Would You Back Military Action Against Iran?

orpheus · Post by **orpheus** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:03 pm

I put no.

Slade1 · Post by **Slade1** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:48 pm

I also put 'No'.

For the time being anyway...

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:05 pm

Crisis Time:

Should We Bomb Iran?
Vote in This Urgent Poll

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:36 pm

Well, I'd have to agree with Nomad on this one, we have to stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq beofre we even consider invading Iran.

I guess the real question here is "Do you believe that Iran would use a nuclear bomb if they had one?"

I used to think, "Why worry?" Nobody was crazy enough in my mind to actually go to NUCLEAR WAR! I mean, every one loses in that case. Nobody's that crazy are they?

That was before suicide bombers.

Heck, I didn't even think anyone was crazy enough to fly an airliner into a skyscraper killing thousands of innocent men, women,and children. But I always forget how evil mankind can be to each other. I guess that's why they make us see those pictures of the Holocaust regularly, so we don't forget that, yeah, there are people that crazy.

While I'm thinking about this, here's what the current President of Iran said recently:

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.

In 2001, former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani speculated that a Muslim state that developed a nuclear weapon might use it to destroy Israel.

Such calls are regular slogans at anti-Israeli or anti-US rallies in Iran.

Mr Ahmadinejad warned leaders of Muslim nations who recognised the state of Israel that they faced "the wrath of their own people".

Ok...now that's scary talk to me. It reminds me a little of speeches from Hitler that I have read in the past.

This is from a guy in Israel:

The combination of a state that supports terrorism, calls openly for export of Islamic revolution, calls openly for destruction of another country and develops nuclear weapons cannot be tolerated any more

Uri D, Israel

I guess I'd have to say I totally understand how he feels.

My last thought? Considering the Israelis past history, (remember when they bombed what they thought was a nuclear reactor in Iraq?) they will most likely take care of the problem themselves with their operatives and their fighters before any of the rest of the countries on the planet have to do anything.

And as usual, they'll not ask for permission or need it.:rolleyes:

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:38 pm

Accountable wrote: Crisis Time:

Should We Bomb Iran?
Vote in This Urgent Poll

Whoops, Accountable, I read the poll but to vote you have to sign up for their news service, I don't need any more spam, so sorry, I didn't vote.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:45 pm

Jives wrote: Whoops, Accountable, I read the poll but to vote you have to sign up for their news service, I don't need any more spam, so sorry, I didn't vote.I didn't take the poll either, so I didn't notice the spam part. typical though.

That are that type questions called in logic class? the kind that presume something that may not be true?

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 4:03 pm

paradoxes? or invalid assumptions?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 4:13 pm

Dunno. But it's like this one.

2) Should the U.S. rely solely on the U.N. to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program?

It presumes that (1) Iran's nuclear weapons program needs stopping, and (2) The UN, US, or both are responsible to stop it.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 4:18 pm

Oh...you mean "loaded questions" and "slanted questions".

It's like when the cop pulls you over and asks you, "Do you know why I pulled you over?"

You have the choice of admitting that you are so stupid you don't know when you are driving wrong, or admitting you are guilty.

It's similar to when loss prevention officers ask a shoplifter, "Didn't you forget to pay for something?"

But I still think that letting Iran develop nuclear weapons is similar to giving a loaded .357 magnum handgun to your 5-year old. Even if he promises not to use it, it's still just not a good idea.

erasamus snoggle · Post by **erasamus snoggle** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 6:10 pm

Jives, I tend to agree with most of what you've said. When we were facing the U.S.S.R., for example, who'd ever thought airliners would be weapons? We'd certainly seen examples of public suicides (i.e. the monks immolating in Viet Nam) over the years, but to the extent of the last few decades? One would think that even the most zealous zealot would begin to have doubts by this time. Even 'Lucifer' would tire of the endless stream of homicide bombers. The West cannot even consider giving in to the demands of barbarians. IMHO, Iran has had an ass-whuppin coming for many years, and this latest talking head from there only solidifies the belief that what they need is a significant import of pyrotechnic devices, delivered in 35 & 40 ton increments with great precison by B.U.F.F. and friends.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 9:47 am

erasamus snoggle wrote: B.U.F.F. and friends.

lol. Erasamus are you ex-Air Force? For everyone else here that didn't get that reference, a Big Ugly Flying Freaker is Air Force slang for a B-52.

