekly football pix.
I also have this sinking feeling that Hillary aint gonna be too much different, policy-wise, so she's now down to my #3 choice of the big 3 Dem candidates, behind Barack and Edwards. I think she will get the nom though, and I am starting to get dismayed...better than Rudy though, who would seemingly be running ahead of Bush and Cheney to push the nuke button like my kids do when they are racing to push an elevator buttong. Aaaaaaaaaah!
|
|
| | | 102 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Oct 25, 2007, 10:35
|
Cant find a thing in post 101, to disagree with.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 105 | bibA
Leader
ID: 261028117
Fri, Nov 02, 2007, 17:28
|
Mith - Some fantastic photography there, great vistas.
Think how much nicer they will have it once we bring freedom and democracy to their land, just like we did for Iraq.
Of course we are gonna bomb 'em.....they shouldn't have attacked us in the first place!
|
|
| | | 106 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Fri, Nov 02, 2007, 17:37
|
Yeah. Bombs make everything nicer.
|
|
| | | 107 | Seattle Zen
ID: 21040219
Fri, Nov 02, 2007, 23:02
|
Wow, those shots were awesome, just awesome. Nice find, MITH.
|
|
| | | 108 | Ken Larson
ID: 231046310
Sat, Nov 03, 2007, 12:46
|
I am a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran who recently retired after 36 years of working in the Defense Industrial Complex on many of the weapons systems being used by our forces as we speak. I believed another Vietnam could be avoided with defined missions and the best armaments in the world.
It made no difference.
We have bought into the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). If you would like to read how this happens please see:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/spyagency200703
Through a combination of public apathy and threats by the MIC we have let the SYSTEM get too large. It is now a SYSTEMIC problem and the SYSTEM is out of control. Government and industry are merging and that is very dangerous.
There is no conspiracy. The SYSTEM has gotten so big that those who make it up and run it day to day in industry and government simply are perpetuating their existance.
The politicians rely on them for details and recommendations because they cannot possibly grasp the nuances of the environment and the BIG SYSTEM.
So, the system has to go bust and then be re-scaled, fixed and re-designed to run efficiently and prudently, just like any other big machine that runs poorly or becomes obsolete or dangerous.
This situation will right itself through trauma. I see a government ENRON on the horizon, with an associated house cleaning.
The next president will come and go along with his appointees and politicos. The event to watch is the collapse of the MIC.
For more details see:
http://rosecoveredglasses.blogspot.com/2006/11/odyssey-of-armaments.html
|
|
| | | 109 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 04:27
|
You guys have changed my mind, I now believe you can just talk nicely to these nut-job religious fanatics and everything will be hunky-dory. Maybe once they see how nice we are they may even covert.
|
|
| | | 110 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 05:36
|
But what about the lovely pictures of Iran Jag? Didn't those sway your mind? I'm sure Nazi Germany had some pretty nice looking scenary too.
|
|
| | | 111 | Perm Dude
ID: 51101737
Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 08:45
|
I now believe you can just talk nicely to these nut-job religious fanatics and everything will be hunky-dory.
Maybe you can convince the Iranians of the same thing about our Administration.
|
|
| | | 112 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 09:39
|
I'm sure Nazi Germany had some pretty nice looking scenary too.
It boggles the mind that there are some who actually think there's a coherent comparison between modern Iran and Nazi Germany, at least in terms of military capabilities and ambitions.
Before embarrassing yourself any further with such inane propoganda, I suggest you consult a map. Find Iran. Then find the neighboring countries and identify which are currently occupied by foreign militaries, and whose they are.
Then sheepishly admit to yourself that your comparison of Iran and Nazi Germany is the result of a naive acceptance of rhetoric promoted by the military industrial complex to ensure that the word defense continues to be distorted beyond recognition.
|
|
| | | 113 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 13:30
|
It boggles the mind that there are some who actually think there's a coherent comparison between modern Iran and Nazi Germany
Please. Look at the writer.
|
|
| | | 114 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 15:28
|
All I made the comparison to was using landscape photos as a case for not bombing. Get a grip.
|
|
| | | 115 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 15:31
|
photos as a case for not bombing
That really wasn't the point of post 104.
|
|
| | | 116 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 15:32
|
I honestly don't care. There normally isn't a point to much that you do.
|
|
| | | 117 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 15:35
|
Honestly, then why respond at all?
|
|
| | | 118 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 15:39
|
Because it's funny and silly for you to post that in a thread discussing possible war. I don't anybody is going to give a damn about the "great vistas" of Iran when the decision to go to war is made.
But go ahead and post your landscapes and I'm sure the follow up in the form of a cartoon by Zen is forthcoming.
He responds in cartoons, you respond in pictures. To each his own.
So what was the point of it Mith?
|
|
| | | 119 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 15:59
|
I don't anybody is going to give a damn about the "great vistas" of Iran when the decision to go to war is made.
I'm sure you don't.
So what was the point of it Mith?
