Would You Back Military Action Against Iran?

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Mon May 15, 2006 11:11 am

spot wrote: Where has any state joining the nuclear-armed club ever, much less always, provoked an attack?.

Or to use an analogy, if we gave every gun owner a machine gun, we would eliminate crime. What's the difference? We are talking about bigger weapons, right?

I love this illogic, Spot. "Since it's never happened before, it cannot happen."

Following your logic, my arm has never been broken, therefore it is unbreakable.

I think a higher corse of logic is needed for nuclear weapons. And K.Snyder, give up trying to talk sensibly about America's role in the world with Spot. He is a dyed-in-the-wool America-hater and runs all srguments through that filter before he processes anything.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 15, 2006 11:19 am

K.Snyder wrote: Found this interesting tid-bit here http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... .html.It's something of a milksop account which rounds the edges of anything controversial. I;m not sure why you'd prefer it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

Am I saying that America is the real "evil of the world"? No, not in the slightest. I like the USA, I like the citizens of the USA, I hope they get back on track in the near future. I hope one day they send a goodly few of the current White House staff to jail. I wonder whether we'll see Karl Rove indicted for perjury this week? I distinguish between "evil" and "criminal".

Post by **spot** » Mon May 15, 2006 11:23 am

Jives wrote: Or to use an analogy, if we gave every gun owner a machine gun, we would eliminate crime. What's the difference? We are talking about bigger weapons, right?

I love this illogic, Spot. "Since it's never happened before, it cannot happen."

Following your logic, my arm has never been broken, therefore it is unbreakable.

I think a higher corse of logic is needed for nuclear weapons. And K.Snyder, give up trying to talk sensibly about America's role in the world with Spot. He is a dyed-in-the-wool America-hater and runs all srguments through that filter before he processes anything.The logic is, Jives, that it's happened every time, not that it's never happened. There's several instances, not none.

The days when you can jibe at me for anti-Americanism are long gone. I've met with some of the Americans on this board, I'm quite sure that they'll give me a pro-american testimonial on request. It would be truthful and accurate. You're attempting to smear me yet again, and it simply doesn't stick any longer.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Mon May 15, 2006 12:07 pm

Well, now! I take it back! Spot has declared he loves America! Wonder of wonders!

I just knew you'd come around.

Anyway back on topic, nuclear weapons are too devastating to allow to proliferate. those that have them should not make anymore. Those that do not have them should not be allowed to make them. End of story.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 15, 2006 12:24 pm

Jives wrote: Well, now! I take it back! Spot has declared he loves America! Wonder of wonders!

I just knew you'd come around.Jives, I have said no different here than in my first messages on FG all those months ago. If you think this is a new stance on my part, it's because you just read it and listened instead of read it and found what you wanted to find. All I can do is express myself. What you take from my posts is your own affair.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon May 15, 2006 12:48 pm

spot wrote:

As for "I didnt at anytime associate the Iranian leader as being a dictator" - what else does "And given the history of a few bad dictators(leaders) whatever, the risk goes up that much higher in accordance with the number of newly formed nuclear states" mean in the context of the thread title?

Im simply talking about not allowing further development of the only "man made" weapon capable of destroying human existence as we know it.

How can you truly not understand the potential of allowing anyone and everyone claiming to build nuclear weapons on a world wide scale strictly as a means of defense?

Your theory of peace throughout the world by giving/allowing everyone nuclear weapons by means of intimidation may be a temporary solution, but if you want your childerens childeren to live in peace you would want to limit everyone and anyones nuclear capabilities ASAP. This is where I stand.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 15, 2006 1:02 pm

K.Snyder wrote: Im simply talking about not allowing further development of the only "man made" weapon capable of destroying human existence as we know it.

How can you truly not understand the potential of allowing anyone and everyone claiming to build nuclear weapons on a world wide scale strictly as a means of defense?