Welcome to the forums, erasamus, I think you and I are going to get along nicely!

erasamus snoggle · Post by **erasamus snoggle** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 4:43 pm

I wore an Army suit from mid '68 ~ mid '88. More than half of those years were spent outside of the United States.

B.U.F.F. can have a variety of meanings - to me, it's always been Big Ugly Fat F***er, and very affectionately so. I've seen firsthand the message they deliver with 750lb dumb bombs - a very impressive sight.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu May 11, 2006 11:57 pm

Accountable wrote: I don't recall ever seeing your opinion of our involvement with Iraq, but that's exactly what has us on the bad side of half of Europe now.

Yes we can let the UN sort it out. That's allegedly their reason for existence.

No, America does not have to be one of the front runners. Let France handle this one.

Thats exactly what we said pre WW2 isnt it??

Why not let people build their military to the point where we have another holocaust. Only a nuclear holocaust would be a little less massive*Sarcasm*

I really cant tell you that I approve or disapprove of the war in Iraq, or an inevitable war with Iran, but one thing is for sure, and thats letting people who build their militaries to be able to compete with the worlds superpowers have proved in history to be costly.

If Im not mistaken, Great Britain and France had the chance to overthrow Hitler when he was loading his army for an inevitable hellish attack.

Are we to continue to let countries with obvious intent on using their ambitious military stockpiling to grow? Where does pre-emptive protection come in and trust begin?? Are we to continue to let an entire race of people be killed without reason, as well as our soldiers which could have been avoided??

To me an attempt to build nuclear weapons is nothing less than an obvious statement of aggression.

I suppose leting the russians build nuclear weapons in cuba would be alright as well?? as for me I dont think so "chief".

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Fri May 12, 2006 5:38 am

I certainly would NOT want to go to war under that flucking idiot Donald Rumsfeld and his irrational and assanign boss! Are we sure the threat is as big as its made out to be, because these two have been caught in some BIG WHOPPIN LIES!

Anyone see Rumsfield in ATL last week? Questioned by a Vet?

Post by **spot** » Fri May 12, 2006 6:15 am

K.Snyder wrote: If Im not mistaken, Great Britain and France had the chance to overthrow Hitler when he was loading his army for an inevitable hellish attack. I wonder what precisely you're thinking about here? Poland, for example, seeing the way the wind blew, proposed to France in 1936 that the Polish-French Treaty should be invoked to intervene after the Rheinland was re-occupied. I can think of nothing later that might have brought down the National Socialists, and that in itself is a very tenuous possibility since France was far from prepared for making an invasion to the East - their military buildup of the early 1930s had stalled at least a year earlier as the worldwide economic depression bit deeper. Besides, Britain had no treaty obligation to intervene regarding the Rheinland.

The next potential causus belli would be the Anschluss of Austria, presumably? I don't think anyone regarded that as untoward, merely a re-establishment of a historical link on a par with re-defending the Rheinland itself.

The reason that the occupation of the Sudetenland and subsequently the whole of Czechoslovakia didn't lead to war is the pivotal moment, but it had nothing to do with Britain or France. The decision to invade Germany was for the Czech Prime Minister BeneÃ…¡ to take, and he backed down. He had the Russian Minister at the palace, with Stalin's full backing to commit the USSR to a full invasion, and BeneÃ…¡ refused to request that it be done. If you want chapter and verse on that, ask me and I'll scan the relevant chapter from Claud Cockburn's autobiography as described to him by a key eyewitness, Koltzov.