Doesn't matter. You've made it clear you wouldn't get it anyway. Go ahead and continue to think I don't ever have any point.
|
|
| | | 120 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 17:21
|
Because it's funny and silly for you to post that in a thread discussing possible war. I don't anybody is going to give a damn about the "great vistas" of Iran when the decision to go to war is made...
Thank-you for at least admitting, that the decision is a foregone conclusion re this administration.
|
|
| | | 121 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 20:04
|
There is a lot of comparison between the Nazis and Islamic Facists. You could never change either of their minds towards world domination. That was the goal of Hitler and that is the goal of the Facsists. And just like with Neville Chamberlain, liberals would rather close their eyes to threats or go under the delusion they can negotiate with madmen, aka Kim and Clinton. I will have to give the Libs credit for having brass balls, to support giving a blank check to Kim and then slandering Bush for supporting the Pakistan leader shows they are not afraid to be called hypocrites.
|
|
| | | 123 | Tree
ID: 42102755
Mon, Nov 05, 2007, 06:34
|
There is a lot of comparison between the Bush Administration, Nazis and Islamic Facists. You could never change either of their minds towards world domination.
there. fixed that for ya.
of course, the prime difference is that the "Islamic Facists [sic]" don't have the military might of the other two.
|
|
| | | 124 | Boxman
ID: 211139621
Mon, Nov 05, 2007, 07:39
|
of course, the prime difference is that the "Islamic Facists [sic]" don't have the military might of the other two.
How many building collapses and civilian deaths in this country were the Nazis able to cause during World War II?
|
|
| | | 125 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Nov 05, 2007, 08:01
|
lol.
|
|
| | | 126 | Perm Dude
ID: 22105557
Mon, Nov 05, 2007, 08:55
|
How many military deaths have they caused? Now, subtract those killed in Iraq, as Saddam can, in no way, be considered an "islamo-fascist."
|
|
| | | 127 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Nov 05, 2007, 08:58
|
I don't know of anyone who knows the meaning of teh word 'military' who would describe 9/11 as an show of military might in the first place.
|
|
| | | 128 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Mon, Nov 05, 2007, 09:49
|
How many building collapses and civilian deaths in this country were the Nazis able to cause during World War II?
presuming you're asking that question seriously, and honestly, i'm not sure that you are, the correct answer is:
the same number as Iran, Iraq, or any number of other countries you're advocating we attack.
However, the United States has killed many, many, many many more civilians in Iraq - tens if not hundreds of thousands more - than Iraq has killed in the U.S.
|
|
| | | 129 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Mon, Nov 05, 2007, 10:49
|
How many deaths would of Saddam caused, both here and Iraq, if he had remained in power?
|
|
| | | 130 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Nov 05, 2007, 11:07
|
I'd look at the 1, 3 and 5 year trends.
|
|
| | | 131 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Mon, Nov 05, 2007, 11:22
|
Tree supposed that the Islamic Fascists don't have the military might of either the US or Nazi Germany. On the whole, there is merit. They don't have traditional military might. They aren't that kind of army.
Yet the Islamists were able to successfully carry out a couple significant attacks on U.S. soil; something that Nazi Germany did not do.
I'm sorry Mith that you're too dense to understand that, but then again ignorance is bliss.
|
|
| | | 132 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Mon, Nov 05, 2007, 12:04
|
How many deaths would of Saddam caused, both here and Iraq, if he had remained in power?
none here. less than we killed, in Iraq.
Tree supposed that the Islamic Fascists don't have the military might of either the US or Nazi Germany. On the whole, there is merit. They don't have traditional military might. They aren't that kind of army.
so, you'll attack nations arbitrarily because they happen to be Muslim? that's acceptable to you?
|
|
| | | 133 | Perm Dude
ID: 22105557
Mon, Nov 05, 2007, 12:11
|
It is all a red herring, Jag. How many deaths will there be in Pakistan? North Korea? China?
To answer your question: none at all here. Was he a bad boy who deserved our attention? You bet. But what if I told you that we can take over North Korea, and it would only cost about 2500 American lives, plus about $2 trillion. Would you be so gung-ho then? But think of all the lives we'd save!
|
|
| | | 134 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Mon, Nov 05, 2007, 12:14
|
so, you'll attack nations arbitrarily because they happen to be Muslim? that's acceptable to you?
Even for you, that's a stupid comment because nowhere did I endorse just wantonly attacking Muslims.
|
|
| | |
| | | 136 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Mon, Nov 05, 2007, 12:30
|
"No nuclear program in Iran" You must have linked to the wrong article, PD.
The link you gave says experts are divided on whether there is conclusive proof that Iran is working on a nuclear bomb. They don't say there conclusively "no nuclear program" There is one - they have a uranium enrichment program, for sure.