Your theory of peace throughout the world by giving/allowing everyone nuclear weapons by means of intimidation may be a temporary solution, but if you want your childerens childeren to live in peace you would want to limit everyone and anyones nuclear capabilities ASAP. This is where I stand.My apologies, I thought the thread was entitled "Would You Back Military Action Against Iran?"

This is indeed the only "man made" weapon capable of destroying human existence as we know it when considered on the scale deployed by the USA and the Soviet Union. I'm quite sure that the UK, France, China and Israel are incapable of destroying human civilization even if they choose to, with their 400ish devices apiece. As for four per nation state - and do, please, note that I said all the way through "per nation state" and not "anyone and everyone" - I stand by my contention that no individual nation could destroy any other individual nation single-handedly with such an arsenal, though I'm certain that they could deter military invasion with them and I'm also sure that any country using that arsenal for a first strike would receive far more than they threw. That is why I see it as a rational means of defence, effective against all comers including the two major nuclear powers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_a ... kpiles.png relates to this.

It is, after all, a hypothetical discussion since it's not going to happen. It does relate to the question of Iran's pursuit of a civil nuclear program, and the danger posed beyond its borders if it did at some point in the future decide to manufacture weapons-grade material, a step that it has never yet taken.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Mon May 15, 2006 2:25 pm

K.Snyder wrote: Im simply talking about not allowing further development of the only "man made" weapon capable of destroying human existence as we know it.

How can you truly not understand the potential of allowing anyone and everyone claiming to build nuclear weapons on a world wide scale strictly as a means of defense?

Your theory of peace throughout the world by giving/allowing everyone nuclear weapons by means of intimidation may be a temporary solution, but if you want your childerens childeren to live in peace you would want to limit everyone and anyones nuclear capabilities ASAP. This is where I stand.

Outstanding, K. My sentiments exactly.

Why do the nuclear nations get to limit other country's developments? Well, mostly because we got here first. Look at history. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, (and please. let's don't get into a bunch of finger-pointing about that, OK?) the world undertood what a nuclear attack could do.

Russia and China quickly built nuclear weapons. The Cold War followed. By that time the more developed nations of the world understood what nuclear proliferation would do to the world. We got "nuclear-maturity" so to speak.

So just like you big brother taught you not to play with handguns, we took it upon ourselves to make sure that the future which K. Snyder so eloquently paints, never came to be. You might think that the U.S is not the world's "Big Brother," and yet, with the most sophisticated and powerful military in the world, combned with the world's largest economy, we are in many ways, by default.

It's pretty simple, really. Either somebody strong forces countries not to develop nuclear weapons and safeguards the technology so that it doesn't fall into the wrong hands, or the planet becomes one big armed nuclear bomb. (Spot's option)

Sooner or later, a terrorist organization gets their hands on one. What follows next is the destruction of thousands, perhaps millions of innocent humans.

Let's all agree that none of us want that, right?

Iran says that they will not use nuclear technology for weapons. But this country has already shown that they are radical, unpredictable, and dangerous.

When the leader of a country calls for the total annihilation of another country, and a complete genocide of it's people, that country is too immature and irresponsible to have nuclear weapons.

But of course, I'm sure it's a moot point. We sit here arguing whether we should attack Iran if they make a nuclear weapon. if they do indeed actually make one, the time will have passed when we can attack them to make sure they don't make one. And believe me, if they make on, they will make more.

Since they have outspokenly stated that they intend to "destroy Israel" then it's logical that they will eventually get around to nuking Israel with everything they've got.

Israel, of course would have to respond in kind, meaning that an entire section of the planet would be dead for many thousands of years, much more of the planet and its people would be dead due to radioactive winds and fallout, the planet itself would most likely be plunged into an atomic winter for many decades. Food production would be drastically threatened. Starvation and the collapse of much of the planetary civilization would occur.

Does anyone here actually think the Israelis would wait for that to happen?

Or to put it in more personal terms, if a child-molester moved into the house next door, announced that he was going to kidnap your daughter and kill her, then began building a torture rack...

Would you wait for him to complete his plans?