K.Snyder wrote: To me an attempt to build nuclear weapons is nothing less than an obvious statement of aggression. And yet it's US policy, which seems to me to be yet another instance of Us Good, Them Bad.

K.Snyder wrote: I suppose leting the russians build nuclear weapons in cuba would be alright as well?? as for me I dont think so "chief".Build? Where does this "build" come from? All Krushchev was doing was basing his own manufactured missiles and warheads there, just as Kennedy had done with basing US missiles in Turkey, just as close to the USSR as the Cuban missiles were to the US mainland. You know what Kennedy did then? Handed the launch keys to the Turks, if I remember right. It amazes me that provocation of that intensity didn't fire off a conflict, though they were withdrawn fairly hastily afterwards.

golem · Post by **golem** » Fri May 12, 2006 11:47 pm

Would anyone give a gun to an ill educated delusional hate filled brain damaged individual who thought that when he shot someone - anyone - they simply went into another room?

If yes, then don't attack Iran.

If No way - then do attack Iran --- and VERY soon and with whatever it takes.

Post by **spot** » Sat May 13, 2006 3:19 am

golem wrote: Would anyone give a gun to an ill educated delusional hate filled brain damaged individual who thought that when he shot someone - anyone - they simply went into another room?Golem, you have no idea how you come across when you write here. You may well be a charming man, a good family provider and as dedicated to the common good as any saint in history, but that doen't show clearly in your words.

If someone writes a piece of text, it's worth considering that he might actually mean what he says. You posted a wonderful letter in Post #1 which you don't credit as an accurate reflection of the mind of the author. I, on the other hand, do. Why do I? Because it is, practically line for line, what I would write had I the time and skill to construct it. I would not write that letter in order to mislead anyone. I'd write it to gloat, admittedly, over a fool, and to provide a text for historians, but I'd be very careful not to overstep any boundary and stray into a lie anywhere. Were I so careless as to lie in a letter like that, I would undo all of my effort. That's why it's such a good letter - it stays clean of any lie or exaggeration. I'm awestruck in admiration for the author.

Now, I'm not one to raise the temperature of a thread as you know, but when I saw "ill educated delusional hate filled brain damaged" I blinked twice. It describes my perception of your own position to the last dotted iota. I would love to be able to calm the discussion in those threads in which you propagandize, but despite my best efforts to pour oil in them I've so far failed.

Do, everyone, please go back and re-read post #1 with an open mind. Bear in mind, perhaps, that the words of someone untrustworthy often sound hollow - those of the Bush Administration, wherever the word "freedom" or "democracy" are employed, raise hackles worldwide, for example - but at the least you can consider the truth or otherwise of the text.

edit: I wrote this unaware that there were two concurrent Iran threads running today, and the references to "post #1" were to http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showt ... hp?t=15461 - my apologies for any confusion.

golem · Post by **golem** » Sat May 13, 2006 4:47 am

spot wrote: Golem, you have no idea how you come across when you write here. You may well be a charming man, a good family provider and as dedicated to the common good as any saint in history, but that doen't show clearly in your words.

I don't give a hot damm how I come across. I type what I mean. Like it or lump it what you see is what there is.

When I wrote "Would anyone give a gun to an ill educated delusional hate filled brain damaged individual who thought that when he shot someone - anyone - they simply went into another room?" that is exactly what I meant.

It is based on knowledge of what we are dealing with.

Post by **spot** » Sat May 13, 2006 5:09 am

golem wrote: It is based on knowledge of what we are dealing with.He who claims knowledge without adequately demonstrating its accuracy is a paper tiger. The bigger and broader the claim, the more the need for traceable reputable sources. Who needs a self-created fantasy opinion, whether it's shared by others or not? The world's full of them. Opinions don't sway minds. The analysis of facts sways minds. I very rarely voice my opinion on this site.