They don't say "there is no bomb program". There just is "conclusive evidence"
|
|
| | | 137 | Perm Dude
ID: 22105557
Mon, Nov 05, 2007, 12:47
|
Fair enough, MBJ. My (too shortened) title was based upon the very first paragraph in that article:
experts in and out of government say there's no conclusive evidence that Tehran has an active nuclear-weapons program.
I think your objection, while fair, might be a little nit-picky as well. No one is worried about whether the Iranians have other, non-nuclear weapons producing programs. The worry is whether they have such a weapons program, as well as the portability of non-weapons programs to a future nuclear weapons program.
The larger point is that no one has any proof that the rhetoric of immediately bombing Iran is justified.
|
|
| | | 138 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Mon, Nov 05, 2007, 13:10
|
Let's look at it from Iran's POV for the sake of discussion.
The Great Satan has roughly 200,000 soldiers amassed in total on both of your major borders. Their naval pressence is also daunting along with their air force. You are for the most part, surrounded by a superior force. Under a strictly conventional war, they'd mop the floor with you and laugh while doing it.
The leader of this allegedly "evil" nation is war prone; right or wrong. He's on a mission to kill as many terrorists as possible and he just labeled a key segment of your military as a terrorist organization. It isn't hard to deduct that you could be next especially since you've been a major thorn in their side for a while now. You also consistently threaten a good friend of The Great Satan, not good.
So, in this case, why WOULDN'T Iran want the bomb and actively try and get it?
I don't know if Iran has the bomb or wants it. I'm sure at the minimum they probably want it. Yet if W wants support for an invasion akin to Iraq he better look to another Republican voter for support. My position on Iran is fluid so in 6 months just remember I said that in case they test a bomb.
|
|
| | | 139 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Mon, Nov 05, 2007, 13:43
|
So, in this case, why WOULDN'T Iran want the bomb and actively try and get it?
would you blame them??? they have a nation with a recent history of warmongering gathering on their borders!
|
|
| | | 140 | Perm Dude
ID: 22105557
Mon, Nov 05, 2007, 13:52
|
I don't think there is any question that each and every non-nuclear power wants the bomb, and have taken steps to get it.
The question is whether Iran has it, or will have it soon, in order to justify the US ending what is a clear (though nascent) democracy movement there through a bombing campaign.
|
|
| | | 141 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Nov 05, 2007, 14:01
|
Not just a democracy movement, but (unless we've completely undermined it already) a pro-west movement as well.
|
|
| | |
| | | 143 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Tue, Nov 13, 2007, 09:14
|
Does that post attempt a case for war with Iran?
|
|
| | | 144 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Tue, Nov 13, 2007, 10:09
|
No, but I think it gives insight into what it is we're dealing with though. If we start taking pieces of what Iran does and sum them up perhaps there is a case; or maybe there isn't. Time will tell.
|
|
| | | 145 | Perm Dude
ID: 411046139
Tue, Nov 13, 2007, 10:49
|
You know, I say the same thing about the radical right, who share the same thoughts about gays as the radical muslims. Seriously--there isn't much difference on gay rights between the evangelicals who have had a stranglehold on the Executive Branch and most of those running Iran.
pd
|
|
| | | 146 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Tue, Nov 13, 2007, 10:57
|
Seriously--there isn't much difference on gay rights between the evangelicals who have had a stranglehold on the Executive Branch and most of those running Iran.
Do you have a link on the Evangelicals supporting the torture and execution of gays? Don't give me some fringe group. Show me please a mainstream portion of Evangelical doctrine that wants that to happen.
|
|
| | | 147 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Nov 13, 2007, 10:59
|
Lets see----The (far) Right here in the US, would just as soon see Gays run out of the country. (Despite their statements otherwise if we look at their actions, there is little room to doubt.) Yet they would attempt to justify war with Iran, based at least partly on the fat that Irans leadership has publicly stated they would prefer to do, what the far right itself would prefer to do?
We have military in Afghanistan, an unsettled scenario there, and no apparent end in sight.
We have military in Iraq, an unsettled scenario there, and no apparent end in sight.
We have difficulty making recruiting goals and retention goals. We have difficultry manning our current military actions...yet you wouold esposue expandin into a 3rd war effort?
Right after you enlist, then come back and try it again. Otherwise, quit sending someone elses 20-25yr old son/dau, to enforce your will, at the cost of their lives.
|
|
| | | 148 | Perm Dude
ID: 411046139
Tue, Nov 13, 2007, 11:09
|
Don't give me some fringe group.
There are no moderate Evangelicals, Boxman. They are all anti-gay, and there is just a matter of degree. But I didn't say that Evangelicals are calling for gays to be tortured. I said that they share the views of many who are running Iran.
[Here's where you are getting tripped up: You think that a wacko Iranian (who, BTW, has no real power there) represents everyone in Iran. He doesn't.]
|
|
| | | 149 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Tue, Nov 13, 2007, 11:22
|
He doesn't
He might be fairly representative of the power structure there. But more to the point (re Evangelicals), is that torture and execution of homosexuals is at it's core a denial of basic rights and freedom. And this is where the similarity between American Evangelicals and radical Muslims in Iran exists. While we may not see it taken to the same extreme here, both groups seek to deny homosexuals basic rights that are afforded to everyone else.