Post by **spot** » Mon May 15, 2006 2:38 pm

Jives wrote: Or to put it in more personal terms, if a child-molester moved into the house next door, announced that he was going to kidnap your daughter and kill her, then began building a torture rack...

Would you wait for him to complete his plans?Jives, you're so incapable of seeing another person's view. Imagine you're in Iran, it's your home, you live there. Your neighbor state to the east falls to a bunch of mass murderers who kill a hundred for each casualty they take. Your neighbor state to the west falls to the same bunch of mass murderers who continue to kill a hundred for each casualty they take. You start to hear the same hate-talk from the mass murderers' unrelenting media outlets that you're next, you're next, you're the Axis of Evil, you're not people you're animals... how close is this to your scenario at the top of the post, Jives? Who's the child molester? Who's announcing death and destruction to you and yours? Who owns the torture rack?

And "this country has already shown that they are radical, unpredictable, and dangerous"? You can't see that fitting the USA in the eyes of an Iranian? You have as much empathy as a block of stone, Jives, you just can't see yourself as others might justifiably see you, yet that's exactly what's needed to get past these preconceptions. By all means use your emotive folky bullshit, but point it both ways to get the full flavor.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon May 15, 2006 2:47 pm

spot wrote: My apologies, I thought the thread was entitled "Would You Back Military Action Against Iran?"

This is indeed the only "man made" weapon capable of destroying human existence as we know it when considered on the scale deployed by the USA and the Soviet Union. I'm quite sure that the UK, France, China and Israel are incapable of destroying human civilization even if they choose to, with their 400ish devices apiece.

And the whole reason for invading Iran is to keep them from building nuclear weapons.

The US built a nuclear weapon in the time of a world scale war threatening the very existence of American people in general. Japan attacked us ok. Yet you seem to hold us accountable for defending ourselves, but because it was in the way of such supreme superiority as a result of brilliance we are the bad guys? I suppose next you will say that Britain and the United States are an ultimate threat to use nuclear weapons as a means of purley killing people on a massive scale?

And any nuclear bombs detonated in the same area over the amount of, what I would think of about 20, would be catastrophic to the entire continent, unless you have tested the scenario itself and proved it to be no threat as you say, let alone "400".

Ok Spot, give everybody and their mother nukes, lets see what happens.

Again what you are saying is only a temporary solution, but the fact of the matter is, I dont see how giving a weapon of such magnitude to anyone with such lack of responsibility can benefit "anyone or anything".

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon May 15, 2006 2:51 pm

K.Snyder wrote:

Ok Spot, give everybody and their mother nukes, lets see what happens.

Since when was that ever the suggestion.

I seem to recall that it was quite specific - 4 x 1kt nukes to each nation state.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon May 15, 2006 2:53 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: Since when was that ever the suggestion.

I seem to recall that it was quite specific - 4 x 1kt nukes to each nation state.

Right, so give everyone a nuke excluding their mothers and see what happens.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon May 15, 2006 2:59 pm

K.Snyder wrote: Right, so give everyone a nuke excluding their mothers and see what happens.

Come on - it was a very specific scenario, for a specified outcome.

Either give a reasoned argument against the proposal or keep quiet.

It's certainly no crazier than "keep the only massive stockpile in the hands of the biggest warmongers"

(if you disagree with the description then name another nation that has started more wars in the last 60 years)

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon May 15, 2006 3:00 pm

ArnoldLayne wrote: K. while I understand where you are coming from, I simply cant get my head round why USA or Britain can hold the moral high ground and dictate who can and who cant have nuclear weapons

This is simply called not having the desire to use them unless provoked, which in turn means that the less amount of people to have them means more peace.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon May 15, 2006 3:04 pm

K.Snyder wrote: This is simply called not having the desire to use them unless provoked, which in turn means that the less amount of people to have them means more peace.

What is this thread about? How many Americans voted to go into Iran?

How many, in this thread and others, have said they'd be prepaired to use the nukes?