Post by **spot** » Sat May 13, 2006 5:30 am

golem wrote: I don't give a hot damm how I come across. I type what I mean. Like it or lump it what you see is what there is.It's a pity, on reflection, that you didn't feel able to join one or more of the ForumGarden excursions in London last week. Anything which lubricates, breaks a few barriers, makes people realize that they're talking to other people and not to "enemies", is only going to help matters. We need to be able to talk constructively, not to fight intransigently.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sat May 13, 2006 7:39 am

No----I do not support attacking Iran. If they develop nuclear capabilities, let them fire the first shot and then obliterate them completely as a country and people. That, I could support.

Post by **spot** » Sat May 13, 2006 8:10 am

Lon wrote: No----I do not support attacking Iran. If they develop nuclear capabilities, let them fire the first shot and then obliterate them completely as a country and people. That, I could support.That seems eminently sensible. One or two nuclear explosions isn't going to destroy any country, much is it would upset the inhabitants. A few dozen would make a far larger difference. Nobody has suggested that Iran will reach a point of deploying even a few dozen, but the rest of the world could certainly spare that number in retaliation. These things are a defensive weapon of last resort, not an additional offensive capability.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat May 13, 2006 11:53 am

spot wrote: I wonder what precisely you're thinking about here? Poland, for example, seeing the way the wind blew, proposed to France in 1936 that the Polish-French Treaty should be invoked to intervene after the Rheinland was re-occupied.

Poland?? you would have expected Poland to be able to withstand Germany??

spot wrote: I can think of nothing later that might have brought down the National Socialists, and that in itself is a very tenuous possibility since France was far from prepared for making an invasion to the East.

Yes and we all know the brilliance behind the Maginot line dont we*sarcasm*. Seems to me like the money they spent on this blunder, they could have beefed up their military offensive power to cripple the Nazi ambition. Irony in a nutshell. "Hey, lets build a massive wall of defense while their military needs a few years to be sufficient enough to completely pulverize us".............that makes as much sense as water buffalo crossing croc territory one at a time.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat May 13, 2006 12:02 pm

spot wrote:

And yet it's US policy, which seems to me to be yet another instance of Us Good, Them Bad.

So your saying a country like Iran has the right to build Nuclear weapons, claiming to be strictly defensive, when they know damn well that they couldnt compete with anyone willing to go to war with them anyway????

If i knew buy fate that they would use them strictly for defense I would personally give the go ahead to sell them as many nukes as they could fit on their plate(hypothetically speaking).

I smell a rat ok.

like equipping a guy with a 9mm to have a shoot out with a bunch of AK's and M-4s, dont make sense.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat May 13, 2006 12:04 pm

spot wrote:

Build? Where does this "build" come from? All Krushchev was doing was basing his own manufactured missiles and warheads there, just as Kennedy had done with basing US missiles in Turkey, just as close to the USSR as the Cuban missiles were to the US mainland. You know what Kennedy did then? Handed the launch keys to the Turks, if I remember right. It amazes me that provocation of that intensity didn't fire off a conflict, though they were withdrawn fairly hastily afterwards.

Im not going to comment on the missile crisis, but I will say fine, do away with both foreign based missile silos.....JUST KEEP THEIR FREAKEN MISSLES AWAY FROM US.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat May 13, 2006 12:12 pm

Lon wrote: No----I do not support attacking Iran. If they develop nuclear capabilities, let them fire the first shot and then obliterate them completely as a country and people. That, I could support.

This is just terrible. And the poor Iranian people who have nothing to do with their governments choices will then pay.

Militaries should always fight militaries, because the inlisted have the choice to fight, and if they dont have a choice then they should be sacrificed to change the regime that forced them to fight.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sat May 13, 2006 2:36 pm

[quote=K.Snyder]This is just terrible. And the poor Iranian people who have nothing to do with their governments choices will then pay.

That's right!!! Just as we must suffer the sins of our government so must other countries suffer the sins of their government.