Don't assume the movement to criminalize gay sex in America is dead.
|
|
| | | 150 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Tue, Nov 13, 2007, 11:41
|
While we may not see it taken to the same extreme here, both groups seek to deny homosexuals basic rights that are afforded to everyone else.
That I don't dispute. Where PD is off base is by saying there are no moderate Evangelicals. Perhaps by definition, but not by practice.
|
|
| | | 151 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Tue, Nov 13, 2007, 11:46
|
A basic tenet of Evangelism is fundamentalism. If you don't adhere to fundamenrtalism, you might call youself an Evangelical but for all practical purposes (in practice and philosophy) you are not.
|
|
| | | 152 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Tue, Nov 13, 2007, 12:01
|
religioustolerance.org
The Barna Group is a conservative Christian polling group that specializes in researching the public's beliefs on religious and moral questions. In 2001, they determined people's views on the criminalization of homosexual behavior. They found that:Only 34% of born again Christians favored legalization of same-sex activities. Most feel that sexually active homosexuals should be imprisoned. We suspect that approximately the same percentage of conservatives from other religions -- Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, etc. -- would probably agree.
57% of non-born again adults believed that homosexual behavior among consenting adults should be legal. The Gallup Organization has been polling American adults for almost three decades to learn their opinion on the criminalization of homosexuality. They found:Those favoring criminalization of homosexual behavior reached a peak in 1986 when 57% of the adult population believed that it should be illegal; 32% felt it should be legal.
Those favoring legalization reached a peak in 2003 when 60% believed it should be legal; 35% felt it should be illegal.
|
|
| | | 153 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Tue, Nov 13, 2007, 12:15
|
The Evangelical Surprise
Statistically, the extreme conservatism of the traditionalists skews the picture of the community as a whole. In fact, "modernist" evangelicals—defined as those who go to church infrequently and don't hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible—have more liberal views on all issues, including abortion and gay rights, than the American population as a whole, but there are relatively very few of them. "Centrists," or those who fall somewhere in the theological middle and make up almost half of all evangelicals, are no more conservative than Americans generally except on abortion and gay rights, and even on these issues they are far more moderate than the traditionalists.[9] In other words, half of the evangelical population doesn't see eye to eye with the other half. In the future the division may become more acute because while the Christian right leaders have become more ambitious and more aggressive as a result of their victories, centrist leaders have, for the first time, begun to assert themselves.
|
|
| | | 154 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Tue, Nov 13, 2007, 12:16
|
BTW, you guys might want to take your Evangelical stereotyping to another thread. It's getting a little OT don't you think?
|
|
| | | 155 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Tue, Nov 13, 2007, 12:25
|
"modernist" evangelicals—defined as those who go to church infrequently and don't hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible
Are there actual "modernist" Evangelical Churches? Or is this excerpt simply about people who belong to and/or sometimes attend a church despite major discrepencies between its teachings and their own personal beliefs? If the latter, a better term than 'modernist' would be 'phoney'.
|
|
| | | 156 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Tue, Nov 13, 2007, 12:29
|
It's getting a little OT don't you think?
Well the comparison between Evangelical and Islamist approaches to homosexuality is very much on topic with post 142, which you authored.
And it was you who challenged that assertion, thereby prompting the tangent. If you'd like to see it moved, there's nothing stopping you from finding one of the Evangelism discussions and moving it there.
|
|
| | | 157 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Tue, Nov 13, 2007, 12:32
|
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA)
HQ'd in Chicago no less.
Role of women
The ELCA ordains women as pastors, a practice that all three of its predecessor churches adopted in the 1970s. Some have become synod bishops since the formation of the ELCA, with about 10% of the synods currently led by female bishops. The role of women in the ELCA has not been without some controversy, since it has resulted in the introduction of so-called feminist theology into the church. For example, Her Church is a congregational example of women's activity in the ELCA today that has been held by some people to be outstanding, by others to be heretical.
[edit] Homosexuality
As of the August 11, 2007 vote at the Churchwide Assembly in Chicago, the ELCA urged its bishops and synods to "exercise restraint" in disciplinary action against gay and lesbian ministers who violate the celibacy rule who are in "faithful committed same-gender relationships".
The church has officially welcomed openly homosexual members within its congregations since 1991. In 1993, the Conference of Bishops issued an advisory statement which stated that "there is basis neither in Scripture nor tradition for the establishment of an official ceremony by this church for the blessing of a homosexual relationship. We, therefore, do not approve such a ceremony as an official action of this church’s ministry. Nevertheless, we express trust in and will continue dialogue with those pastors and congregations who are in ministry with gay and lesbian persons, and affirm their desire to explore the best ways to provide pastoral care for all to whom they minister."
|
|
| | | 158 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Tue, Nov 13, 2007, 12:36
|
And it was you who challenged that assertion, thereby prompting the tangent. If you'd like to see it moved, there's nothing stopping you from finding one of the Evangelism discussions and moving it there.