If the rumour of a nuclear program is provocation then no-one's safe.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon May 15, 2006 3:04 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote:

(if you disagree with the description then name another nation that has started more wars in the last 60 years)

Name one time these "persons" used nuclear warfare as a result, which is the arguement.

YOU DONT FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 15, 2006 3:05 pm

K.Snyder wrote: And the whole reason for invading Iran is to keep them from building nuclear weapons.

The US built a nuclear weapon in the time of a world scale war threatening the very existence of American people in general. Japan attacked us ok. Yet you seem to hold us accountable for defending ourselves, but because it was in the way of such supreme superiority as a result of brilliance we are the bad guys? I suppose next you will say that Britain and the United States are an ultimate threat to use nuclear weapons as a means of purley killing people on a massive scale?

And any nuclear bombs detonated in the same area over the amount of, what I would think of about 20, would be catastrophic to the entire continent, unless you have tested the scenario itself and proved it to be no threat as you say, let alone "400".

Ok Spot, give everybody and their mother nukes, lets see what happens.If you won't listen, and you put your own words in my mouth that never came out of it, who are you talking to? I already criticised your "everybody and their mother" as nothing to do with what I'd said.

Your sense of history is a bit weak. "The US built a nuclear weapon in the time of a world scale war threatening the very existence of American people in general"? Do you seriously think that if the USA had stayed on its own continent the Japanese would have invaded North America? I think not. What on earth, then, threatened "the very existence of American people in general"? Purely in terms of reasoned argument, try to explain to me what that means because I don't follow it at all.

Roosevelt tightened the screws progressively on Japan knowing that his own countrymen would never follow his lead into World War II unless there was a Japanese attack on US interests. He got what he wanted, and Congress handed him the prize he'd spent eighteen months fighting for. That's a coherent version of "Japan attacked us ok" if we're talking motivation. And you call this defending, as though it didn't involve staking out a worldwide claim to pre-eminence during a time of flux.

I don't see the purpose of introducing '20 ... let alone "400".' so much out of context. I mentioned 400 in the context of your initial "capable of destroying human existence as we know it", and you turn it round to me attached to a totally new "catastrophic to the entire continent". All of this is your own wording, not mine. I comment on your first words, you change them for other words and then contextually place my commentary on the first as though it were directed at the second. I finish as I started - if you won't listen, and you put my words so far out of their context as to make foolish what was initially coherent, who are you talking to?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon May 15, 2006 3:06 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: What is this thread about? How many Americans voted to go into Iran?

Whisper a phrase in the ear of someone and have them pass it on in a circle of 20 and see what it is when it gets back to you.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon May 15, 2006 3:10 pm

K.Snyder wrote: Name one time these "persons" used nuclear warfare as a result, which is the arguement.

Why develop "clean" battlefield nukes if there is no intention to use, or threaten to use, them.

The fact that the US are so trigger happy and willing to use war as a soverign remedy is enough to say that they should not have access to nukes - especially to the largest single stockpile in the world. Given that they have, some form of balance needs to be achieved.

K.Snyder wrote: YOU DONT FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE.

You don't fight a worldwide terrorist organisation with battletanks but it didn't stop Bush from trying!

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon May 15, 2006 3:11 pm

K.Snyder wrote: Whisper a phrase in the ear of someone and have them pass it on in a circle of 20 and see what it is when it gets back to you.

And the relevance is?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon May 15, 2006 3:16 pm

spot wrote: Do you seriously think that if the USA had stayed on its own continent the Japanese would have invaded North America? I think not.

How the hell do you know what their plans would have been? You have esp?

They attacked us, meaning killing.

look the word killing up in the dictionary.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 15, 2006 3:17 pm

sixyearsleft wrote: Spot i need to give you some advice, go test your blood pressure,Why thank you, my dear. I have, strangely enough, a battery-operated sphygmometer in my drawer here, and just to reassure you I've strapped it on and checked. 116 over 78, pulse 54. I do note however that it goes up if I play Black Sheep Of The Family loudly on my headphones.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 15, 2006 3:18 pm

K.Snyder wrote: How the hell do you know what their plans would have been? You have esp?

