I don’t like long posts. I’m lazy and I can’t be bothered with grinding through a rambling diatribe often just a rant in shallow disguise that is badly written and misses key points – and that’s just MY stuff!
But in this occasion I really can’t see how the letter from Iran can be shortened. To me it is a chilling threat, a setting out of his stall, and a justification as well as a foundation for his actions.
The most chilling piece of all is where he finishes with the phrase “Vasalam Ala Man Ataba'al hoda†which translates to “Peace only unto those who follow the true pathâ€. This has a very great deal of significance in islam.
It stems from when Mohammad sent letters containing the same phrase to the Byzantine and the Sasanid emperors instructing them to convert to Islam or face the consequences.
That the letter concludes in the same phrase and that the letters from Mohammed were a prelude to a war I read as a very thinly veiled threat.
There are more messages in the text that are only clear if you read the original Arabic for example where he says “I am a teacherâ€. That has significance as the word ‘Taliban’ means student hence a teacher both instructs and directs students. There is a great deal more besides but even in the raw English translation it’s still a ‘piece of work’.
It’s also worth keeping in mind it’s an open letter and that it will be seen by billions and that was the intention.
So here’s the full translated text. -------
Mr George Bush,
President of the United States of America
For sometime now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that exist in the international arena -- which are being constantly debated, specially in political forums and amongst university students.
Many questions remain unanswered.
These have prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might bring about an opportunity to redress them. Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the great Messenger of God, Feel obliged to respect human rights, Present liberalism as a civilization model, Announce one?s opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs, Make ?War and Terror? his slogan, And finally, Work towards the establishment of a unified international community ? a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern, But at the same time, Have countries attacked; The lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on the slight chance of the ? of a ? criminals in a village city, or convoy for example the entire village, city or convey set ablaze.
Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around one hundred thousand people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps fifty years.
At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of thousands of young men and women as occupation troops put in harms way, taken away from family and love ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide ant those returning home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of aliments; while some are killed and their bodies handed of their families.
On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples of the occupied and the occupying country.
Later it was revealed that no WMDs existed to begin with. Of course Saddam was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to topple him, the announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He was toppled along the way towards another goal, nevertheless the people of the region are happy about it. I point out that throughout the many years of the ? war on Iran Saddam was supported by the West.
Mr President, You might know that I am a teacher.
more on the flip... My students ask me how can theses actions be reconciled with the values outlined at the beginning of this letter and duty to the tradition of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the Messenger of peace and forgiveness.
There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation, their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own country.
There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate.
No one knows whether they are prisoners, POWs, accused or criminals.
European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too.
I could not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in secret prisons, with the provisions of any judicial system.
For that matter, I fail to understand how such actions correspond to the values outlined in the beginning of this letter, i.e.
the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH), human rights and liberal values.
Young people, university students and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel.
I am sure you are familiar with some of them.
Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times.
Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did no exist.
The show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel.
I tell them to study the history of WWI and II.
One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties.
Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war, they claimed that six million Jews had been killed.
Six million people that were surely related to at least two million families.
Again let us assume that these events are true.
Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalised or explained Mr President, I am sure you know how and at what cost Israel was established: - Many thousands were killed in the process.
- Millions of indigenous people were made refugees.
- Hundred of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages were destroyed.
This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing for sixty years now.
A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison.
Such a phenomenon is unique or at the very least extremely rare in recent memory.
Another big question asked by people is why is this regime being supported Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH) or Moses (PBUH) or liberal values? Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands inside and outside Palestine whether they are Christian, Muslim or Jew, to determine their fate, runs contrary to principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of prophets? If not, why is there so much opposition to a referendum? The newly elected Palestinian administration recently took office.
All independent observes have confirmed that this government represents the electorate.
Unbelievingly, they have put the elected government under pressure and have advised it to recognise the Israeli regime, abandon the struggle and follow the programs of the previous government.
If the current Palestinian government had run on the above platform, would the Palestinian people have voted for it? Again, can such position taken in opposition to the Palestinian government be reconciled with the values outlined earlier? The people are also saying ?why are all UNSC resolutions in condemnation of Israel vetoed Mr President, As you are well aware, I live amongst the people and am in constant contact with them -- many people from around the Middle East manage to contact me as well.
They dot not have faith in these dubious policies either.
There is evidence that the people of the region are becoming increasingly angry with such policies.
It is not my intention to pose to many questions, but I need to refer to other points as well.
Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East regions is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D one of the basic rights of nations.
You are familiar with history.
Aside from the Middle Ages, in what other point in history has scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements being utilised for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc.
must be opposed.
Lies were told in the Iraqi matter.
What was the result? I have no doubt that telling lies is reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be lied to.
Mr President, Don’t Latin Americans have the right to ask, why their elected governments are being opposed and coup leaders supported? Or, why must they constantly be threatened and live in fear? The people of Africa are hardworking, creative and talented.
They can play an important and valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and contribute to its material and spiritual progress.
Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are preventing this from happening.
Don’t they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth including minerals is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others? Again, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the tenets of human rights? The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances, including: the coup d’etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day, opposition to the Islamic revolution, transformation of an Embassy into a headquarters supporting, the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many thousands of pages of documents corroborates this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran, the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the Iranian nation, increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-à -vis the scientific and nuclear progress of the Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and collaborating their country ‘s progress), and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter.
Mr President, September Eleven was a horrendous incident.
The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world.
Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies.
All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property and good standing of their citizens. Reportedly your government employs extensive security, protection and intelligence systems and even hunts its opponents abroad.
September eleven was not a simple operation.
Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services ? or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess.
Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren’t those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial? All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens.
For some years now, the people of your country and neighbors of world trouble spots do not have peace of mind.
After 9.11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the American people who had been immensely traumatised by the attacks some Western media only intensified the climates of fear and insecurity some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear.
Is that service to the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic? American citizen lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in any place.
They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work and at home.
Who would be happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity? Some believe that the hype paved the way and was the justification for an attack on Afghanistan.
Again I need to refer to the role of media.
In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest reporting of a story are established tenets.
I express my deep regret about the disregard shown by certain Western media for these principles.
The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of WMDs.
This was repeated incessantly ? for the public to, finally, believe ? and the ground set for an attack on Iraq.
Will the truth not be lost in a contrive and deceptive climate? Again, if the truth is allowed to be lost, how can that be reconciled with the earlier mentioned values? Is the truth known to the Almighty lost as well? Mr President, In countries around the world, citizens provide for the expenses of governments so that their governments in turn are able to serve them.
The question here is what has the hundreds of billions of dollars, spent every year to pay for the Iraqi campaign, produced for the citizens As your Excellency is aware, in some states of your country, people are living in poverty.
Many thousands are homeless and unemployment is a huge problem.
Of course these problems exist to a larger or lesser extent in other countries as well.
With these conditions in mind, can the gargantuan expenses of the campaign paid from the public treasury be explained and be consistent with the aforementioned principles? What has been said, are some of the grievances of the people around the world, in our region and in your country.
But my main contention which I am hoping you will agree to some of it is: Those in power have specific time in office, and do not rule indefinitely, but their names will be recorded in history and will be constantly judged in the immediate and distant futures.
The people will scrutinize our presidencies.
Did we manage to bring peace, security and prosperity for the people or insecurity and unemployment? Did we intend to establish justice, or just supported especial interest groups, and by forcing many people to live in poverty and hardship, made a few people rich and powerful thus trading the approval of the people and the Almighty with theirs Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them? Did we defend the rights of all people around the world or imposed wars on them, interfered illegally in their affairs, established hellish prisons and incarcerated some of them? Did we bring the world peace and security or raised the specter of intimidation and threats? Did we tell the truth to our nation and others around the world or presented an inverted version of it? Were we on the side of people or the occupiers and oppressors? Did our administration set out to promote rational behaviour, logic, ethics, peace, fulfilling obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress and respect for human dignity or the force of guns.
Intimidation, insecurity, disregard for the people, delaying the progress and excellence of other nations, and trample on people’s rights. And finally, they will judge us on whether we remained true to our oath of office to serve the people, which is our main task, and the traditions of the prophets or not? Mr President, How much longer can the world tolerate this situation? Where will this trend lead the world to?
How long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of some rulers? How much longer will the specter of insecurity raised from the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction hunt the people of the world? How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and children be spilled on the streets, and people’s houses destroyed over their heads?
Are you pleased with the current condition of the world? Do you think present policies can continue? If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between disputing states and distinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts were would the world be today? Would not your government, and people be justifiably proud?
Would not your administration’s political and economic standing have been stronger? And I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever increasing global hatred of the American governments? Mr President, it is not my intention to distress anyone.
If prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph or Jesus Christ (PBUH) were with us today, how would they have judged such behaviour? Will we be given a role to play in the promised world, where justice will become universal and Jesus Christ (PBUH) will be present? Will they even accept us? My basic question is this: Is there no better way to interact with the rest of the world? Today there are hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds of millions of Moslems and millions of people who follow the teachings of Moses (PBUH).
All divine religions share and respect on word and that is monotheism or belief in a single God and no other in the world.
The holy Koran stresses this common word and calls on an followers of divine religions and says: [3.64] Say: O followers of the Book! Come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught.
With Him and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah, but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims.
(The Family of Imran).
Mr President, According to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the teachings of divine prophets.
To worship a God which is above all powers in the world and can do all He pleases.
The Lord which knows that which is hidden and visible, the past and the future, knows what goes on in the Hearts of His servants and records their deeds.
The Lord who is the possessor of the heavens and the earth and all universe is His court? ?planning for the universe is done by His hands, and gives His servants the glad tidings of mercy and forgiveness of sins.
He is the companion of the oppressed and the enemy of oppressors
He is the Compassionate, the Merciful.
He is the recourse of the faithful and guides them towards the light from darkness.
He is witness to the actions of His servants, He calls on servants to be faithful and do good deeds, and asks them to stay on the path of righteousness and remain steadfast.
Calls on servants to heed His prophets and He is a witness to their deeds.
A bad ending belongs only to those who have chosen the life of this world and disobey Him and oppress His servants.
And A good and eternal paradise belong to those servants who fear His majesty and do not follow their lascivious selves.
We believe a return to the teachings of the divine prophets is the only road leading to salvations.
I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (PBUH), and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth.
We also believe that Jesus Christ (PBUH) was one of the great prophets of the Almighty.
He has been repeatedly praised in the Koran.
Jesus (PBUH) has been quoted in Koran as well; [19,36] And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serves Him; this is the right path, Marium.
Service to and obedience of the Almighty is the credo of all divine messengers.
The God of all people in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, the Pacific and the rest of the world is one.
He is the Almighty who wants to guide and give dignity to all His servants.
He has given greatness to Humans.
We again read in the Holy Book: The Almighty God sent His prophets with miracles and clear signs to guide the people and show them divine signs and purity them from sins and pollutions.
And He sent the Book and the balance so that the people display justice and avoid the rebellious.
All of the above verses can be seen, one way or the other, in the Good Book as well.
Divine prophets have promised: The day will come when all humans will congregate before the court of the Almighty, so that their deeds are examined.
The good will be directed towards Haven and evildoers will meet divine retribution.
I trust both of us believe in such a day, but it will not be easy to calculate the actions of rulers, because we must be answerable to our nations and all others whose lives have been directly or indirectly effected by our actions.
All prophets, speak of peace and tranquility for man based on monotheism, justice and respect for human dignity.
Do you not think that if all of us come to believe in and abide by these principles, that is, monotheism, worship of God, justice, respect for the dignity of man, belief in the Last Day, we can overcome the present problems of the world that are the result of disobedience to the Almighty and the teachings of prophets and improve our performance? Do you not think that belief in these principles promotes and guarantees peace, friendship and justice? Do you not think that the aforementioned written or unwritten principles are universally respected? Will you not accept this invitation? That is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets? Mr President, History tells us that repressive and cruel governments do not survive.
God has entrusted The fate of man to them.
The Almighty has not left the universe and humanity to their own devices.
Many things have happened contrary to the wishes and plans of governments.
These tell us that there is a higher power at work and all events are determined by Him.
Can one deny the signs of change in the world today? Is this situation of the world today comparable to that of ten years ago? Changes happen fast and come at a furious pace.
The people of the world are not happy with the status quo and pay little heed to the promises and comments made by a number of influential world leaders.
Many people around the world feel insecure and oppose the spreading of insecurity and war and do not approve of and accept dubious policies.