Well at least you don't deny stereotyping.
|
|
| | | 159 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Nov 13, 2007, 12:47
|
I would have to seriously question, using the ELCA as representative of Evangelicals on the whole.
The ELCA was the result of a merger of 3 seperate Lutheran entities. The ALC, the most liberal and I believe largest of the 3, the Missouri Synod, far and away the most conservative of the 3, and the LCA IIRC, whose members found themselves in the middle so to speak.
The ALC (in which I was raised), has always been progressive in comparison to many other denominations. As the largest of the 3 going into the merger, it would only follow that said progressiveness would to a fair degree, carry-over after the merger.
|
|
| | | 160 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Tue, Nov 13, 2007, 13:09
|
No, Sarge, I think he's right.
Boxman
at least you don't deny stereotyping
This is fair enough. Reading through some of the material you provided and some I've found elsewhere leads me to retract post 151.
Contrary to my understanding, fundamentalism does not appear to be a [necessary] tenet of Evangelism. The review you provide in post 153 does state that; "According to polls, some 60 percent are biblical literalists [fundamentalists -mith], who believe, for example, that God created the universe in exactly six days a few thousand years ago, and who insist that their interpretation of the Bible is the eternal and only true reading of it."
I'll cite that figure and the obvious vocal dominance of that portion of evangelicals as an explanation for misunderstanding.
All of the points I've made and supported regarding approach to homosexuality stand, however now with the distinction that I refer specifically to Christian fundamentalists in comparison with Islamists.
Better?
|
|
| | | 161 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Tue, Nov 13, 2007, 13:11
|
where's Fred Phelps when you need him?
|
|
| | | 162 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Tue, Nov 13, 2007, 13:21
|
Desecrating some soldier's grave somewhere, I'm sure.
|
|
| | | 163 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Tue, Nov 13, 2007, 14:07
|
Better?
Better.
|
|
| | |
| | | 165 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Thu, Nov 15, 2007, 18:44
|
Cheney won't like this:
BAGHDAD - Iran seems to be honoring a commitment to stem the flow of deadly weapons into Iraq, contributing to a more than 50 percent drop in the number of roadside bombs that kill and maim American troops, a U.S. general said Thursday.
The comments by Maj. Gen. James Simmons marked rare U.S. praise for Iranian cooperation in efforts to stabilize Iraq. Washington has repeatedly accused the Islamic Republic of aiding Shiite militias and trying to foil U.S. goals in Iraq and the region.
But it remains unclear why Iran may have decided to choke off the suspected weapons pipeline. One possibility is that Iran — the most populous Shiite nation — is seeking to shore up the struggling government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, in the belief it will help Tehran's long-term interests.
link
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 168 | Perm Dude
ID: 221145412
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 13:55
|
A lot of blowback on that report. Apparently the President had the report for 6 months, and continued to hammer at Iran about "World War III" despite no evidence that they had nukes.
Part of the pressure to release the NIE came from the military, who were charged with finding suitable military targets in Iran but were forced to conclude that they had no targets, since Iran didn't appear to be doing any of the things the President was warning the world they were actively doing.
|
|
| | | 169 | biliruben
ID: 5610442715
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 14:33
|
Jesus, Walk. Hush that up, pronto. How the heck do you expect Republicans to get elected without the obligatory crescendo of saber-rattling and military action as the elections approach?!?
I know, there's always gays and immigrants, but that only generates low-level fear and hatred, not the white-hot fear and hatred needed for folks to vote against their best interests.
|
|
| | | 170 | walk
ID: 2530286
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 19:51
|
LOL, bili. I thought this was a big story, but not much of a response here. Oh well. Bush and co say it supports their views and actions...Not surprised at the interpretation, but I hope the masses don't buy into the propaganda. It's a gov't intel report!
|
|
| | | 171 | CanadianHack
ID: 21937272
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 20:11
|
George W Bush doesn't let anything like facts influence his agenda. Iran is a threat because his gut tells him it is. In that way the situation is exactly the same as Iraq.
I strongly hope that the next president allows his policy to be grounded in reality. Setting policy despite opposition by the facts of the case is Bush's biggest flaw.
|
|
| | |
| | | 173 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Tue, Dec 04, 2007, 22:37
|
“Are you telling me a president who is briefed every single morning, who is fixated on Iran, is not told back in August that the tentative conclusion of 16 intelligence agencies in the United States government said they had abandoned their effort for a nuclear weapon in ’03?” Biden said in a conference call with reporters.
“That’s not believable,” Biden added. “I refuse to believe that. If that’s true, he has the most incompetent staff in … modern American history and he’s one of the most incompetent presidents in modern American history.”