They attacked us, meaning killing.

look the word killing up in the dictionary.It's called reading history books. You might try it some time.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon May 15, 2006 3:19 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: Why develop "clean" battlefield nukes if there is no intention to use, or threaten to use, them.

The fact that the US are so trigger happy and willing to use war as a soverign remedy is enough to say that they should not have access to nukes - especially to the largest single stockpile in the world. Given that they have, some form of balance needs to be achieved.

Opinions vary.

what is a just or unjust war?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon May 15, 2006 3:21 pm

spot wrote: It's called reading history books. You might try it some time.

So your saying that by reading history books, you would have known exactly what the Japanese would have done in the instance they would have won, didnt-couldnt, but hypotheticaly speaking?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon May 15, 2006 3:23 pm

K.Snyder wrote: Opinions vary.

what is a just or unjust war?

Going into Afghanistan because the Taliban wouldn't hand over someone they did not have was not just.

Going into Iraq because of WMDs that did not exist was not just.

Going into Iran because of rumours of the possible enrichment of Uranium would not be just.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon May 15, 2006 3:25 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: Going into Afghanistan because the Taliban wouldn't hand over someone they did not have was not just.

Going into Iraq because of WMDs that did not exist was not just.

Going into Iran because of rumours of the possible enrichment of Uranium would not be just.

Call up Washington and complain, but be sure to back this up with evidence.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon May 15, 2006 3:26 pm

K.Snyder wrote: So your saying that by reading history books, you would have known exactly what the Japanese would have done in the instance they would have won, didnt-couldnt, but hypotheticaly speaking?

After the event, private papers, minutes of meetings, detailed plans, etc are available for study.

By looking, with your eyes open, you can discern what would, in all probability, have happened.

It does help to have your eyes open though.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon May 15, 2006 3:27 pm

K.Snyder wrote: Call up Washington and complain, but be sure to back this up with evidence.

Washington, by definition, would not listen.

Try to refute it.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon May 15, 2006 3:32 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: After the event, private papers, minutes of meetings, detailed plans, etc are available for study.

By looking, with your eyes open, you can discern what would, in all probability, have happened.

It does help to have your eyes open though.

Prove that these plans are the real plans ok. And even then how are you to assume that after being attacked that you wont be attacked again, and to what extent. wow

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon May 15, 2006 3:35 pm

K.Snyder wrote: Prove that these plans are the real plans ok.

What world do you live in?

Go to the Washington records office - you can see the originals there.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon May 15, 2006 3:38 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: What world do you live in?

Go to the Washington records office - you can see the originals there.

So then your agreeing that the United States should have not retaliated after the attacks of Pearl Harbor, because you would then know(I guess through ESP)that they wouldnt attack again, and to what extent?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon May 15, 2006 3:41 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: Come on - it was a very specific scenario, for a specified outcome.

Either give a reasoned argument against the proposal or keep quiet.

As I spell it out for you....

GIVE EVERY NATION A NUCLEAR WEAPON AND WATCH THE WORLD COLAPSE.

Is this something you can live with?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon May 15, 2006 3:41 pm

K.Snyder wrote: So then your agreeing that the United States should have not retaliated after the attacks of Peral Harbor, because you would then know(I guess through ESP)that they wouldnt attack again, and to what extent?

Excuse me!

Where did I say that?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon May 15, 2006 3:43 pm

K.Snyder wrote: As I spell it out for you....

GIVE EVERY NATION A NUCLEAR WEAPON AND WATCH THE WORLD COLAPSE.

Is this something you can live with?

I did say reasoned

Why would it collapse?

(BTW - Shouting doesn't make it any the truer)

Post by **spot** » Mon May 15, 2006 3:43 pm

sixyearsleft wrote: Thanks spot, be sure to keep it on, if i may ask? what does it look like? is it a small contraption?Pretty much like this but a tad squarer.