The people are protesting the increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots and the rich and poor countries.
The people are disgusted with increasing corruption.
The people of many countries are angry about the attacks on their cultural foundations and the disintegration of families.
They are equally dismayed with the fading of care and compassion.
The people of the world have no faith in international organisations, because their rights are not advocated by these organisations.
Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realise the ideals of humanity.
Today these two concepts have failed.
Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems.
We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point that is the Almighty God.
Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems.
My question for you is: ?Do you not want to join them Mr President, Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.
Vasalam Ala Man Ataba al hoda Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
The Iranian letter - or declaration of war?
The Iranian letter - or declaration of war?
Before I get too far into it, are the extraneous question marks queries regarding the translation or are they an indication that the screen font I'm using here can't cope with the text adequately?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The Iranian letter - or declaration of war?
spot wrote: Before I get too far into it, are the extraneous question marks queries regarding the translation or are they an indication that the screen font I'm using here can't cope with the text adequately?
It's a result of a close translation from the arabic.
It's a result of a close translation from the arabic.
The Iranian letter - or declaration of war?
golem wrote: It's a result of a close translation from the arabic.I'm truly not trying to be difficult, but I don't know what that sentence means. The text in Post #1 is entirely in English with the single exception that a lot of non-punctuation questionmarks appear throughout. I'm not sure of their purpose. Are they quotation marks that have gone wrong, for example? Are they end-of-line marks that didn't carry into the edit window clearly? They make it very difficult to read the english translation. Does "result of a close translation from the arabic" mean that you translated it with an automatic translation package which gave garbled output?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The Iranian letter - or declaration of war?
spot wrote: I'm truly not trying to be difficult, but I don't know what that sentence means. The text in Post #1 is entirely in English with the single exception that a lot of non-punctuation questionmarks appear throughout. I'm not sure of their purpose. Are they quotation marks that have gone wrong, for example? Are they end-of-line marks that didn't carry into the edit window clearly? They make it very difficult to read the english translation. Does "result of a close translation from the arabic" mean that you translated it with an automatic translation package which gave garbled output?
Cleaned up a bit.
Cleaned up a bit.
The Iranian letter - or declaration of war?
Would “more on the flip†be better expressed as “on the other hand� There are a number of infelicitous phrases but I take those to be introduced by the translation process.
Well, I’ve read it, every word. I’m quite sure that the addressee not only hasn’t but couldn’t, which is sad.
I’m sure that if you read it from a perspective of listening to your “enemy†then it will cloud your reception. Your comment, for example, that the phrasing of one sentence parallels that of a letter 700 years ago “instructing them to convert to Islam or face the consequences†ignores the simple fact that no Iranian army is going to launch a war of aggression outside of Iranian territory in the foreseeable future, and that it would only fight at all if Iran were first strategically attacked (ie. militarily or with economic sanctions).
So, reading it as it stands. It’s beautiful. I’m amazed that you posted it, golem. All I can do is to seriously encourage everyone who’s browsed this far to read the entire letter. I’d love to have managed to write that, or most of that, or even part of that, myself. It’s a gem.
If anyone does read it, do please put up a comment and join in.
The United Nations should invite the man to give a keynote speech to the entire assembly in which he can expand on this, it’s inspirational.
Well, I’ve read it, every word. I’m quite sure that the addressee not only hasn’t but couldn’t, which is sad.
I’m sure that if you read it from a perspective of listening to your “enemy†then it will cloud your reception. Your comment, for example, that the phrasing of one sentence parallels that of a letter 700 years ago “instructing them to convert to Islam or face the consequences†ignores the simple fact that no Iranian army is going to launch a war of aggression outside of Iranian territory in the foreseeable future, and that it would only fight at all if Iran were first strategically attacked (ie. militarily or with economic sanctions).
So, reading it as it stands. It’s beautiful. I’m amazed that you posted it, golem. All I can do is to seriously encourage everyone who’s browsed this far to read the entire letter. I’d love to have managed to write that, or most of that, or even part of that, myself. It’s a gem.
If anyone does read it, do please put up a comment and join in.
The United Nations should invite the man to give a keynote speech to the entire assembly in which he can expand on this, it’s inspirational.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The Iranian letter - or declaration of war?
Sure, it's nice prose. I can write that too, but I won't mean it any more than he does. Were talking about a country that supports homicide-bombers.
In the middle of this letter, a man who is the president of a technological country says "Let us assume that the Holocaust really happened." That line shows his true colors. He doesn't really believe the Holocaust happened, because if it did, that would weaken his call for "the total annihilation of Israel."
Adolf Hitler made some very flowery speeches. He called for peace and unity. He never intended any of it. His speeches, just like this one, were nothing more than political propaganda specifically designed for effect.
I'm not saying we don't do the same thing. Our President makes speeches all the time with no intention of following through or even keeping any promises.
You have to really look at the character of the man and his country. Were talking about a country that still stones women to death for adultery. A country that sentenced a man to death for believing in Christ. A country that, on the one hand supports the beheading of innocent journalists, and on the other is engaged in developing the technology for nuclear weapons.
This is nothing more than a scam to buy time and confuse public opinion...until it's too late for anyone to do anything.
In the middle of this letter, a man who is the president of a technological country says "Let us assume that the Holocaust really happened." That line shows his true colors. He doesn't really believe the Holocaust happened, because if it did, that would weaken his call for "the total annihilation of Israel."
Adolf Hitler made some very flowery speeches. He called for peace and unity. He never intended any of it. His speeches, just like this one, were nothing more than political propaganda specifically designed for effect.
I'm not saying we don't do the same thing. Our President makes speeches all the time with no intention of following through or even keeping any promises.
You have to really look at the character of the man and his country. Were talking about a country that still stones women to death for adultery. A country that sentenced a man to death for believing in Christ. A country that, on the one hand supports the beheading of innocent journalists, and on the other is engaged in developing the technology for nuclear weapons.
This is nothing more than a scam to buy time and confuse public opinion...until it's too late for anyone to do anything.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
The Iranian letter - or declaration of war?
Jives wrote: Were talking about a country that still stones women to death for adultery. A country that sentenced a man to death for believing in Christ. A country that, on the one hand supports the beheading of innocent journalists, and on the other is engaged in developing the technology for nuclear weapons.
This is nothing more than a scam to buy time and confuse public opinion...until it's too late for anyone to do anything.
Jives, it's time someone called you on this simplistic folk-fantasy twaddle.
Firstly, it's not your system of law, it's their system of law, and they kill an infinitesimal proportion of the collateral slaughter that your own system achieves. It's why we have the independence of sovereign states, Jives - so that they can be different. It's not a reason to want to change their governance. You did that in 1953 and what you have there now is a direct consequence.
Assume that the Iranians did end up with a few nuclear devices anyway - and we're talking a decade at the minimum even on the fast-track optimist estimates. They're not going to be used pre-emptively, when Israel has 400 lined up ready to retaliate with and the USA has more than anyone can be bothered to try counting, it's so many. A nuclear device is a defensive threat, not an offensive threat. It stops these warmongering thieves in the White House from blitzkrieging the Iranian home turf, which right now they can of course do with impunity. If the White House had shown less inclination to interfere in the domestic issues of other sovereign states so consistently over the last fifty years, there would be less pressure to deter them.
This is nothing more than a scam to buy time and confuse public opinion...until it's too late for anyone to do anything.
Jives, it's time someone called you on this simplistic folk-fantasy twaddle.Firstly, it's not your system of law, it's their system of law, and they kill an infinitesimal proportion of the collateral slaughter that your own system achieves. It's why we have the independence of sovereign states, Jives - so that they can be different. It's not a reason to want to change their governance. You did that in 1953 and what you have there now is a direct consequence.
Assume that the Iranians did end up with a few nuclear devices anyway - and we're talking a decade at the minimum even on the fast-track optimist estimates. They're not going to be used pre-emptively, when Israel has 400 lined up ready to retaliate with and the USA has more than anyone can be bothered to try counting, it's so many. A nuclear device is a defensive threat, not an offensive threat. It stops these warmongering thieves in the White House from blitzkrieging the Iranian home turf, which right now they can of course do with impunity. If the White House had shown less inclination to interfere in the domestic issues of other sovereign states so consistently over the last fifty years, there would be less pressure to deter them.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The Iranian letter - or declaration of war?
spot wrote: Jives, it's time someone called you on this simplistic folk-fantasy twaddle.
Fair enough, if I can call you on your delusional naivety and misplaced trust.
Firstly, it's not your system of law, it's their system of law,
The word "law" implies some kind of humainty and civility. Their system is barbarous and cruel, therefore it is not law, but "custom."
and they kill an infinitesimal proportion of the collateral slaughter that your own system achieves.
Are you comparing our deathrow inmates, killer and murderers, to adulterous women? I don't see that as a fair comparison. Or are you comparing Iraq death rates with adulterous women death rates? either way you are talking apples and oranges, your usual tactic.
It's why we have the independence of sovereign states, Jives - so that they can be different.
So apparently you are OK, with human rights violations...it's just "being different." Well, I call cruelty and inhumaity what it is, wrong.
It's not a reason to want to change their governance. You did that in 1953 and what you have there now is a direct consequence.
I wasn't born in 1953, so I didn't change anything. You do realize you are supporting beheading and stoning as a form of punishment right now, don't you. You can't possibly be serious. Do you honestly think it's an acceptable way to deal with people. If so, you, yourself are barbaric.
Assume that the Iranians did end up with a few nuclear devices anyway... They're not going to be used pre-emptively,
I'm sure that's what the first victims of suicide bombers thought, and of course all of us thought "No one will ever ram an aircraft full of innocent passengers into a building."
History has already proven you wrong, Afghanistan and the Taliban and Al Queda attacked us, knowing full well we had a nuclear arsenal that dwarfs Iran's.
Are you going to wait for that kind of thing to happen on a nuclear scale? This is what I was talking about when I called you naive. let me amend that.
You are blind, deaf, and dumb.
A nuclear device is a defensive threat, not an offensive threat.
And an airplane is a transportation device, not a weapon. It's head-in-the-sand thinking like yours that will cost another few thousand Americans their lives.
It stops these warmongering thieves in the White House from blitzkrieging the Iranian home turf, which right now they can of course do with impunity.
It won't be necessary. The Israelis will never let it get that far. They said so today.
If the White House had shown less inclination to interfere in the domestic issues of other sovereign states so consistently over the last fifty years, there would be less pressure to deter them.
You're right, we should have just let them all kill each other and our friends (the Israelis) by the thousands and not interfere. (sarcasm)
Your statement shows just how callous you are. leave the terrorist nations alone and they'll leave us alone, is that it?
Isolationism didn't work at pearl Harbor. Isolationism didn't work on 9/11.
And it won't work today.
Fair enough, if I can call you on your delusional naivety and misplaced trust.
Firstly, it's not your system of law, it's their system of law,
The word "law" implies some kind of humainty and civility. Their system is barbarous and cruel, therefore it is not law, but "custom."
and they kill an infinitesimal proportion of the collateral slaughter that your own system achieves.
Are you comparing our deathrow inmates, killer and murderers, to adulterous women? I don't see that as a fair comparison. Or are you comparing Iraq death rates with adulterous women death rates? either way you are talking apples and oranges, your usual tactic.
It's why we have the independence of sovereign states, Jives - so that they can be different.
So apparently you are OK, with human rights violations...it's just "being different." Well, I call cruelty and inhumaity what it is, wrong.
It's not a reason to want to change their governance. You did that in 1953 and what you have there now is a direct consequence.
I wasn't born in 1953, so I didn't change anything. You do realize you are supporting beheading and stoning as a form of punishment right now, don't you. You can't possibly be serious. Do you honestly think it's an acceptable way to deal with people. If so, you, yourself are barbaric.
Assume that the Iranians did end up with a few nuclear devices anyway... They're not going to be used pre-emptively,
I'm sure that's what the first victims of suicide bombers thought, and of course all of us thought "No one will ever ram an aircraft full of innocent passengers into a building."
History has already proven you wrong, Afghanistan and the Taliban and Al Queda attacked us, knowing full well we had a nuclear arsenal that dwarfs Iran's.
Are you going to wait for that kind of thing to happen on a nuclear scale? This is what I was talking about when I called you naive. let me amend that.
You are blind, deaf, and dumb.
A nuclear device is a defensive threat, not an offensive threat.