Joe Biden
|
|
| | | 174 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Dec 05, 2007, 10:36
|
...he has the most incompetent staff in … modern American history and he’s one of the most incompetent presidents in modern American history.
If we just take that part right there, I would find myself in complete agreement with Joe. (Something, which I dont believe has happened before.)
|
|
| | | 175 | nerve proxy
ID: 61137511
Wed, Dec 05, 2007, 12:37
|
He has the most incompetent staff in … modern American history and he’s one of the most incompetent presidents in modern American history.
I have to disagree with the first part of this statement. His staff had an agenda, to go to war in Iraq at all costs to create a huge cash windfall for the Military Industrial Complex...how were they incompetent?
Your interpreting the quagmire in Iraq as a "bad thing" for their benefactors, my interpretation is it was the plan all along.
Someone is getting rich on the 2 Trillion dollar tax bill.
|
|
| | | 176 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Dec 05, 2007, 12:40
|
valid point.
|
|
| | | 177 | walk
ID: 7952415
Wed, Dec 05, 2007, 13:16
|
Right, nerve proxy has the cynical and likely accurate assessment. The neocons want instability in the mideast.
|
|
| | |
| | | 179 | boikin
ID: 59831214
Wed, Dec 05, 2007, 13:56
|
I like the part in the dowd article about bush and his daddy issue. i have allways beleived that large parts of Bush mentality has been driven by issues related to his father.
|
|
| | | 180 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Dec 05, 2007, 14:03
|
Agreed boikin. Only missing from the "analogy", is the injuries sustained by the passengars in that station wagon; namely, the American public.
|
|
| | | 181 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Wed, Dec 05, 2007, 16:14
|
The neocons want instability in the mideast.
As Kasporav pointed out when he was on Maher, Putin wants instability there also.
That's why he stood side by side with Iran's Ajhamediwhat's his name?
An unstable Middle East drives up the price of Russian oil and oil is all Putin has right now.
|
|
| | | 182 | biliruben
ID: 5610442715
Wed, Dec 05, 2007, 16:53
|
|
|
| | | 183 | walk
ID: 7952415
Thu, Dec 06, 2007, 13:41
|
An Alternate View on the NIE Report
So, are these guys accurate? They claim the NIE report is misleading cos it too narrowly defines the actions associated with a "weapons programs." It's written by IranWatch.org, a supposed non-profit group affiliated with the Univ of Wisconsin.
Iran Watch
|
|
| | | 184 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 11:43
|
After watching this Administration lie, lie and lie some more to the American public, to the UN, to the Coalition of the Willing [more like Gullible], the CIA grew a backbone and prevented these clowns from lying us into a war with Iran. For this I tip my hat. Thank you.
|
|
| | | 185 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 11:47
|
They didnt have much choice really Zen. We cant afford another war. We have neither the $$ for it, nor the remaining military capacity for it.
Hell, it'll probably take 10+ years to rebuild our military to what it was prior to 9/11. The CIA, HAS to know our true capability and they had little choice but to ensure we dont find ourselves embroiled in yet another unending conflict.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | 190 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Mar 11, 2008, 16:42
|
CENTCOMM Commander resigns to "retire"
WASHINGTON - Adm. William Fallon is stepping down as head of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees military matters in the Middle East, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Tuesday.
Gates said that Adm. William J. Fallon had asked for permission to retire and that Gates agreed. Gates said the decision, effective March 31, was entirely Fallon’s and that Gates believed it was “the right thing to do.”
Fallon was the subject of an article published last week in Esquire magazine that portrayed him as opposed to President Bush’s Iran policy. It described Fallon as a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program. Fallon, who is traveling in Iraq, issued a statement through his U.S. headquarters in Tampa, Fla.
'Distraction' cited
“Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president’s policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the Centcom region,” Fallon said.
“And although I don’t believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America’s interests there,” Fallon added.
Gates described as “ridiculous” any notion that Fallon’s departure signals the United States is planning to go to war with Iran. And he said “there is a misperception” that Fallon disagrees with the administration’s approach to Iran.
“I don’t think there were differences at all,” Gates added.
Fallon has had a 41-year Navy career. He took the Central Command post on March 16, 2007, succeeding Army Gen. John Abizaid, who retired. Fallon previously served as commander of U.S. Pacific Command.
Gates said that until a permanent replacement is nominated and confirmed by the Senate, Fallon’s place will be taken by his top deputy, Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey.
Noooooooooooo. As the lone voice of dissent, this couldnt POSSIBLY have anything to do with what will happen next....could it?
|
|
| | | 191 | bibA
Leader
ID: 261028117
Tue, Mar 11, 2008, 17:07
|
sarge, from a follow up article:
Most military leaders against military strike on Iran
Gates has said publicly and privately that under current conditions he's opposed to war with Iran. Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen is also against it. In fact, almost every senior military officer we've talked to is against launching military strikes against Iran, because as one senior official told us, "then what do you do?"