BadDog · Post by **BadDog** » Sat May 13, 2006 4:04 pm

I think to even hint that this is all about one rogue dictator in Iran is ridicules. They are chanting in the streets in Iran, and most of the Muslim world. Killing a Single leader, or even a whole group of insurgents will not stop what is going to happen. Which rouge dictator ordered the French Muslims to Burn everything in sight. All that over a cartoon. What would you think if Christians Burned Your country just because they taught evolution in school. I think maybe the reason every American President since Carter. has droped a bomb on a Muslim. Not to mention the other Western Nations(Which is just anouther way of saying Christian Nations). They can see whats comming. I know from lurking around that alot more people all the time can see the world seperating into two distinct sides. We are going to have war like we have never known, everybody is arming up, and getting ready. I've seen a barrage of posts by the nonbelieving public complaining about religion and war, and I feel for you. But on the bright side think about what it will do for real estate prices when most of us are dead. We all know we have reached the maximum capacity of earth, and as you know things have a way of working themselves out.

Post by **spot** » Sat May 13, 2006 7:25 pm

K.Snyder wrote: Poland?? you would have expected Poland to be able to withstand Germany??Do go back and read what I wrote - of course I don't. It's generally reckoned, and I'd agree, that Germany could have been taken down in 1936 by a combined attack from France, Poland and Czechoslovakia. That was the Polish proposal.

Post by **spot** » Sat May 13, 2006 7:33 pm

K.Snyder wrote: So your saying a country like Iran has the right to build Nuclear weapons, claiming to be strictly defensive, when they know damn well that they couldnt compete with anyone willing to go to war with them anyway????

If i knew buy fate that they would use them strictly for defense I would personally give the go ahead to sell them as many nukes as they could fit on their plate(hypothetically speaking).

I smell a rat ok.

like equipping a guy with a 9mm to have a shoot out with a bunch of AK's and M-4s, dont make sense.I hate having two threads running on exactly the same topic at the same time... this paragraph addresses exactly that issue but it's elsewhere. Excuse me if I copy the nub into its appropriate position here...

We're talking deterence, not victory. We're talking about a weapon that has absolutely no offensive value whatever, but deters invasion and national destruction very effectively.

spot in the other thread with apologies wrote: 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?

Post by **spot** » Sat May 13, 2006 7:40 pm

K.Snyder wrote: Im not going to comment on the missile crisis, but I will say fine, do away with both foreign based missile silos.....JUST KEEP THEIR FREAKEN MISSLES AWAY FROM US.Two points, then - firstly, nobody is pretending that Iran is ever going to have delivery systems capable of reaching the USA. One of the outrageous lies by omission of the WMD fiasco in the lead-up to Iraq-2003 was the headlines "Iraq can launch nuclear strike in 45 minutes" where the UK government implied that this was against the UK where in fact the reference was to a possibility that the longest-range Iraqi Scud could perhaps get to a UK Military base in Cyprus.

The imbalance in all this is that the US/UK can already, in fact, reach every portion of Iran with all of its delivery systems, and the White House is screaming for the inclusion of first strike options in Pentagon planning - simply because Iran has no second strike capability. The imbalance could not be greater and is far more destabilizing than a nuclear-armed Iran would be.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Sat May 13, 2006 11:02 pm

Accountable wrote: Let France handle this one.

You're making a funny, right?

golem · Post by **golem** » Sun May 14, 2006 12:33 am

spot wrote: ----- nobody is pretending that Iran is ever going to have delivery sytstems capable of reaching the USA.

Iranian delivery systems capable of reaching the US?

A hand gun fired On June 28th 1914 in Sarajevo killed MILLIONS around the whole world.

Think what not only the use of a nuclear device would do, that is not the only issue, think also what the knowledge of the existence of such weapons in the hands of mad men would do to encourage the rest.

Post by **spot** » Sun May 14, 2006 2:18 am

Your point is what, golem? And who are "the rest", in your text? And will you please stop using epithets like "mad men", you may know whom you mean but us readers are going to have a long list of possible contenders to select from.

golem · Post by **golem** » Sun May 14, 2006 2:43 am

My point? My point is that the implications of the very suspected presence of a weapon must be taken into account as should the implications of its ever being used.