And an airplane is a transportation device, not a weapon. It's head-in-the-sand thinking like yours that will cost another few thousand Americans their lives.
It stops these warmongering thieves in the White House from blitzkrieging the Iranian home turf, which right now they can of course do with impunity.
It won't be necessary. The Israelis will never let it get that far. They said so today.
If the White House had shown less inclination to interfere in the domestic issues of other sovereign states so consistently over the last fifty years, there would be less pressure to deter them.
You're right, we should have just let them all kill each other and our friends (the Israelis) by the thousands and not interfere. (sarcasm)
Your statement shows just how callous you are. leave the terrorist nations alone and they'll leave us alone, is that it?
Isolationism didn't work at pearl Harbor. Isolationism didn't work on 9/11.
And it won't work today.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
The Iranian letter - or declaration of war?
Jives wrote: The word "law" implies some kind of humainty and civility. Their system is barbarous and cruel, therefore it is not law, but "custom."
Law implies nothing of the sort. It is :-
A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority. The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a state
The only implied need is consistancy.
And who are you, as an American, to judge the justice of a people who do not share your culture or historical perspective/ Who are you, as an American, to dictate what laws another country may or may not pass?
Please note the use of the second person impersonal in the above
Jives wrote: Are you comparing our deathrow inmates, killer and murderers, to adulterous women? I don't see that as a fair comparison. Or are you comparing Iraq death rates with adulterous women death rates? either way you are talking apples and oranges, your usual tactic.
Why not? A direct comparison of the number of people murdered by the state in the persuance of their "laws". It is not for you to judge the severity of the offence in the eyes of the culture concerned.
[quote=Jives] So apparently you are OK, with human rights violations...it's just "being different." Well, I call cruelty and inhumaity what it is, wrong.
And you are OK with the US violations of human rights? Guantanimo Bay and Abu Ghraib are only the most obvious. Cruelty and inhumanity it is, wrong.
Jives wrote: I wasn't born in 1953, so I didn't change anything. You do realize you are supporting beheading and stoning as a form of punishment right now, don't you. You can't possibly be serious. Do you honestly think it's an acceptable way to deal with people. If so, you, yourself are barbaric.
In 1953, the US engineered the overthrow of the ligitimate government of Iran so whilst you (personal) did not do so, you (impersonal as a representative of the US) did.
Jives wrote: I'm sure that's what the first victims of suicide bombers thought, and of course all of us thought "No one will ever ram an aircraft full of innocent passengers into a building."
History has already proven you wrong, Afghanistan and the Taliban and Al Queda attacked us, knowing full well we had a nuclear arsenal that dwarfs Iran's.
Are you going to wait for that kind of thing to happen on a nuclear scale? This is what I was talking about when I called you naive. let me amend that.
You are blind, deaf, and dumb.
Afghanistan and the Taliban did NOT attack the US - it was a worldwide terrorist organisation. The justification for the invasion of Afghanistan was that they would not hand over Osama Bin Ladin whom they never had control of and whom the US could not manage to capture dispite their resources. So Afghanistan's only "crime" was to not do what the US couldn't do.
Jives wrote: And an airplane is a transportation device, not a weapon. It's head-in-the-sand thinking like yours that will cost another few thousand Americans their lives.
No - it's the actions of the US goverment's warmongering that will cost another few thousand Americans their lives. How near to winning the "war against terror" are you? A damned sight further away than when the US invaded Afghanistan - totally due to the hatred engendered by your (impersonal) actions.
Jives wrote: It won't be necessary. The Israelis will never let it get that far. They said so today.
So the cycle of hated goes on?
Jives wrote: You're right, we should have just let them all kill each other and our friends (the Israelis) by the thousands and not interfere. (sarcasm)
Your statement shows just how callous you are. leave the terrorist nations alone and they'll leave us alone, is that it?
Isolationism didn't work at pearl Harbor. Isolationism didn't work on 9/11.
And it won't work today.
And interventionist warmongering won't work either - far from it it will lead to the deaths of far more people.
Law implies nothing of the sort. It is :-
A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority. The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a state
The only implied need is consistancy.
And who are you, as an American, to judge the justice of a people who do not share your culture or historical perspective/ Who are you, as an American, to dictate what laws another country may or may not pass?
Please note the use of the second person impersonal in the above
Jives wrote: Are you comparing our deathrow inmates, killer and murderers, to adulterous women? I don't see that as a fair comparison. Or are you comparing Iraq death rates with adulterous women death rates? either way you are talking apples and oranges, your usual tactic.
Why not? A direct comparison of the number of people murdered by the state in the persuance of their "laws". It is not for you to judge the severity of the offence in the eyes of the culture concerned.
[quote=Jives] So apparently you are OK, with human rights violations...it's just "being different." Well, I call cruelty and inhumaity what it is, wrong.
And you are OK with the US violations of human rights? Guantanimo Bay and Abu Ghraib are only the most obvious. Cruelty and inhumanity it is, wrong.
Jives wrote: I wasn't born in 1953, so I didn't change anything. You do realize you are supporting beheading and stoning as a form of punishment right now, don't you. You can't possibly be serious. Do you honestly think it's an acceptable way to deal with people. If so, you, yourself are barbaric.
In 1953, the US engineered the overthrow of the ligitimate government of Iran so whilst you (personal) did not do so, you (impersonal as a representative of the US) did.
Jives wrote: I'm sure that's what the first victims of suicide bombers thought, and of course all of us thought "No one will ever ram an aircraft full of innocent passengers into a building."
History has already proven you wrong, Afghanistan and the Taliban and Al Queda attacked us, knowing full well we had a nuclear arsenal that dwarfs Iran's.
Are you going to wait for that kind of thing to happen on a nuclear scale? This is what I was talking about when I called you naive. let me amend that.
You are blind, deaf, and dumb.
Afghanistan and the Taliban did NOT attack the US - it was a worldwide terrorist organisation. The justification for the invasion of Afghanistan was that they would not hand over Osama Bin Ladin whom they never had control of and whom the US could not manage to capture dispite their resources. So Afghanistan's only "crime" was to not do what the US couldn't do.
Jives wrote: And an airplane is a transportation device, not a weapon. It's head-in-the-sand thinking like yours that will cost another few thousand Americans their lives.
No - it's the actions of the US goverment's warmongering that will cost another few thousand Americans their lives. How near to winning the "war against terror" are you? A damned sight further away than when the US invaded Afghanistan - totally due to the hatred engendered by your (impersonal) actions.
Jives wrote: It won't be necessary. The Israelis will never let it get that far. They said so today.
So the cycle of hated goes on?
Jives wrote: You're right, we should have just let them all kill each other and our friends (the Israelis) by the thousands and not interfere. (sarcasm)
Your statement shows just how callous you are. leave the terrorist nations alone and they'll leave us alone, is that it?
Isolationism didn't work at pearl Harbor. Isolationism didn't work on 9/11.
And it won't work today.
And interventionist warmongering won't work either - far from it it will lead to the deaths of far more people.
The Iranian letter - or declaration of war?
jives wrote: Are you comparing our deathrow inmates, killer and murderers, to adulterous women? I don't see that as a fair comparison. Or are you comparing Iraq death rates with adulterous women death rates? either way you are talking apples and oranges, your usual tactic.Well no, actually - I was thinking more of the several million dead civilians that your imperial guard has left across the planet within the span of my memory. But since you mention comparative systems of crime and punishment here's a conundrum for you, mister let's-clean-up-the-world Jives. The Chinese put to death something around ten thousand offenders a year, but they don't publish ages or statistics of what crimes are being expunged. China's not a country your administration is prepared to tangle with in any military sense, unlike pipsqueak nations like Grenada, Iraq or Iran. So you're full of "barbarous and cruel, therefore it is not law, but custom" when you seek to justify killing Iranians, but not prepared to take a moral stand even when the numbers are a hundredfold elsewhere. That's called expediency, and it does tend to expose your moral high-minded excuse for interfering in the internal affairs of SMALL sovereign nations as something of a blind.
If you map human rights violations by nation, and consider whose human rights are violated by whom irrespective of whether it's an internal citizen of that country or a foreigner, there's only one huge offender over the last fifteen years and that's the USA. The speck in the eye of Iran is as nothing compared to the beam in the eye of the United States. The USA is the last of the dinosaurs, the final killing machine left standing. How many civilian deaths since 1990, would you guess? A million? Half? Two? Don't care? This is where Us and Them comes into it, Jives. If it's Them dying we can ignore it because they're foreign trash who don't count on the scales, so all we cheer is the Smart Bomb footage whenever something goes bang from 30,000 feet. You think that "head-in-the-sand thinking like yours that will cost another few thousand Americans their lives" and ignore the orders-of-magnitude more bloodstains that rot unburied behind your own military simply because one set count and the other set don't. Literally - one set gets counted, and the other set falls under "we don't do bodycounts". And what do we call it? Patriotism, and people like you who refuse to find a middle ground because Winning Is All That Matters.
"leave the terrorist nations alone and they'll leave us alone, is that it?" - not at all. You're falling back on defining terror in your own terms. The terror out in the real world has air cover and rides around in HumVees.
If you map human rights violations by nation, and consider whose human rights are violated by whom irrespective of whether it's an internal citizen of that country or a foreigner, there's only one huge offender over the last fifteen years and that's the USA. The speck in the eye of Iran is as nothing compared to the beam in the eye of the United States. The USA is the last of the dinosaurs, the final killing machine left standing. How many civilian deaths since 1990, would you guess? A million? Half? Two? Don't care? This is where Us and Them comes into it, Jives. If it's Them dying we can ignore it because they're foreign trash who don't count on the scales, so all we cheer is the Smart Bomb footage whenever something goes bang from 30,000 feet. You think that "head-in-the-sand thinking like yours that will cost another few thousand Americans their lives" and ignore the orders-of-magnitude more bloodstains that rot unburied behind your own military simply because one set count and the other set don't. Literally - one set gets counted, and the other set falls under "we don't do bodycounts". And what do we call it? Patriotism, and people like you who refuse to find a middle ground because Winning Is All That Matters.
"leave the terrorist nations alone and they'll leave us alone, is that it?" - not at all. You're falling back on defining terror in your own terms. The terror out in the real world has air cover and rides around in HumVees.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The Iranian letter - or declaration of war?
posted by jives
History has already proven you wrong, Afghanistan and the Taliban and Al Queda attacked us, knowing full well we had a nuclear arsenal that dwarfs Iran's.
Was it not a bunch of Saudis that attacked you on 911? There is no such thing as a terrorist state as a terrorist state-there may be the odd one that helps terrorists or turns a blind eye to their activities but if you want to look at states that sponsor terrorism and even allow open fund raising for terrorist organisations look no further than your own country. Or do you still think Noraid was a charity organisation. The peace process in Ireland only really got started when the IRA funding started being affected.
Time and time again the US interferes in south american politics when a govt gets elected that you think might affect perceived american interests-bringing dowm the chilean allende govt for daring to stand up to american mining companies. Look at the reaction to Chaves in Venezuala, an elected govt that you claim is undemocratic because it threatens oil interests same with the new Bolivian president. It seems as if self determination and democracy is acceptable so long as it's the right kind of self determination and any hint of a govt that even remotely suggests socialist policies seems to freak the US govt out.
The taliban were once allies of America-trained and funded by them and may never have got in to power in Aghanistan without US help-and British as well come to that sadly we can hardly claim to be blameless in all of this, indeed you could make a good case that ourselves and the french caused most of it-but then we made no secret of being a one time Imperial power where the only morality was what was in our intrerests and perfidious albion was more than a jolly myth. Realpolitik should be left in the 19th century where it belongs. Warfare is a bit more serious nowadays.
Al Queda is a saudi based organisation, saudi backed and financed-why pretend otherwise unless it's inconvenient to accept that your main ally in the middle east has also spawned the organisation that attacked the US. To paraphrase Cuba Gooding Junior-follow the money. Iraq had no connection to 911 all the invasion has achieved is increase support for fundamentalism worldwide and seem to justify the accusations of the terrorists. Afghanistan was a diffrent matter but everyoine sems to forget they were sheltering Osama who was never anyhere near iraq.
Iraq had no WMD's and saddam would have been better left to the iraquis to deal with. anyone with half a brain could have predicted the present mess are you now going to fall for the same kind of spin again? Repressive regimes survive best when attacked from outside, left alone more moderate voices might get a chance in iran and seemed to be doing so until the US started threatening military action. You cannot impose democracy the very idea is absurd.