While the U.S. military does have the usual contingency plans for robust airstrikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets, it's the "aftermath, stupid." It’s the potential military response from Iran in the region and repercussions in global oil markets that are incalculable.
There is hope when the experience of the military is considered. One just would hope tho, that the current administration pays some attention.
|
|
| | | 192 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Wed, Mar 12, 2008, 08:59
|
somewhat reassuring, except this is the same admin that went against military policy and entered Iraq with no exit strategy in place. The same admin, that did away with what we called the "Powell Doctrine" of not entering into an armed conflict, without first establishing utterly overwhelming force. (Remember Rummys comments? :You dont go to war with the Army you want, but with the Army you have." If defending, that is a true statement. When aggressing however, if you dont have the Army you want, then you dont attack.) This admin, has shown a propensity, for attacking first, then denying the stupidity of it later.
|
|
| | | 193 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Wed, Mar 12, 2008, 13:07
|
Remember Rummys comments? :You dont go to war with the Army you want, but with the Army you have.
Why do you have to open up old wounds? I think Rummy might have been the only thing you and I ever agreed on.
The military will still have to follow the Commander In Chief whether they like it or not. That being said, I refuse to support a war with Iran if we attacked as things stand now. I do support limited incursions to stem the flow of smuggled arms into Iraq that kills our soldiers and Iraqi citizens. I do not support an Iraqi or Afghani style campaign into Iran.
I still do not support an invasion of Iran or even a prolonged bombing campaign and I think Fallon should be commended for at least resigning when a conflict arose as opposed to attempted undermining.
|
|
| | | 194 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Thu, May 22, 2008, 14:20
|
Matt Yglesias The problem here is that, once again, we see hawks not understanding what diplomacy is. But think of diplomacy as a kind of bargaining. Like you might do at a yard sale or something. Diplomacy doesn't exist at one end of a spectrum of coercive measures -- we try war, we try sanctions, we try diplomacy -- any more than bargaining operates on a smooth continuum with robbery. The point of bargaining with a vendor is to see whether or not it's possible to find mutually acceptable terms that improve both parties' positions. In terms of diplomacy with Iran, the idea isn't that Obama's steely gaze would force concessions out of the Iranians, the idea is that we might be able to give Iran something Iran deems more valuable than weapons-grade nuclear material, and in exchange we would get verifiable disarmament.
The "something" here would presumably be some form of security assurances plus an accommodation to Iranian interests in Iraq, along with Teheran and Washington laying out a pathway to gradual normalization of relations in exchange for an end to Iranian support for terrorism and Palestinian rejectionist groups. Would it be possible to strike such a deal? Maybe, maybe not. But the purpose of a negotiating session would be to find out by attempting to do the bargaining rather than having five more years of back-and-forth blog posts speculating about the possibility. The general theory of diplomacy is that rational actors should, through negotiations, be able to achieve positive-sum settlements rather than negative-sum conflicts. It's always possible that your would-be negotiating partner will prove irrational (as George W. Bush did when he rejected Iranian peace overtures several years back) and the process will fail, but it's worth attempting in good faith.
|
|
| | |
| | | 196 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Mon, May 26, 2008, 09:51
|
If somebody can read that story without getting choked up, then you know they aren't human.
|
|
| | | 197 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Mon, May 26, 2008, 16:43
|
Box....you and I are in agreement on somethings.
|
|
| | |
| | | 199 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Thu, Jul 10, 2008, 12:53
|
hmmm, so what do the Iranian government and the Bush led US Government have in common?
oh. right. out and out lies in a build up to potential war.
|
|
| | | 200 | Razor
ID: 545172413
Thu, Jul 10, 2008, 13:05
|
Dude, that isn't even good Photoshopping.
|
|
| | | 201 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Thu, Jul 17, 2008, 19:26
|
A Phony Crisis — and a Real One
Iran, says Burns, has not yet mastered the technology of converting uranium gas into fuel for use in power plants, let alone the stuff of bombs. And even if Iran is one day able to enrich to weapons grade, she would still have to build and test a nuclear device, then weaponize it to fit atop a missile and deploy a missile force. All in all, says Burns, Iran’s progress with uranium enrichment has been “modest.”
There is thus no imminent crisis to justify war on Iran.
Yet, what is Nancy Pelosi’s Democratic House doing?
Some 220 members, a majority, have endorsed House Concurrent Resolution 362. This virtual war resolution “demands” that President Bush initiate a blockade to halt all Iranian imports of refined petroleum products and impose “stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran.”
A Democratic House that came to power denouncing the rush to war on Iraq is about to vote to demand that Bush commit an act of war against Iran.
The front men for 362 are liberal Gary Ackerman of New York and conservative Mike Pence of Indiana. But the juice behind them is that of the Israeli lobby AIPAC, which is marching in step with Israel.
Last week, Mossad’s chief, Meir Dagan, was here to make the case for war on Iran. This week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak visits Dick Cheney and maybe Bush. Next week, it is the head of Israel’s armed forces.