Even if the lunatics in Iran were to explode a nuclear bomb in Israeli waters the repercussions would be global. Some form of retaliation would have to take place, defense treaties would be activated, others would become directly involved, escalation would take place a la WW1, in short the lid would blow off the Middle East which would drag virtually all countries of the world into armed conflict and especially so in the case of the US and at least some of the European countries Ã¢â‚¬“ at least those not signed up to the creation of Eurabia.

An atomic bomb or for that matter any weapon of mass destruction that was deployed against Israel would guarantee immediate US retaliation.

On the other hand the deployment of any WMD BY Israel and any retaliation against us would result in us receiving far less support from our allies.

We know that and that is why any WMD that we might possess truly would be weapons of defence. We know that we would never use them for first strike. It would be tantamount to suicide and since Masada we donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t do suicide.

In the case of the mad men the problem increases to the nth. degree.

In the situation where the possessor of a nuclear weapon believes that if killed in (what he or they see as) an act of martyrdom in the promotion of Islam, which is what happens today with the homicide bombers, that those who die Ã¢â‚¬Ëœfor the causeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ are also martyrs and will go direct to paradise so giving them a good reason to do just that thing. There is the real fear and justification not to let such stupid people have such a terrible weapon as they will use it.

Post by **spot** » Sun May 14, 2006 3:22 am

Were your arguments to hold water, the Pakistan bomb would have been deployed over the Middle East any time in the last twenty years. It hasn't happened. The sole reason for your paranoia is your reiterated "mad men" "lunatics" rubbish. Get over it, learn some tolerance - why do you think the Palestinian problem still exists? Utter intransigence from fools like you preventing a settlement, that's why. You're not any part of a solution to these issues, golem, you're the problem itself.

Meanwhile, if we can sit back and watch Iran spend the next fifteen years deploying - what? a modest dozen devices at most? - I think they'll end up far more secure from unwarranted invasion than they are at the moment, and a good thing too. As you've demonstrated in your own argument, these are defensive weapons of last resort. I'd trust the Iranian leadership with these things as far as I'd trust the Israeli leadership. I'd be pleased to see both sides more secure through their possession.

golem · Post by **golem** » Sun May 14, 2006 3:48 am

spot wrote: Were you arguments to hold water, the Pakistan bomb would have been deployed over the Middle East any time in the last twenty years. It hasn't happened.

Bear in mind that Pakistan although an Islamic nation especially under Musharraf isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t anywhere near as fundamentalist as Iran, and so there are enough sane men in high places who prevented that taking place.

Also bear in mind that so much know-how and even materials were sent to Iran from Pakistan and in particular by A Q Khan and his associates and supporters who passed secrets and equipment to Iranian officials so permitting the program to live on in a country where Islam is the be all and end all of existence.

Khan is credited with being the driving force behind the Iranian program. It was his committed belief in the Ã¢â‚¬ËœrightsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ of Islam that led him to realise that the civilisation that the Pakistani government had achieved in spite of the unpopularity it created amongst the general population driven by the clerics spouting hate and bile as they do, would hamper the use of The Bomb to promote the destruction of Israel as well as provide the backbone for other terrorist acts to advance Islam across the world.

spot wrote: The sole reason for your paranoia is your reiterated "mad men" "lunatics" rubbish. Get over it, learn some tolerance - why do you think the Palestinian problem still exists? Utter intransigence from fools like you preventing a settlement, that's why. You're not any part of a solution to these issues, golem, you're the problem itself.

One mans paranoia is another mans knowledge. In any case I thought that personal attacks were not only bad forum etiquette but also against forum rules. As for your own understanding of the middle east in general and the palest problem in particular, it is both fundamentally flawed and astonishingly shallow.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun May 14, 2006 3:56 am

Adam Zapple wrote: You're making a funny, right?Only part of my tongue's in my cheek. If it's such an international catastrophe - and I'm not ready to stipulate that it is - it calls for international involvement. Maybe it's time we sat back and threw a little money at the problem and played armchair quarterback. I'm tired of having our hand bitten. What loyalty do we owe Europe?