Iran so far hasn't attacked any of it's neighbours but had been attacked-most noticeably by Iraq cheered on by the west and given intelligence help in locating Iranian forces by one Dick Cheney helping the good ally Saddam Hussein.
No nation on earth can afford to back down when threatened by a foreign power. No one in the states would so why do you expect the Iranians to just cave in? They have nothing to lose-a military invasion with the whole country hostile to the invaders would be a bloodbath, the alternative is a nuclear strike which would only confirm everything being said about the US and they would all be dead anyway.
If Iran having Nuclear weapons is bad why not Israel? Both countries are influenced by demented religons each claiming their people to be the chosen of god.
Pakistan is far more of a threat than Iran. They already have nuclear weapons and the odds of a fundamentalist regime getting power there are very good indeed and it will be an extreme fundamentalist group that gets power. If that happens then I would be willing to take bets someone will use a nuclear weapon, sooner rather than later, and never mind the consequences. Yet it's OK that Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons. Even better-sell Pakistan military jets so they can bettter drop them on India. A little bit of consistence in foreign policy may help matters. If there is a nuclear exchange in the near future that's where it will be not Iran. The London bombers seem to have been influenced by pakistani clerics-not Iranian.
You can't change the past but you can learn from it and not repeat the same mistakes. All the sabre rattlers need to understand that if your idea of diplomacy is only to threaten just because you have the biggest military then sooner or later someone will call your bluff.
So will americans be ready to die invading Iran-a country that has never attacked them. Because it's a safe bet no British troops will be involved TB might fool us all once he won't succeed a second time and in any case his days are now numbered.
You have three choices with Iran, invade, nuke them or keep talking. maybe you should try and persuade Bush to keep the third option open because neither of the other two will do much for peaceful existence.
The Iranians play a good game, Nutty fundamentalists perhaps but not stupid ones. -doing deals with China and Russia both of whom are now looking to strenghthen their military. One cold war has just ended-it would be a pity to roll it over in to a second one but still better than a shooting one I suppose. The cold war was as much an ecomomic one as anything else, maybe this is a new ohase starting
posted by bryn mawr
And who are you, as an American, to judge the justice of a people who do not share your culture or historical perspective/ Who are you, as an American, to dictate what laws another country may or may not pass?
Everybody judges, it is human nature. If someone judges my culture and customs to be corrupt then they are perfectly entitled to their opinion. But I must confess to considerable ambivalence when i see moslem clerics on British TV arguing that as muslims they should be allowed to live under sharia law-no problem live as they choose but when they also want me to live under it I'm afraid any tolerance and understanding goes right out the window. Being tolerant does not mean i have to accept some pillock telling me right from wrong whatever their religon even less so when they do not share my cultural or historical perspective.
We live in liberal democracies and most of us believe in liberal values-individual freedom etc. Maybe the problem with those fundamentalist who follow desert religons such as islam. christianity and judaism have no place in modern western society because freedom and liberty are concepts they lack the ability to see as belonging to others and not just them to be handed out as they see fit.
Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
- Winston Churchill
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.†- Winston Churchill
"As God once said, and I think rightly..." - Margaret Thatcher.
Sorry, got distracted by this while looking for pithy quotes to impress you with.
http://www.saidwhat.co.uk/quotes/funny/
History has already proven you wrong, Afghanistan and the Taliban and Al Queda attacked us, knowing full well we had a nuclear arsenal that dwarfs Iran's.
Was it not a bunch of Saudis that attacked you on 911? There is no such thing as a terrorist state as a terrorist state-there may be the odd one that helps terrorists or turns a blind eye to their activities but if you want to look at states that sponsor terrorism and even allow open fund raising for terrorist organisations look no further than your own country. Or do you still think Noraid was a charity organisation. The peace process in Ireland only really got started when the IRA funding started being affected.
Time and time again the US interferes in south american politics when a govt gets elected that you think might affect perceived american interests-bringing dowm the chilean allende govt for daring to stand up to american mining companies. Look at the reaction to Chaves in Venezuala, an elected govt that you claim is undemocratic because it threatens oil interests same with the new Bolivian president. It seems as if self determination and democracy is acceptable so long as it's the right kind of self determination and any hint of a govt that even remotely suggests socialist policies seems to freak the US govt out.
The taliban were once allies of America-trained and funded by them and may never have got in to power in Aghanistan without US help-and British as well come to that sadly we can hardly claim to be blameless in all of this, indeed you could make a good case that ourselves and the french caused most of it-but then we made no secret of being a one time Imperial power where the only morality was what was in our intrerests and perfidious albion was more than a jolly myth. Realpolitik should be left in the 19th century where it belongs. Warfare is a bit more serious nowadays.
Al Queda is a saudi based organisation, saudi backed and financed-why pretend otherwise unless it's inconvenient to accept that your main ally in the middle east has also spawned the organisation that attacked the US. To paraphrase Cuba Gooding Junior-follow the money. Iraq had no connection to 911 all the invasion has achieved is increase support for fundamentalism worldwide and seem to justify the accusations of the terrorists. Afghanistan was a diffrent matter but everyoine sems to forget they were sheltering Osama who was never anyhere near iraq.
Iraq had no WMD's and saddam would have been better left to the iraquis to deal with. anyone with half a brain could have predicted the present mess are you now going to fall for the same kind of spin again? Repressive regimes survive best when attacked from outside, left alone more moderate voices might get a chance in iran and seemed to be doing so until the US started threatening military action. You cannot impose democracy the very idea is absurd.
Iran so far hasn't attacked any of it's neighbours but had been attacked-most noticeably by Iraq cheered on by the west and given intelligence help in locating Iranian forces by one Dick Cheney helping the good ally Saddam Hussein.
No nation on earth can afford to back down when threatened by a foreign power. No one in the states would so why do you expect the Iranians to just cave in? They have nothing to lose-a military invasion with the whole country hostile to the invaders would be a bloodbath, the alternative is a nuclear strike which would only confirm everything being said about the US and they would all be dead anyway.
If Iran having Nuclear weapons is bad why not Israel? Both countries are influenced by demented religons each claiming their people to be the chosen of god.
Pakistan is far more of a threat than Iran. They already have nuclear weapons and the odds of a fundamentalist regime getting power there are very good indeed and it will be an extreme fundamentalist group that gets power. If that happens then I would be willing to take bets someone will use a nuclear weapon, sooner rather than later, and never mind the consequences. Yet it's OK that Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons. Even better-sell Pakistan military jets so they can bettter drop them on India. A little bit of consistence in foreign policy may help matters. If there is a nuclear exchange in the near future that's where it will be not Iran. The London bombers seem to have been influenced by pakistani clerics-not Iranian.
You can't change the past but you can learn from it and not repeat the same mistakes. All the sabre rattlers need to understand that if your idea of diplomacy is only to threaten just because you have the biggest military then sooner or later someone will call your bluff.
So will americans be ready to die invading Iran-a country that has never attacked them. Because it's a safe bet no British troops will be involved TB might fool us all once he won't succeed a second time and in any case his days are now numbered.
You have three choices with Iran, invade, nuke them or keep talking. maybe you should try and persuade Bush to keep the third option open because neither of the other two will do much for peaceful existence.
The Iranians play a good game, Nutty fundamentalists perhaps but not stupid ones. -doing deals with China and Russia both of whom are now looking to strenghthen their military. One cold war has just ended-it would be a pity to roll it over in to a second one but still better than a shooting one I suppose. The cold war was as much an ecomomic one as anything else, maybe this is a new ohase starting
posted by bryn mawr
And who are you, as an American, to judge the justice of a people who do not share your culture or historical perspective/ Who are you, as an American, to dictate what laws another country may or may not pass?
Everybody judges, it is human nature. If someone judges my culture and customs to be corrupt then they are perfectly entitled to their opinion. But I must confess to considerable ambivalence when i see moslem clerics on British TV arguing that as muslims they should be allowed to live under sharia law-no problem live as they choose but when they also want me to live under it I'm afraid any tolerance and understanding goes right out the window. Being tolerant does not mean i have to accept some pillock telling me right from wrong whatever their religon even less so when they do not share my cultural or historical perspective.
We live in liberal democracies and most of us believe in liberal values-individual freedom etc. Maybe the problem with those fundamentalist who follow desert religons such as islam. christianity and judaism have no place in modern western society because freedom and liberty are concepts they lack the ability to see as belonging to others and not just them to be handed out as they see fit.
Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
- Winston Churchill
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.†- Winston Churchill
"As God once said, and I think rightly..." - Margaret Thatcher.
Sorry, got distracted by this while looking for pithy quotes to impress you with.
http://www.saidwhat.co.uk/quotes/funny/
The Iranian letter - or declaration of war?
spot wrote: Well no, actually - I was thinking more of the several million dead civilians that your imperial guard has left across the planet within the span of my memory.
I believe that was called "World War II" LOL! BTw...since you are an American, they are "Your" imperial guard too.
But since you mention comparative systems of crime and punishment here's a conundrum for you, mister let's-clean-up-the-world Jives. The Chinese put to death something around ten thousand offenders a year, but they don't publish ages or statistics of what crimes are being expunged. China's not a country your administration is prepared to tangle with in any military sense, unlike pipsqueak nations like Grenada, Iraq or Iran.
I completely agree with you. Actually, you prove my point. If we had taken a harder stance with China before they became a nuclear power, wouldn't that have stopped what you are decrying? China is a good case for stopping any other countries from becoming nuclear. Thanks for that help!
So you're full of "barbarous and cruel, therefore it is not law, but custom" when you seek to justify killing Iranians, but not prepared to take a moral stand even when the numbers are a hundredfold elsewhere. That's called expediency,
To take on China now would be suicidal. Let's day that Iran does go nuclear, wouldn't that make it impossible for the world to change them after that? Or to put it a better way:
Shouldn't you stop your child from getting hold of your handgun before he blows and his little brother away?
Iran = maturity of a child, Israel = the little brother.
BTW Spot, you haven't said a word about the fact that Iran has formally threatened to "destroy Israel" Doesn't that make you nervous? Do yo still really think that their nuclear program is just for "peaceful purposes?"
and it does tend to expose your moral high-minded excuse for interfering in the internal affairs of SMALL sovereign nations as something of a blind.
I guess you're too young to remember the Iran Hostage Crisis, Spot, either tht you you choose to forget it in your delusional zeal.
If you map human rights violations by nation, and consider whose human rights are violated by whom irrespective of whether it's an internal citizen of that country or a foreigner, there's only one huge offender over the last fifteen years and that's the USA. The speck in the eye of Iran is as nothing compared to the beam in the eye of the United States.
What human rights have we violated? We don't torture, we don't use chemical warfare, we don't slaughter innocent children with suicide bombs.
I'm sure that in your rabid America-hating mind, you will count a bomb dropped in a war off target as the same as suicide-bombing a children's store. But it isn't. LOL!
people like you who refuse to find a middle ground because Winning Is All That Matters.
You don't find a middle ground with someone who has just shot your child and is aiming the gun at your wife. You just stop them. Just what is your feeling on 9/11, Spot?
Was that "justified" to you? I'll bet in your twisted black mind you truly believe that "they deserved it." Right? 9/11 was "the consequence" for our actions, right?
Now...go tell that to the surviving family members. Go tell the wife who lost her husband that ti was all his fault he got killed because he was American and America is evil.
You are absolutely heartless. You views verge on traitorous. You would have us ignore sworn enemies, and retreat from the world stage to let it be taken by the likes of the Iranian president and Kin Il Jong.
The terror out in the real world has air cover and rides around in HumVees.
You just called your own countrymen terrorists. Now we get down to the real deal. you hate America. I'm not sure why, you tinge everything you say about America with your hatred, it shows right through.
What's the real problem? Didn't have the kind of life you thought you would? That's not america's fault...that's yours.
I believe that was called "World War II" LOL! BTw...since you are an American, they are "Your" imperial guard too.
But since you mention comparative systems of crime and punishment here's a conundrum for you, mister let's-clean-up-the-world Jives. The Chinese put to death something around ten thousand offenders a year, but they don't publish ages or statistics of what crimes are being expunged. China's not a country your administration is prepared to tangle with in any military sense, unlike pipsqueak nations like Grenada, Iraq or Iran.
I completely agree with you. Actually, you prove my point. If we had taken a harder stance with China before they became a nuclear power, wouldn't that have stopped what you are decrying? China is a good case for stopping any other countries from becoming nuclear. Thanks for that help!