Israel and its Fifth Column in this city seek to stampede us into war with Iran. Bush should rebuff them, and the American people should tell their congressmen: You vote for 362, we don’t vote for you.
|
|
| | |
| | | 203 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Thu, Jul 17, 2008, 22:58
|
Let me get this straight..
3 months ago, Bush and Co were looking for all the world, like they were planning an Iranian conflict; and conservatives were cheering them for facing down the Iranian nuclear threat.
Now, a Dem resolution which imposes what amounts to embargoes is put forth; and the conservatives are crying "you're trying to start a needless war".
Is that essentially correct?
Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--
(1) declares that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, through all appropriate economic, political, and diplomatic means, is vital to the national security interests of the United States and must be dealt with urgently;
(2) urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use his existing authority to impose sanctions on--
(A) the Central Bank of Iran and any other Iranian bank engaged in proliferation activities or the support of terrorist groups;
(B) international banks which continue to conduct financial transactions with proscribed Iranian banks;
(C) energy companies that have invested $20,000,000 or more in the Iranian petroleum or natural gas sector in any given year since the enactment of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996; and
(D) all companies which continue to do business with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps;
(3) demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iranto verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program; and
(4) urges the President to lead a sustained, serious, and forceful effort at regional diplomacy to support the legitimate governments in the region against Iranian efforts to destabilize them, to reassure our friends and allies that the United States supports them in their resistance to Iranian efforts at hegemony, and to make clear to the Government of Iran that the United States will protect America's vital national security interests in the Middle East.
(emphasis added)
Would someone please point out to me, where that is an act of war? (Frankly, I see it as more pandering and fear mongering, distortions of the truth, and other similar measure which the Rep party has made its hallmark over the past 20 + years.)
|
|
| | | 204 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Thu, Jul 17, 2008, 23:39
|
It's disappointing to see Pat Buchanan join in the frivolity of political dishonesty that has engulfed this nation.
what is Nancy Pelosi’s Democratic House doing?
Nancy Pelosi's Democratic House?
This lists 220 endorsees. I may be off by a couple, but I counted 110(that's half folks) of them with R behind their name.
Nancy Pelosi was not among them.
Poor Pat couldn't help himself, making a futile stab to ingratiate himself with the conservatives who have abandoned him, branding him a Hitler sympathizer, anti-Semite and isolationist.
|
|
| | | 205 | Razor
ID: 256431422
Fri, Jul 18, 2008, 00:29
|
Boxman, that article is awful, especially for those who supported our cooked up reasons for going to war with Iraq.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | 211 | Boldwin
ID: 1794329
Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 14:10
|
More food for Perm Dude's triumphalism...“The latest Fox News/Opinion Dymanic poll is chock-full of bad news for the president. But on foreign policy, the results are nothing short of stunning. On who they trust more to decide the next steps in Afghanistan, 66 percent say military commanders, while only 20 percent say the president. Even Democrats have more faith in the military commanders (by a 45 to 37 percent margin). On Iran, 69 percent say Obama has not been tough enough, including 55 percent of Democrats. Sixty-one percent favor a U.S. military action, if needed, to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Fifty-one percent think Obama apologizes for American too much. . . . In short, Obama has already achieved what it took Jimmy Carter an entire term to attain: the conviction of a large majority of the American people that he is not protecting our interests or performing adequately as commander in chief.”
Posted at 7:25 am by Glenn Reynolds
|
|
| | | 212 | biliruben
ID: 461142511
Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 14:22
|
Those are the worst phrased questions I've read in a poll in a long time.
Of course, that's probably because I wouldn't bother reading a Fox News poll if I were actually trying to determine what people think.
I actually feel less knowledgeable than before I read them.
|
|
| | | 213 | Mith
ID: 28646259
Tue, Sep 21, 2010, 11:06
|
BUTT for The Left Behind.
|
|
| | | 214 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Dec 16, 2010, 15:40
|
Not sure where to put this, but I just came across this film about the writer William Stafford, called Every War Has Two Losers.
While it was about Vietnam, the fact that the War on Terror has turned into much more of an ideological war than even a pre-emptive one makes the parallels are lot closer.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 217 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Wed, May 09, 2012, 14:44
|
This has turned into the de facto War on Terror thread, so I'll put this here:
Rare double agent thrwarts plan to take down airline.
The thing is, it looks like it really would have worked. So something that would have been a real coup for al queda at the very time they need it was thwarted by a ballsy Saudia Arabian intelligence operative, who brought the bomb and plans home and the the CIA.
|
|
| | | 218 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Sun, Nov 24, 2013, 15:11
|
As a result of the deal, Israel is pissed that they are no longer driving the debate on Iran.
A very good deal for the US, and rest of the world. Netanyahu is a blowhard, and is angry that his narrative (Iran is an out-of-control nuclear power, and only Netanyahu can save Israel) has been torn to bits by reality. Expect more sputtering in the near future.
|
|
|
|