Post by **spot** » Sun May 14, 2006 4:03 am

golem wrote: One mans paranoia is another mans knowledge. In any case I thought that personal attacks were not only bad forum etiquette but also against forum rules. As for your own understanding of the middle east in general and the palest problem in particular, it is both fundamentally flawed and astonishingly shallow.If you feel my language, here or elsewhere, constitutes a personal attack, golem, then by all means bring it to the attention of the owners of the forum and we can abide by their decision in the matter. I don't bring terms like "mad men" or "lunatics" into these threads, and when I see it done I regard such intransigent blinkered fanaticism as utterly dangerous and detestable. If that leads me to describe your posts as "paranoia" or yourself as a fool, then I stand by that assessment. You are an affront to any intelligent discussion of these issues.

golem · Post by **golem** » Sun May 14, 2006 4:10 am

Accountable wrote: Only part of my tongue's in my cheek. If it's such an international catastrophe - and I'm not ready to stipulate that it is - it calls for international involvement. Maybe it's time we sat back and threw a little money at the problem and played armchair quarterback. I'm tired of having our hand bitten. What loyalty do we owe Europe?

The only loyalty that I see owed to Europe by the US might have been by certain European countries, some less reluctantly than others, having US bases situated there during the Cold War.

Even that is questionable however as the Europeans were benefiting from the protection those bases gave to them as was the US by having a forward defence line.

With the recent actions especially by the French in fostering relationships with the African states and also the countries in the Middle East the expression Ã¢â‚¬ËœEurabiaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ is taking on a very real relevance.

Another thing that I see on my visits to the UK is how willing the people are to believe the best worst about the US and the best about the Ã¢â‚¬Ëœpoor downtrodden palestsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ and their kind. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s completely forgotten just what the limited peace that there is in the world is 100% down to the US tax payer.

If I were an American I would be pushing for a very much more isolationist approach by government. We owe a very great deal to the US. Not as much as some people try to portray us as owing as there si more than a little quid pro quo but a very great deal nonetheless and we do NOT forget it. On the other hand the aid, grants, credit guarantees, favoured trading status, and so much more given to other nations now seems to be seen by the almost as a right to expect.

Add to that the hatred and that is not too strong a word that so many people feel towards American people and a rather nasty picture of the real politik of the world emerges.

Maybe the countries who bemoan the wrongly alleged cruel treatment in the suppression of the islamic terrorists were left to the tender mercies of these creatures they would soon change their tune.

golem · Post by **golem** » Sun May 14, 2006 4:11 am

spot wrote: If you feel my language, here or elsewhere, constitutes a personal attack, golem, then by all means bring it to the attention of the owners of the forum and we can abide by their decision in the matter. I don't bring terms like "mad men" or "lunatics" into these threads, and when I see it done I regard such intransigent blinkered fanaticism as utterly dangerous and detestable. If that leads me to describe your posts as "paranoia" or yourself as a fool, then I stand by that assessment. You are an affront to any intelligent discussion of these issues.

There are times when the source of an insult turns it into a compliment.

This is one such time.

golem · Post by **golem** » Sun May 14, 2006 5:52 am

sixyearsleft wrote: Whats wrong with paranoid fools?:-3

i know quite a few, very fine fellows i tell you.....