So you're full of "barbarous and cruel, therefore it is not law, but custom" when you seek to justify killing Iranians, but not prepared to take a moral stand even when the numbers are a hundredfold elsewhere. That's called expediency,
To take on China now would be suicidal. Let's day that Iran does go nuclear, wouldn't that make it impossible for the world to change them after that? Or to put it a better way:
Shouldn't you stop your child from getting hold of your handgun before he blows and his little brother away?
Iran = maturity of a child, Israel = the little brother.
BTW Spot, you haven't said a word about the fact that Iran has formally threatened to "destroy Israel" Doesn't that make you nervous? Do yo still really think that their nuclear program is just for "peaceful purposes?"
and it does tend to expose your moral high-minded excuse for interfering in the internal affairs of SMALL sovereign nations as something of a blind.
I guess you're too young to remember the Iran Hostage Crisis, Spot, either tht you you choose to forget it in your delusional zeal.
If you map human rights violations by nation, and consider whose human rights are violated by whom irrespective of whether it's an internal citizen of that country or a foreigner, there's only one huge offender over the last fifteen years and that's the USA. The speck in the eye of Iran is as nothing compared to the beam in the eye of the United States.
What human rights have we violated? We don't torture, we don't use chemical warfare, we don't slaughter innocent children with suicide bombs.
I'm sure that in your rabid America-hating mind, you will count a bomb dropped in a war off target as the same as suicide-bombing a children's store. But it isn't. LOL!
people like you who refuse to find a middle ground because Winning Is All That Matters.
You don't find a middle ground with someone who has just shot your child and is aiming the gun at your wife. You just stop them. Just what is your feeling on 9/11, Spot?
Was that "justified" to you? I'll bet in your twisted black mind you truly believe that "they deserved it." Right? 9/11 was "the consequence" for our actions, right?
Now...go tell that to the surviving family members. Go tell the wife who lost her husband that ti was all his fault he got killed because he was American and America is evil.
You are absolutely heartless. You views verge on traitorous. You would have us ignore sworn enemies, and retreat from the world stage to let it be taken by the likes of the Iranian president and Kin Il Jong.
The terror out in the real world has air cover and rides around in HumVees.
You just called your own countrymen terrorists. Now we get down to the real deal. you hate America. I'm not sure why, you tinge everything you say about America with your hatred, it shows right through.
What's the real problem? Didn't have the kind of life you thought you would? That's not america's fault...that's yours.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
The Iranian letter - or declaration of war?
gmc wrote:
If Iran having Nuclear weapons is bad why not Israel? Both countries are influenced by demented religons each claiming their people to be the chosen of god.
I absolutely agree with you, GMC. I don't support the war in Iraq, and I've felt from the beginning that Saudi Arabia is the real problem. Spot merely stated that we shold get out of the world politcal circle. I pointed out that every time we have done that has been disatrous for our country. We have to be out there..or it comes to us.
Pakistan is far more of a threat than Iran.
Again, I agree. But here you prove two points for me:
1. It's better to try to stop a country from getting nuclear weapons, then to try to deal with them after they've gotten them.
2. the President of Pakistan that we are supporting is a positive influence, therefore not all American "meddling" is negative.
You can't change the past but you can learn from it and not repeat the same mistakes. All the sabre rattlers need to understand that if your idea of diplomacy is only to threaten just because you have the biggest military then sooner or later someone will call your bluff.
We aren't bluffing. Neither is Iran.
So, do you think Iran would use a nuclear weapon if they hd one? Reread this:
Mr Ahmadinejad told some 3,000 students in Tehran that Israel's establishment had been a move by the West against the Islamic world.
He was addressing a conference entitled The World without Zionism and his comments were reported by the Iranian state news agency Irna.
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," he said, referring to Iran's late revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
So will americans be ready to die invading Iran-a country that has never attacked them. Because it's a safe bet no British troops will be involved TB might fool us all once he won't succeed a second time and in any case his days are now numbered.
Wasn't Great Britain, very close to you, just bombed? Iran supports that export of Islamic terrorism. they have called for another country to be destroyed.
GMC, you won't have to go to Iran. if you wait...they will come to you. But I'm betting you won't like it.
You have three choices with Iran, invade, nuke them or keep talking. maybe you should try and persuade Bush to keep the third option open because neither of the other two will do much for peaceful existence.
I most heartily agree! But what happens when the person you are trying to talk sense to won't listen?
If Iran having Nuclear weapons is bad why not Israel? Both countries are influenced by demented religons each claiming their people to be the chosen of god.
I absolutely agree with you, GMC. I don't support the war in Iraq, and I've felt from the beginning that Saudi Arabia is the real problem. Spot merely stated that we shold get out of the world politcal circle. I pointed out that every time we have done that has been disatrous for our country. We have to be out there..or it comes to us.
Pakistan is far more of a threat than Iran.
Again, I agree. But here you prove two points for me:
1. It's better to try to stop a country from getting nuclear weapons, then to try to deal with them after they've gotten them.
2. the President of Pakistan that we are supporting is a positive influence, therefore not all American "meddling" is negative.
You can't change the past but you can learn from it and not repeat the same mistakes. All the sabre rattlers need to understand that if your idea of diplomacy is only to threaten just because you have the biggest military then sooner or later someone will call your bluff.
We aren't bluffing. Neither is Iran.
So, do you think Iran would use a nuclear weapon if they hd one? Reread this:
Mr Ahmadinejad told some 3,000 students in Tehran that Israel's establishment had been a move by the West against the Islamic world.
He was addressing a conference entitled The World without Zionism and his comments were reported by the Iranian state news agency Irna.
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," he said, referring to Iran's late revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
So will americans be ready to die invading Iran-a country that has never attacked them. Because it's a safe bet no British troops will be involved TB might fool us all once he won't succeed a second time and in any case his days are now numbered.
Wasn't Great Britain, very close to you, just bombed? Iran supports that export of Islamic terrorism. they have called for another country to be destroyed.
GMC, you won't have to go to Iran. if you wait...they will come to you. But I'm betting you won't like it.
You have three choices with Iran, invade, nuke them or keep talking. maybe you should try and persuade Bush to keep the third option open because neither of the other two will do much for peaceful existence.
I most heartily agree! But what happens when the person you are trying to talk sense to won't listen?
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
The Iranian letter - or declaration of war?
No, Jives, neither World War II or Korea comes into my count. My memory really starts with Vietnam.
Your Iran Hostage Crisis was a direct consequence of your installing and shoring up that deluded crackpot playboy of the western world Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi and his torturing minions. There's a cause and effect in all of this, Jives. And didn't Reagan's back office team make a deal over the Iran Hostages that they be kept until the elections were over, to further embarrass the incumbent President?
'I'm sure that in your rabid America-hating mind, you will count a bomb dropped in a war off target as the same as suicide-bombing a children's store. But it isn't. LOL!' - how on earth can you laugh, that is such an unfunny joke. And yes, I would, and no, I don't think there's any conscience-salve in "off target" when you can statistically predict the ratio with which such deaths will relentlessly occur.
There is a tradition in non-violent resistance that as each protestor is clubbed or shot to the ground, the next protestor steps forward to take his place, knowing what will happen but prepared to suffer in turn. That's my view of Iran's position in the international arena at the moment, standing up to be counted. It would be too easy for them to kowtow and let the US focus elsewhere. Their preparedness to substitute their own funding for the withdrawn western subsidies to the Palestinian administration, to leave political manoevering room to the new government there, is a perfect example of not taking the easy path.
Do please get it out of your head that I'm American. I was born in Europe, I live in Europe, I spent a few hours in Denver making a connection once and argued with the passport control desk to pass the time.
Neither China nor Iran is your child, Jives. Each is your equal. Learn to respect that.
Your Iran Hostage Crisis was a direct consequence of your installing and shoring up that deluded crackpot playboy of the western world Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi and his torturing minions. There's a cause and effect in all of this, Jives. And didn't Reagan's back office team make a deal over the Iran Hostages that they be kept until the elections were over, to further embarrass the incumbent President?
'I'm sure that in your rabid America-hating mind, you will count a bomb dropped in a war off target as the same as suicide-bombing a children's store. But it isn't. LOL!' - how on earth can you laugh, that is such an unfunny joke. And yes, I would, and no, I don't think there's any conscience-salve in "off target" when you can statistically predict the ratio with which such deaths will relentlessly occur.
There is a tradition in non-violent resistance that as each protestor is clubbed or shot to the ground, the next protestor steps forward to take his place, knowing what will happen but prepared to suffer in turn. That's my view of Iran's position in the international arena at the moment, standing up to be counted. It would be too easy for them to kowtow and let the US focus elsewhere. Their preparedness to substitute their own funding for the withdrawn western subsidies to the Palestinian administration, to leave political manoevering room to the new government there, is a perfect example of not taking the easy path.
Do please get it out of your head that I'm American. I was born in Europe, I live in Europe, I spent a few hours in Denver making a connection once and argued with the passport control desk to pass the time.
Neither China nor Iran is your child, Jives. Each is your equal. Learn to respect that.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The Iranian letter - or declaration of war?
jives wrote: Wasn't Great Britain, very close to you, just bombed? Iran supports that export of Islamic terrorism. they have called for another country to be destroyed.
Yes, but not by Iranian supported terrorists, by British people sickened by our involvement in the Iraq debacle.
jives wrote: I most heartily agree! But what happens when the person you are trying to talk sense to won't listen?
I don't count threatening military action as talking sense “either do what we demand or we'll bash you†is not talking sense!
Yes, but not by Iranian supported terrorists, by British people sickened by our involvement in the Iraq debacle.
jives wrote: I most heartily agree! But what happens when the person you are trying to talk sense to won't listen?
I don't count threatening military action as talking sense “either do what we demand or we'll bash you†is not talking sense!
The Iranian letter - or declaration of war?
OK, Bryn....my position is that Iran absolutely cannot have nuclear weapons. Since you disagree, does this mean you think that Iran should have nuclear weapons?
This is what I seriously don't understand with you guys. 2000 Americans lie dead from a despicable sneak attack, and yet you seem to think that we should leave a country that exports radical islamic terrorism alone to its own devices when it has just enriched uranium.
I DO NOT want to be in the unfortunate position of saying "I told you so" after an American or Israeli city is reduced to radioactive ashes.
This is what I seriously don't understand with you guys. 2000 Americans lie dead from a despicable sneak attack, and yet you seem to think that we should leave a country that exports radical islamic terrorism alone to its own devices when it has just enriched uranium.
I DO NOT want to be in the unfortunate position of saying "I told you so" after an American or Israeli city is reduced to radioactive ashes.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
The Iranian letter - or declaration of war?
Jives wrote: OK, Bryn....my position is that Iran absolutely cannot have nuclear weapons. Since you disagree, does this mean you think that Iran should have nuclear weapons?
This is what I seriously don't understand with you guys. 2000 Americans lie dead from a despicable sneak attack, and yet you seem to think that we should leave a country that exports radical islamic terrorism alone to its own devices when it has just enriched uranium.
I DO NOT want to be in the unfortunate position of saying "I told you so" after an American or Israeli city is reduced to radioactive ashes.
My position? No country should have nukes - or a standing army. If anyone holds such it should be a multi-national body.
Given that this is manifestly impractical in the current climate then it's no business of your's to dictate who can.
The dispicable sneak attack was just that dispicable. It does not give you the right to invade any country you decide you do not like.
America is NOT the world's police force / father / owner. It has no right to interfere in the internal running of another soverign state.
And before you accuse me of being anti-American I'm not - I'm anti violence and ANYONE who sponsors it.
At the moment America appears to be the single bigest player in the market.
This is what I seriously don't understand with you guys. 2000 Americans lie dead from a despicable sneak attack, and yet you seem to think that we should leave a country that exports radical islamic terrorism alone to its own devices when it has just enriched uranium.
I DO NOT want to be in the unfortunate position of saying "I told you so" after an American or Israeli city is reduced to radioactive ashes.
My position? No country should have nukes - or a standing army. If anyone holds such it should be a multi-national body.
Given that this is manifestly impractical in the current climate then it's no business of your's to dictate who can.
The dispicable sneak attack was just that dispicable. It does not give you the right to invade any country you decide you do not like.
America is NOT the world's police force / father / owner. It has no right to interfere in the internal running of another soverign state.
And before you accuse me of being anti-American I'm not - I'm anti violence and ANYONE who sponsors it.
At the moment America appears to be the single bigest player in the market.
The Iranian letter - or declaration of war?
Bryn Mawr wrote: My position? No country should have nukes - or a standing army. If anyone holds such it should be a multi-national body.I, on the other hand, would hand out a half dozen nuclear bombs to every country in the Middle East tomorrow. They only have defensive value. They have no offensive value whatever, when your neighbors have more of them than you do, when Israel has 400 and the means to deliver them, when Uncle Sam is sat on a pile that dwarfs belief. Nobody's going to use one, but equally nobody's going to invade a country that holds even so small a stockpile as six. Most especially, they're a protection against US aggression, and there's no other toy on the block can do that. When did anyone ever invade a country that was nuclear-armed? When did any nuclear-armed country ever use one when they could expect retaliation in kind?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The Iranian letter - or declaration of war?
spot wrote: I, on the other hand, would hand out a half dozen nuclear bombs to every country in the Middle East tomorrow. They only have defensive value. They have no offensive value whatever, when your neighbors have more of them than you do, when Israel has 400 and the means to deliver them, when Uncle Sam is sat on a pile that dwarfs belief. Nobody's going to use one, but equally nobody's going to invade a country that holds even so small a stockpile as six. Most especially, they're a protection against US aggression, and there's no other toy on the block can do that. When did anyone ever invade a country that was nuclear-armed? When did any nuclear-armed country ever use one when they could expect retaliation in kind?
This only rider you'd HAVE to put on that one is that each batch is isotope tagged so that everyone could see instantly which countries stock had been used.
This only rider you'd HAVE to put on that one is that each batch is isotope tagged so that everyone could see instantly which countries stock had been used.
The Iranian letter - or declaration of war?
Bryn Mawr wrote: My position? No country should have nukes - or a standing army. If anyone holds such it should be a multi-national body.
Given that this is manifestly impractical in the current climate then it's no business of your's to dictate who can.
Well then this is where you and I divide. I do believe it is in the best interests of the world, including your country, for the nuclear nations to work togehter to stop nuclear proliferation. If you truly are anti-violence, don't you think it's a good idea to make sure more countries don't get nuclear weapons. Especially twitchy, terroist nations like Iran?
Turning a blind eye to nuclear proliferation and saying "It's not my business" is like seeing a mugging on the street and saying the same thing.
Good citiznes, and good countries make world peace their business.
The dispicable sneak attack was just that dispicable. It does not give you the right to invade any country you decide you do not like.
What 9/11 did was show us that we cannot ignore other countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and north Korea. When we did that, they attacked us. Now we will do whatever it takes to prevent a repeat of that episode.
We would like to do it with diplomacy, but we will ue force if that doesn't work.
America is NOT the world's police force / father / owner.
Unfortunately, we are. And not by our decision, but the decision of a dozens of other countries that call on us for help or safety. We are the world's sole hperpower - with that power comes responsibility. I like your "parent" example. parents often have to force their children to act in ways they'd rather not.
Iran wants nuclear weapons, we will make sure, for the good of the planet, they don't get them. Unless of course, Israel beats us to it. LOL!
BTW...are you honestly saying that you think a nuclear Iran is a good idea?
I thought not. Yet your solution is "do nothing." Americans should stay out of it. Really. Then who do you suppose will sove this problem? Your country? Not likely.
No, just like in WWII, when good people fail to act, tyrants and psychotics destroy civilization. Don't believe me? just ask the Holocaust victims.
Oh yeah, that's right, according to the future possessor of nuclear weapons, iran's President...that never happened.
It has no right to interfere in the internal running of another soverign state.
The second a soverign state calls for the destruction of another state, it's everybody's business and duty.
And before you accuse me of being anti-American I'm not - I'm anti violence and ANYONE who sponsors it.
Like most pacifists, your ideal is commendable...and totally unrealistic. Tell the next mugger you meet that you are anti-violence. See what happens. I'm sure he'll leave you alone.
At the moment America appears to be the single bigest player in the market.
By force, not by will. We were totally at peace before 9/11. Islamic terrorists awoke "the sleeping giant." Just like all those who have done so in the past, they regret it now.
But let's don't play Spot's "It's all America's fault" game here. Islamic Fundamentalism is the true threat. We have an excellent example of what happens when you ignore a movement like that.
The Fascists.
Given that this is manifestly impractical in the current climate then it's no business of your's to dictate who can.
Well then this is where you and I divide. I do believe it is in the best interests of the world, including your country, for the nuclear nations to work togehter to stop nuclear proliferation. If you truly are anti-violence, don't you think it's a good idea to make sure more countries don't get nuclear weapons. Especially twitchy, terroist nations like Iran?
Turning a blind eye to nuclear proliferation and saying "It's not my business" is like seeing a mugging on the street and saying the same thing.
Good citiznes, and good countries make world peace their business.
The dispicable sneak attack was just that dispicable. It does not give you the right to invade any country you decide you do not like.
What 9/11 did was show us that we cannot ignore other countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and north Korea. When we did that, they attacked us. Now we will do whatever it takes to prevent a repeat of that episode.
We would like to do it with diplomacy, but we will ue force if that doesn't work.
America is NOT the world's police force / father / owner.
Unfortunately, we are. And not by our decision, but the decision of a dozens of other countries that call on us for help or safety. We are the world's sole hperpower - with that power comes responsibility. I like your "parent" example. parents often have to force their children to act in ways they'd rather not.
Iran wants nuclear weapons, we will make sure, for the good of the planet, they don't get them. Unless of course, Israel beats us to it. LOL!
BTW...are you honestly saying that you think a nuclear Iran is a good idea?
I thought not. Yet your solution is "do nothing." Americans should stay out of it. Really. Then who do you suppose will sove this problem? Your country? Not likely.
No, just like in WWII, when good people fail to act, tyrants and psychotics destroy civilization. Don't believe me? just ask the Holocaust victims.
Oh yeah, that's right, according to the future possessor of nuclear weapons, iran's President...that never happened.
It has no right to interfere in the internal running of another soverign state.
The second a soverign state calls for the destruction of another state, it's everybody's business and duty.
And before you accuse me of being anti-American I'm not - I'm anti violence and ANYONE who sponsors it.
Like most pacifists, your ideal is commendable...and totally unrealistic. Tell the next mugger you meet that you are anti-violence. See what happens. I'm sure he'll leave you alone.
At the moment America appears to be the single bigest player in the market.
By force, not by will. We were totally at peace before 9/11. Islamic terrorists awoke "the sleeping giant." Just like all those who have done so in the past, they regret it now.
But let's don't play Spot's "It's all America's fault" game here. Islamic Fundamentalism is the true threat. We have an excellent example of what happens when you ignore a movement like that.
The Fascists.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
The Iranian letter - or declaration of war?
Jives wrote: What 9/11 did was show us that we cannot ignore other countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and north Korea. When we did that, they attacked us.Either you just won't hear the words - 9/11 was not an attack by a foreign country - or your use of "they" in that sentence is deliberately misleading.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The Iranian letter - or declaration of war?
jives wrote: Well then this is where you and I divide. I do believe it is in the best interests of the world, including your country, for the nuclear nations to work togehter to stop nuclear proliferation. If you truly are anti-violence, don't you think it's a good idea to make sure more countries don't get nuclear weapons. Especially twitchy, terroist nations like Iran?
No – not if it stops America invading them.
I have yet to see any evidence that they are attempting to become a nuclear nation – except the scare mongering by the media and the Bush administration (shades of the WMD bs before the invasion of Iraq).
jives wrote: Turning a blind eye to nuclear proliferation and saying "It's not my business" is like seeing a mugging on the street and saying the same thing.
Good citiznes, and good countries make world peace their business.
I'm not turning a blind eye to it – I'm saying it is wrong for America to make a preemptive strike on the basis of suspicion.
jives wrote: What 9/11 did was show us that we cannot ignore other countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and north Korea. When we did that, they attacked us. Now we will do whatever it takes to prevent a repeat of that episode.
We would like to do it with diplomacy, but we will ue force if that doesn't work.
Neither Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran nor north Korea have attacked you – nor threatened to. The only one threatening to attack is the good old USA.
jives wrote: Unfortunately, we are. And not by our decision, but the decision of a dozens of other countries that call on us for help or safety. We are the world's sole hperpower - with that power comes responsibility. I like your "parent" example. parents often have to force their children to act in ways they'd rather not.
Only in you own eyes! There is a thing called International Law – you ride roughshod over it.
No-one has “called on you for help or safety†(except, perhaps, for Israel).
It was not “my†parent example – I was referring to your use of the analogy.
jives wrote: Iran wants nuclear weapons, we will make sure, for the good of the planet, they don't get them. Unless of course, Israel beats us to it. LOL!
Even if you have to destroy the planet to do it?
jives wrote: BTW...are you honestly saying that you think a nuclear Iran is a good idea?
I thought not. Yet your solution is "do nothing." Americans should stay out of it. Really. Then who do you suppose will sove this problem? Your country? Not likely.
As I said up top, yes.
BTW First show that there is a problem other than the saber rattling of the Bush administration
jives wrote: By force, not by will. We were totally at peace before 9/11. Islamic terrorists awoke "the sleeping giant." Just like all those who have done so in the past, they regret it now.
I've never heard such bs – the USA has been interfering in other peoples affairs for the last 50 years.
jives wrote: But let's don't play Spot's "It's all America's fault" game here. Islamic Fundamentalism is the true threat. We have an excellent example of what happens when you ignore a movement like that.
The Fascists.
I would never say it's all America's fault – but I'm absolutely and totally convinced that their “solution†is a major part of the problem.
No – not if it stops America invading them.
I have yet to see any evidence that they are attempting to become a nuclear nation – except the scare mongering by the media and the Bush administration (shades of the WMD bs before the invasion of Iraq).
jives wrote: Turning a blind eye to nuclear proliferation and saying "It's not my business" is like seeing a mugging on the street and saying the same thing.
Good citiznes, and good countries make world peace their business.
I'm not turning a blind eye to it – I'm saying it is wrong for America to make a preemptive strike on the basis of suspicion.
jives wrote: What 9/11 did was show us that we cannot ignore other countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and north Korea. When we did that, they attacked us. Now we will do whatever it takes to prevent a repeat of that episode.
We would like to do it with diplomacy, but we will ue force if that doesn't work.
Neither Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran nor north Korea have attacked you – nor threatened to. The only one threatening to attack is the good old USA.
jives wrote: Unfortunately, we are. And not by our decision, but the decision of a dozens of other countries that call on us for help or safety. We are the world's sole hperpower - with that power comes responsibility. I like your "parent" example. parents often have to force their children to act in ways they'd rather not.
Only in you own eyes! There is a thing called International Law – you ride roughshod over it.
No-one has “called on you for help or safety†(except, perhaps, for Israel).
It was not “my†parent example – I was referring to your use of the analogy.
jives wrote: Iran wants nuclear weapons, we will make sure, for the good of the planet, they don't get them. Unless of course, Israel beats us to it. LOL!
Even if you have to destroy the planet to do it?
jives wrote: BTW...are you honestly saying that you think a nuclear Iran is a good idea?
I thought not. Yet your solution is "do nothing." Americans should stay out of it. Really. Then who do you suppose will sove this problem? Your country? Not likely.
As I said up top, yes.
BTW First show that there is a problem other than the saber rattling of the Bush administration
jives wrote: By force, not by will. We were totally at peace before 9/11. Islamic terrorists awoke "the sleeping giant." Just like all those who have done so in the past, they regret it now.
I've never heard such bs – the USA has been interfering in other peoples affairs for the last 50 years.
jives wrote: But let's don't play Spot's "It's all America's fault" game here. Islamic Fundamentalism is the true threat. We have an excellent example of what happens when you ignore a movement like that.
The Fascists.
I would never say it's all America's fault – but I'm absolutely and totally convinced that their “solution†is a major part of the problem.
The Iranian letter - or declaration of war?
Bryn Mawr wrote: BTW First show that there is a problem other than the saber rattling of the Bush administration
Sure thing - here you go:
Iranian President at Tehran [World Without Zionism Conference: "Very Soon, This Stain of Disgrace [i.e. Israel] Will Vanish from the Center of the Islamic World - and This is Attainable"
In advance of Iran's Jerusalem Day, which was established by Ayatollah Khomeini and is marked annually on the fourth Friday of the month of Ramadan, the "World without Zionism" conference was held in Tehran.