LOL! Yes, they usually live to a ripe old age!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun May 14, 2006 7:09 am

Diuretic wrote: Why would Iran nuke Israel when the same strike would annihalate huge numbers of Palestinians? I've heard of the Islamic bomb in relation to Pakistan's adventures with nuclear weapons development but surely they haven't invented one that will take out everyone else but leave Arabs nice and safe?Surely you've noticed that they don't place much value on life in this world. I'm sure they'd look at that as worthy sacrifice.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun May 14, 2006 7:32 am

*Shirly you've noticed that they don't place much value on life in this world. I'm sure they'd look at that as worthy sacrifice.*

Are you going to let him call you Shirly Diuretic ?

golem · Post by **golem** » Sun May 14, 2006 8:21 am

Diuretic wrote: Why would Iran nuke Israel when the same strike would annihalate huge numbers of Palestinians? I've heard of the Islamic bomb in relation to Pakistan's adventures with nuclear weapons development but surely they haven't invented one that will take out everyone else but leave Arabs nice and safe?

The warped and twisted logic of the Islamic mad men (not all Moslems fall into this category thank goodness) dictates that if a Moslem is killed during an attack against an enemy of Islam then the Moslem is a martyr and goes straight to paradise. No sacrifice, if anything a gift.

That is the logic why the deaths of palests would be acceptable and why it would be no big deal if the attack was justifiable in Islam and according to the QÃ¢â‚¬â„¢uran it could be said to be for a number of reasons.

You need to deeply understand the teaching and the ideology of Islam to follow the logic.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun May 14, 2006 12:41 pm

posted by spot

Were your arguments to hold water, the Pakistan bomb would have been deployed over the Middle East any time in the last twenty years. It hasn't happened. The sole reason for your paranoia is your reiterated "mad men" "lunatics" rubbish. Get over it, learn some tolerance - why do you think the Palestinian problem still exists? Utter intransigence from fools like you preventing a settlement, that's why. You're not any part of a solution to these issues, golem, you're the problem itself.

Acxtually it's only fairly recently that pakistan has been able toi build and test a nuclear weapon, India followed suit testing one just to make sure the pakistanis knew they had it as well GW recently agreed to let the pakistani air force buy F-16s doing wonders in keeping the region stable. Still I suppose oit's better than lettingbthe chinese supply the pakistani air force.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/200 ... 130800.htm

posted by Golem

Bear in mind that Pakistan although an Islamic nation especially under Musharraf isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t anywhere near as fundamentalist as Iran, and so there are enough sane men in high places who prevented that taking place.

Musharraf is hardly the democritically elected of Pakistan. His days in power will probably end with a fundamentalist takeover much as happened in Iran, also a country where any kind of of political opposition was strangled leaving only he extremists with a voice.

Forget Iran worry about Pakistan, a fundamentalist state with nuclear weapons and the inclination to use them. India and pakistan are at each others throats over kashmir and elsewhere. It's only Indian military superiority that has held pakistan back in the past over several wars. Niclear weapons and the means to deliver them all they need is moral justification-religious people by their very nature are irrrational, faith makes even goood men do evil things.

posted by Golem

A hand gun fired On June 28th 1914 in Sarajevo killed MILLIONS around the whole world.

Actually it didn't. It was how people reacted that did that. Jingoism and blind patriotism and the arms race for prestige stilled the voices of opposition to warfare and militarism as being unpatriotic and cowardly and the whole of europe got swept along in a fever for war that mopre than decimated a generatiopn. It took another world war one to drive the lesson home. Warfare is not a good idea.

That doesn't mean you give in to terrorism. You go after the terrorists, cut off their financial support and deal with the causes. A war on terrorists cannot be won by conventional armies and invading countries because you don't like them.

Post by **spot** » Sun May 14, 2006 1:29 pm

gmc wrote: Acxtually it's only fairly recently that pakistan has been able toi build and test a nuclear weapon, India followed suit testing one just to make sure the pakistanis knew they had it as wellYou know, I'd never looked it up. I remember the first Indian test in the mid-1970s and I'd just assumed all this time that there was a matching Pakistan bomb for the last 20 years to balance it. To be honest, I still suspect that there was, and the first and very late test they made was a demonstration rather than any indication of when one went into their arsenal. Still, first test 1998, a quarter century after India's. It shows it doesn't pay to rely on memory and faulty assumptions.