At the conference, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke to the representatives of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, members of the Society for the Defense of the Palestinian Nation, and members of the Islamic Students Union, and an audience of hundreds of students.
In his speech, he described his vision of an age-old confrontation between the world of Islam and the "World of Arrogance," i.e. the West; he portrayed Israel and Zionism as the spearhead of the West against the Islamic nation; and he emphasized the need to eliminate Israel - which, he claimed, was a goal that was attainable.
Speeches were also delivered by representatives of Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Hamas leader Khaled Mash'al.
The Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA), published the full text of Ahmadinejad's speech. The following is a translation of excerpts from ISNA's report and from the speech.(1)
"Prior to his statement, Ahmadinejad said that if you plan to chant the slogan 'Death to Israel,' say it in the right and complete way.
"The president warned the leaders of the Islamic world that they should be wary of Fitna [civil strife]: 'If someone is under the pressure of hegemonic power [i.e. the West] and understands that something is wrong, or he is naïve, or he is an egotist and his hedonism leads him to recognize the Zionist regime - he should know that he will burn in the fire of the Islamic Ummah [nation].'
"Ahmadinejad articulated the real meaning of Zionism: '...We must see what the real story of Palestine is... The establishment of the regime that is occupying Jerusalem was a very grave move by the hegemonic and arrogant system [i.e. the West] against the Islamic world. We are in the process of an historical war between the World of Arrogance [i.e. the West] and the Islamic world, and this war has been going on for hundreds of years.
"'In this historical war, the situation at the fronts has changed many times. During some periods, the Muslims were the victors and were very active, and looked forward, and the World of Arrogance was in retreat.
"'Unfortunately, in the past 300 years, the Islamic world has been in retreat vis-Ã -vis the World of Arrogance. During the period of the last 100 years, the [walls of the] world of Islam were destroyed and the World of Arrogance turned the regime occupying Jerusalem into a bridge for its dominance over the Islamic world...
Arab States Mum on Iran's Israel Remarks
By ARTHUR MAX
Associated Press Writer
October 27, 2005, 10:15 PM EDT
CAIRO, Egypt -- Arab governments remained silent Thursday as international condemnation grew over a call by Iran's new president for Israel to be destroyed.
A President's Hate Speech
The Washington Post
October 28, 2005
IRANIAN PRESIDENT Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used words Wednesday that have not been heard from a senior Iranian official in some time. "Israel," he declared, "must be wiped off the map." What's more, "anyone who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury." Such murderous threats are not exactly new -- as the president noted, they originated with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of Iran's Islamic revolution. But Mr. Ahmadinejad's recent predecessors generally avoided such rhetoric, partly because the goal of eliminating Israel has been disavowed by the Palestinian leadership and partly because Iran sought to improve relations with the West.
These vile words won't necessarily be followed by actions, though Iran possesses missiles that can reach Israel and sponsors terrorists who carry out suicide attacks in its cities. They do, however, send the clearest signal yet that Iran's new government has no intention of seeking accommodation with Europe or the United States, or of accepting a more peaceful Middle East in which Israel lives alongside a democratic Palestinian state.
That's why there was a red-faced flurry of activity in European capitals yesterday; the British, French and German governments all summoned Iranian envoys to protest Mr. Ahmadinejad's speech. While Israel has never doubted the threat from Iran, the three European Union states have invested their prestige and two years of diplomacy in the idea that the Iranian regime would cease steps toward developing nuclear weapons in exchange for Western economic concessions. The Europeans persuaded a reluctant Bush administration to go along with their initiative earlier this year, only to have the talks break down in August, not long after Mr. Ahmadinejad's election. Iran's president then appeared before the U.N. General Assembly to deliver a speech in which, in between ludicrous allegations about the United States, he repeatedly insisted on Iran's intention to proceed with uranium enrichment.
The Europeans still cling to their hopes for negotiations, though last month they finally joined the Bush administration's long-standing -- and equally futile -- attempt to refer Iran's violations of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to the U.N. Security Council. But the crudeness of Mr. Ahmadinejad, and his already evident failure to deliver on his populist promises to raise Iranian living standards, ought to open the way to a different approach. Unlike their president, most young Iranians would like to live in a prosperous and democratic society that enjoys good relations with the West. The West should stand up for that Iran; it can do so by rejecting and isolating the hateful ideologue who would drag the country in the opposite direction.
That sounds to me like there's a serious problem with Iran.
Sure thing - here you go:
Iranian President at Tehran [World Without Zionism Conference: "Very Soon, This Stain of Disgrace [i.e. Israel] Will Vanish from the Center of the Islamic World - and This is Attainable"
In advance of Iran's Jerusalem Day, which was established by Ayatollah Khomeini and is marked annually on the fourth Friday of the month of Ramadan, the "World without Zionism" conference was held in Tehran.
At the conference, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke to the representatives of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, members of the Society for the Defense of the Palestinian Nation, and members of the Islamic Students Union, and an audience of hundreds of students.
In his speech, he described his vision of an age-old confrontation between the world of Islam and the "World of Arrogance," i.e. the West; he portrayed Israel and Zionism as the spearhead of the West against the Islamic nation; and he emphasized the need to eliminate Israel - which, he claimed, was a goal that was attainable.
Speeches were also delivered by representatives of Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Hamas leader Khaled Mash'al.
The Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA), published the full text of Ahmadinejad's speech. The following is a translation of excerpts from ISNA's report and from the speech.(1)
"Prior to his statement, Ahmadinejad said that if you plan to chant the slogan 'Death to Israel,' say it in the right and complete way.
"The president warned the leaders of the Islamic world that they should be wary of Fitna [civil strife]: 'If someone is under the pressure of hegemonic power [i.e. the West] and understands that something is wrong, or he is naïve, or he is an egotist and his hedonism leads him to recognize the Zionist regime - he should know that he will burn in the fire of the Islamic Ummah [nation].'
"Ahmadinejad articulated the real meaning of Zionism: '...We must see what the real story of Palestine is... The establishment of the regime that is occupying Jerusalem was a very grave move by the hegemonic and arrogant system [i.e. the West] against the Islamic world. We are in the process of an historical war between the World of Arrogance [i.e. the West] and the Islamic world, and this war has been going on for hundreds of years.
"'In this historical war, the situation at the fronts has changed many times. During some periods, the Muslims were the victors and were very active, and looked forward, and the World of Arrogance was in retreat.
"'Unfortunately, in the past 300 years, the Islamic world has been in retreat vis-Ã -vis the World of Arrogance. During the period of the last 100 years, the [walls of the] world of Islam were destroyed and the World of Arrogance turned the regime occupying Jerusalem into a bridge for its dominance over the Islamic world...
Arab States Mum on Iran's Israel Remarks
By ARTHUR MAX
Associated Press Writer
October 27, 2005, 10:15 PM EDT
CAIRO, Egypt -- Arab governments remained silent Thursday as international condemnation grew over a call by Iran's new president for Israel to be destroyed.
A President's Hate Speech
The Washington Post
October 28, 2005
IRANIAN PRESIDENT Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used words Wednesday that have not been heard from a senior Iranian official in some time. "Israel," he declared, "must be wiped off the map." What's more, "anyone who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury." Such murderous threats are not exactly new -- as the president noted, they originated with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of Iran's Islamic revolution. But Mr. Ahmadinejad's recent predecessors generally avoided such rhetoric, partly because the goal of eliminating Israel has been disavowed by the Palestinian leadership and partly because Iran sought to improve relations with the West.
These vile words won't necessarily be followed by actions, though Iran possesses missiles that can reach Israel and sponsors terrorists who carry out suicide attacks in its cities. They do, however, send the clearest signal yet that Iran's new government has no intention of seeking accommodation with Europe or the United States, or of accepting a more peaceful Middle East in which Israel lives alongside a democratic Palestinian state.
That's why there was a red-faced flurry of activity in European capitals yesterday; the British, French and German governments all summoned Iranian envoys to protest Mr. Ahmadinejad's speech. While Israel has never doubted the threat from Iran, the three European Union states have invested their prestige and two years of diplomacy in the idea that the Iranian regime would cease steps toward developing nuclear weapons in exchange for Western economic concessions. The Europeans persuaded a reluctant Bush administration to go along with their initiative earlier this year, only to have the talks break down in August, not long after Mr. Ahmadinejad's election. Iran's president then appeared before the U.N. General Assembly to deliver a speech in which, in between ludicrous allegations about the United States, he repeatedly insisted on Iran's intention to proceed with uranium enrichment.
The Europeans still cling to their hopes for negotiations, though last month they finally joined the Bush administration's long-standing -- and equally futile -- attempt to refer Iran's violations of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to the U.N. Security Council. But the crudeness of Mr. Ahmadinejad, and his already evident failure to deliver on his populist promises to raise Iranian living standards, ought to open the way to a different approach. Unlike their president, most young Iranians would like to live in a prosperous and democratic society that enjoys good relations with the West. The West should stand up for that Iran; it can do so by rejecting and isolating the hateful ideologue who would drag the country in the opposite direction.
That sounds to me like there's a serious problem with Iran.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
The Iranian letter - or declaration of war?
Three points :-
This is very much what I was describing. If you read the paraphrase of the speech as you have quoted it
"Prior to his statement, Ahmadinejad said that if you plan to chant the slogan 'Death to Israel,' say it in the right and complete way.
"The president warned the leaders of the Islamic world that they should be wary of Fitna [civil strife]: 'If someone is under the pressure of hegemonic power [i.e. the West] and understands that something is wrong, or he is naïve, or he is an egotist and his hedonism leads him to recognize the Zionist regime - he should know that he will burn in the fire of the Islamic Ummah [nation].'
"Ahmadinejad articulated the real meaning of Zionism: '...We must see what the real story of Palestine is... The establishment of the regime that is occupying Jerusalem was a very grave move by the hegemonic and arrogant system [i.e. the West] against the Islamic world. We are in the process of an historical war between the World of Arrogance [i.e. the West] and the Islamic world, and this war has been going on for hundreds of years.
"'In this historical war, the situation at the fronts has changed many times. During some periods, the Muslims were the victors and were very active, and looked forward, and the World of Arrogance was in retreat.
"'Unfortunately, in the past 300 years, the Islamic world has been in retreat vis-Ã -vis the World of Arrogance. During the period of the last 100 years, the [walls of the] world of Islam were destroyed and the World of Arrogance turned the regime occupying Jerusalem into a bridge for its dominance over the Islamic world...
and then read the commentary on it
IRANIAN PRESIDENT Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used words Wednesday that have not been heard from a senior Iranian official in some time. "Israel," he declared, "must be wiped off the map." What's more, "anyone who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury." Such murderous threats are not exactly new -- as the president noted, they originated with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of Iran's Islamic revolution. But Mr. Ahmadinejad's recent predecessors generally avoided such rhetoric, partly because the goal of eliminating Israel has been disavowed by the Palestinian leadership and partly because Iran sought to improve relations with the West.
These vile words won't necessarily be followed by actions, though Iran possesses missiles that can reach Israel and sponsors terrorists who carry out suicide attacks in its cities. They do, however, send the clearest signal yet that Iran's new government has no intention of seeking accommodation with Europe or the United States, or of accepting a more peaceful Middle East in which Israel lives alongside a democratic Palestinian state.
That's why there was a red-faced flurry of activity in European capitals yesterday; the British, French and German governments all summoned Iranian envoys to protest Mr. Ahmadinejad's speech. While Israel has never doubted the threat from Iran, the three European Union states have invested their prestige and two years of diplomacy in the idea that the Iranian regime would cease steps toward developing nuclear weapons in exchange for Western economic concessions. The Europeans persuaded a reluctant Bush administration to go along with their initiative earlier this year, only to have the talks break down in August, not long after Mr. Ahmadinejad's election. Iran's president then appeared before the U.N. General Assembly to deliver a speech in which, in between ludicrous allegations about the United States, he repeatedly insisted on Iran's intention to proceed with uranium enrichment.
The Europeans still cling to their hopes for negotiations, though last month they finally joined the Bush administration's long-standing -- and equally futile -- attempt to refer Iran's violations of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to the U.N. Security Council. But the crudeness of Mr. Ahmadinejad, and his already evident failure to deliver on his populist promises to raise Iranian living standards, ought to open the way to a different approach. Unlike their president, most young Iranians would like to live in a prosperous and democratic society that enjoys good relations with the West. The West should stand up for that Iran; it can do so by rejecting and isolating the hateful ideologue who would drag the country in the opposite direction.
then we're seeing two completely different speeches
I've seen the same rhetoric, and worse, coming out of Washington and Tel Aviv
What about all the other points I've made that you appear to be ignoring?
This is very much what I was describing. If you read the paraphrase of the speech as you have quoted it
"Prior to his statement, Ahmadinejad said that if you plan to chant the slogan 'Death to Israel,' say it in the right and complete way.
"The president warned the leaders of the Islamic world that they should be wary of Fitna [civil strife]: 'If someone is under the pressure of hegemonic power [i.e. the West] and understands that something is wrong, or he is naïve, or he is an egotist and his hedonism leads him to recognize the Zionist regime - he should know that he will burn in the fire of the Islamic Ummah [nation].'
"Ahmadinejad articulated the real meaning of Zionism: '...We must see what the real story of Palestine is... The establishment of the regime that is occupying Jerusalem was a very grave move by the hegemonic and arrogant system [i.e. the West] against the Islamic world. We are in the process of an historical war between the World of Arrogance [i.e. the West] and the Islamic world, and this war has been going on for hundreds of years.
"'In this historical war, the situation at the fronts has changed many times. During some periods, the Muslims were the victors and were very active, and looked forward, and the World of Arrogance was in retreat.
"'Unfortunately, in the past 300 years, the Islamic world has been in retreat vis-Ã -vis the World of Arrogance. During the period of the last 100 years, the [walls of the] world of Islam were destroyed and the World of Arrogance turned the regime occupying Jerusalem into a bridge for its dominance over the Islamic world...
and then read the commentary on it
IRANIAN PRESIDENT Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used words Wednesday that have not been heard from a senior Iranian official in some time. "Israel," he declared, "must be wiped off the map." What's more, "anyone who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury." Such murderous threats are not exactly new -- as the president noted, they originated with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of Iran's Islamic revolution. But Mr. Ahmadinejad's recent predecessors generally avoided such rhetoric, partly because the goal of eliminating Israel has been disavowed by the Palestinian leadership and partly because Iran sought to improve relations with the West.
These vile words won't necessarily be followed by actions, though Iran possesses missiles that can reach Israel and sponsors terrorists who carry out suicide attacks in its cities. They do, however, send the clearest signal yet that Iran's new government has no intention of seeking accommodation with Europe or the United States, or of accepting a more peaceful Middle East in which Israel lives alongside a democratic Palestinian state.
That's why there was a red-faced flurry of activity in European capitals yesterday; the British, French and German governments all summoned Iranian envoys to protest Mr. Ahmadinejad's speech. While Israel has never doubted the threat from Iran, the three European Union states have invested their prestige and two years of diplomacy in the idea that the Iranian regime would cease steps toward developing nuclear weapons in exchange for Western economic concessions. The Europeans persuaded a reluctant Bush administration to go along with their initiative earlier this year, only to have the talks break down in August, not long after Mr. Ahmadinejad's election. Iran's president then appeared before the U.N. General Assembly to deliver a speech in which, in between ludicrous allegations about the United States, he repeatedly insisted on Iran's intention to proceed with uranium enrichment.
The Europeans still cling to their hopes for negotiations, though last month they finally joined the Bush administration's long-standing -- and equally futile -- attempt to refer Iran's violations of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to the U.N. Security Council. But the crudeness of Mr. Ahmadinejad, and his already evident failure to deliver on his populist promises to raise Iranian living standards, ought to open the way to a different approach. Unlike their president, most young Iranians would like to live in a prosperous and democratic society that enjoys good relations with the West. The West should stand up for that Iran; it can do so by rejecting and isolating the hateful ideologue who would drag the country in the opposite direction.
then we're seeing two completely different speeches
I've seen the same rhetoric, and worse, coming out of Washington and Tel Aviv
What about all the other points I've made that you appear to be ignoring?
The Iranian letter - or declaration of war?
posted by jives
Again, I agree. But here you prove two points for me:
1. It's better to try to stop a country from getting nuclear weapons, then to try to deal with them after they've gotten them.
2. the President of Pakistan that we are supporting is a positive influence, therefore not all American "meddling" is negative.
re 1) IMO the way Iran looks at it is if they have nuclear weapons they would not be getting threatened therefore they must have them for their own defence.
re 2) Musharif took power in 1999 after ousting the elected civilian governmentThe present regime in Pakistan is a military dictatorship and is incredibly unpopular, one of the reasons for the unpopularity is their support of the US. Once again in supporting and propping up undemocratic regimes that prevent opposition parties having any kind of political say the US is ensuring it will be replaced by one incredibly hostile to US interests, in this case probably a fundamentalist islamic one, just as happened in Iran. Fundamentalist pakistan with nuclear weapons now that is really frightening. Iranians are deeply rational in comparison I would not expect them to use then unless attacked, on the other hand if fundamentalist get hold in Pakistan I would understand the Indians nuking them asap.
posted by Jives
Wasn't Great Britain, very close to you, just bombed? Iran supports that export of Islamic terrorism. they have called for another country to be destroyed.
Best laugh I've had on this forum. I know it's apochryphal that americans know little about other countries but where exactly do you think scotland is located in relation to great britain?
America used to turn a blind eye to those who supported the IRA from america. should we have attacked you?
GMC, you won't have to go to Iran. if you wait...they will come to you. But I'm betting you won't like it.
No they won't. (actually Last time Iran tried to invade europe they got gubbed and later on a blond haired poofter from greece conquered them-at least he was blonde according to the hollywood version, but that was admittedly a very long time ago). What is more likely is home grown terrorists trained in pakistan and influenced by pakistani clerics. The terrorist were sunni moslems not shia (I think, correct me if I'm wrong). Before that it was the IRA, who, if you recall made a good attemmpt at destroying the british government when they blew up the grand hotel in Brighton. In spain it was ETA in France it was arabs in Germany left wing groups in Italy the red brigade
A war against terrorism is not the same as war against nation states, trying to turn it in to one rather misses the point. You don't panic and lash out at the most convenient target you go after the ones responsible. Why is the most powerful military nation on the planet terrified of terrorists and see enemies everywhere to the extent that even friends criticising your actions are no longer friends but must be enemies. America is the most junior nation on the world stage, to see yourselves as chastising parents is ludicrous.
It's even worse when you use a terrorist attack as an excuse to invade a country that had no connection to the terrorist attack and forget about finding those who actually did. being cynical i think that the fact that raq has 20% of the world oil reserves is the real reason.
posted by jives
I most heartily agree! But what happens when the person you are trying to talk sense to won't listen?
Ah well! Maybe the irony of that comment excapes you. personally I would keep talking. Kicking their heads in doesn't really solve anything however satisfying it might be at the time.
posted by jives from the article by arthur max.
The Europeans still cling to their hopes for negotiations, though last month they finally joined the Bush administration's long-standing -- and equally futile -- attempt to refer Iran's violations of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to the U.N. Security Council. But the crudeness of Mr. Ahmadinejad, and his already evident failure to deliver on his populist promises to raise Iranian living standards, ought to open the way to a different approach. Unlike their president, most young Iranians would like to live in a prosperous and democratic society that enjoys good relations with the West. The West should stand up for that Iran; it can do so by rejecting and isolating the hateful ideologue who would drag the country in the opposite direction.
Most of the other middle eastern leaders keep quiet because they know they are sitting in powderkegs. If you have a country where political debate and opposition are quashed the only outlet becomes extremism-in the weat it was always political extremism, in the middle east it's religious fundamentalism.
By threatening Iran with attack it strenghtens the fundamentalist grip taking away any chance the moderates have.
posted by jives
But let's don't play Spot's "It's all America's fault" game here. Islamic Fundamentalism is the true threat. We have an excellent example of what happens when you ignore a movement like that.
I wholeheartedly agree with you here-well except about spot, criticism and anti americanism are not synonymous though a lot of americans seem to think it is.
Islamic fundamentalism is a true threat, present policies are making it even more of a threat. It's almost as if the religious right have got a grip in america and are determined to have armageddon no matter what and are dragging everyone else along with them in their demented delusions seeing enemies where there were none and in so doing creating them with any rational debate being shouted down as unpatriotic.
Again, I agree. But here you prove two points for me:
1. It's better to try to stop a country from getting nuclear weapons, then to try to deal with them after they've gotten them.
2. the President of Pakistan that we are supporting is a positive influence, therefore not all American "meddling" is negative.
re 1) IMO the way Iran looks at it is if they have nuclear weapons they would not be getting threatened therefore they must have them for their own defence.
re 2) Musharif took power in 1999 after ousting the elected civilian governmentThe present regime in Pakistan is a military dictatorship and is incredibly unpopular, one of the reasons for the unpopularity is their support of the US. Once again in supporting and propping up undemocratic regimes that prevent opposition parties having any kind of political say the US is ensuring it will be replaced by one incredibly hostile to US interests, in this case probably a fundamentalist islamic one, just as happened in Iran. Fundamentalist pakistan with nuclear weapons now that is really frightening. Iranians are deeply rational in comparison I would not expect them to use then unless attacked, on the other hand if fundamentalist get hold in Pakistan I would understand the Indians nuking them asap.
posted by Jives
Wasn't Great Britain, very close to you, just bombed? Iran supports that export of Islamic terrorism. they have called for another country to be destroyed.
Best laugh I've had on this forum. I know it's apochryphal that americans know little about other countries but where exactly do you think scotland is located in relation to great britain?
America used to turn a blind eye to those who supported the IRA from america. should we have attacked you?
GMC, you won't have to go to Iran. if you wait...they will come to you. But I'm betting you won't like it.
No they won't. (actually Last time Iran tried to invade europe they got gubbed and later on a blond haired poofter from greece conquered them-at least he was blonde according to the hollywood version, but that was admittedly a very long time ago). What is more likely is home grown terrorists trained in pakistan and influenced by pakistani clerics. The terrorist were sunni moslems not shia (I think, correct me if I'm wrong). Before that it was the IRA, who, if you recall made a good attemmpt at destroying the british government when they blew up the grand hotel in Brighton. In spain it was ETA in France it was arabs in Germany left wing groups in Italy the red brigade
A war against terrorism is not the same as war against nation states, trying to turn it in to one rather misses the point. You don't panic and lash out at the most convenient target you go after the ones responsible. Why is the most powerful military nation on the planet terrified of terrorists and see enemies everywhere to the extent that even friends criticising your actions are no longer friends but must be enemies. America is the most junior nation on the world stage, to see yourselves as chastising parents is ludicrous.
It's even worse when you use a terrorist attack as an excuse to invade a country that had no connection to the terrorist attack and forget about finding those who actually did. being cynical i think that the fact that raq has 20% of the world oil reserves is the real reason.
posted by jives
I most heartily agree! But what happens when the person you are trying to talk sense to won't listen?
Ah well! Maybe the irony of that comment excapes you. personally I would keep talking. Kicking their heads in doesn't really solve anything however satisfying it might be at the time.
posted by jives from the article by arthur max.
The Europeans still cling to their hopes for negotiations, though last month they finally joined the Bush administration's long-standing -- and equally futile -- attempt to refer Iran's violations of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to the U.N. Security Council. But the crudeness of Mr. Ahmadinejad, and his already evident failure to deliver on his populist promises to raise Iranian living standards, ought to open the way to a different approach. Unlike their president, most young Iranians would like to live in a prosperous and democratic society that enjoys good relations with the West. The West should stand up for that Iran; it can do so by rejecting and isolating the hateful ideologue who would drag the country in the opposite direction.
Most of the other middle eastern leaders keep quiet because they know they are sitting in powderkegs. If you have a country where political debate and opposition are quashed the only outlet becomes extremism-in the weat it was always political extremism, in the middle east it's religious fundamentalism.
By threatening Iran with attack it strenghtens the fundamentalist grip taking away any chance the moderates have.
posted by jives
But let's don't play Spot's "It's all America's fault" game here. Islamic Fundamentalism is the true threat. We have an excellent example of what happens when you ignore a movement like that.
I wholeheartedly agree with you here-well except about spot, criticism and anti americanism are not synonymous though a lot of americans seem to think it is.
Islamic fundamentalism is a true threat, present policies are making it even more of a threat. It's almost as if the religious right have got a grip in america and are determined to have armageddon no matter what and are dragging everyone else along with them in their demented delusions seeing enemies where there were none and in so doing creating them with any rational debate being shouted down as unpatriotic.