Attached files

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon May 15, 2006 3:44 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote:

(BTW - Shouting doesn't make it any the truer)

Not shouting just caps, just to make my point.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon May 15, 2006 3:52 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: I did say reasoned

Why would it collapse?

You honestly dont see the problem with allowing every nation to be nuclear capable? Where does it end? And if it shouldnt, then I will have to humbly apologize if from here on out, of the history of man determined by fate, that no one else parishes from an unjust nuclear attack, for I would be wrong in not trusting the distribution to each of these states. But until this is proven by the end of time, I will have to stand by my original argument which is to not allow anymore production of nuclear weapons, and even the possibility of lessening the ones in existence today. If by this you think I am wrong then we are not that of similar logic and will have to disagree as I am now.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon May 15, 2006 4:05 pm

K.Snyder wrote: You honestly dont see the problem with allowing every nation to be nuclear capable? Where does it end? And if it shouldnt, then I will have to humbly apologize if from here on out, of the history of man determined by fate, that no one else parishes from an unjust nuclear attack, for I would be wrong in not trusting the distribution to each of these states. But until this is proven by the end of time, I will have to stand by my original argument which is to not allow anymore production of nuclear weapons, and even the possibility of lessening the ones in existence today. If by this you think I am wrong then we are not that of similar logic and will have to disagree as I am now.

The original argument was that the existing nuclear arsenal was a threat to the world and should be removed from the hands of any one nation.

Given that 4 x 1kt devices (tagged and tracable) is not sufficient to provide a knockout blow to any other nation and the use of such a device would bring immediate retribution from the rest of the world, in what way would the existance of such devices decrease world stability?

I say, by all means, scrap all existing nuclear weapons or put them into the hands of a truely independant world body.

Given that this will not happen in my lifetime, even the odds but make sure that it can never be worth using them for attack.

golem · Post by **golem** » Mon May 15, 2006 11:52 pm

Reading back over the last few pages makes me wonder who has ad who has not actually been involved in a war or has any real, not theoretical but REAL experience of dealing with the kind of people who have started World War three and who are waging it against the US and her allies,

The one word more than any other that springs to my mind is naivety. Closely followed by gullibility ignorance, delusion and just plain WRONG.

The fundamental mistake that is being made is assuming that there is significant common ground between the two warring factions. There is in fact very little.

This clearly shows here where Abdallah Al-Naggar, a columnist for the Egyptian government newspaper Al-Gumhuriya, wrote

"The believers in Allah rightly do not dread their enemies and do not fear (engaging in a ) jihad, because they see jihad as a profitable bargain, selling their lives to Allah.

Their enemies protect their (own) lives, as criminals do. Allah has already said about them: 'You will find that they are the people who protect their life more than anyone else.'

The believers do not fear the enemy (in) the struggle and do not protect their lives. Allah has promised them one of two good things, victory or martyrdom. Yet their enemies protect (their own) lives like a miser protects his money. They do not give (their lives) easily, they do not enter into battles seeking martyrdom, they do not act in order (to get) martyrdom. This is the secret of the believers' victory over their enemies Ã¢â‚¬ though the believers are few and the polytheists many, with advanced weaponry and equipment.Ã¢â‚¬

THAT is why such people, people who fervently believe such crap, should NEVER be permitted to have access to weapons that would kill them or their own either directly or as a result of using. They see that in either case they would be martyrs. They win either way.

THAT is why I unhesitatingly condemn them as being mad men, men driven insane by their own rotten ideology.

golem · Post by **golem** » Tue May 16, 2006 1:26 am

Diuretic wrote: Jeez, we should worry about a columnist in a newspaper? Watching those nutters on Fox News worries me more

We should worry very much about a columnist in a newspaper when the newspaper is an official GOVERNMENT paper and the columnist is who he is.

In countries where freedom of the press is not only unknown but also not understood in concept and certainly not believed in principle items like this represent the official line.

Furthermore what Western journalists as well as those who write to Ã¢â‚¬Ëœreaders lettersÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ fail to realise is that in such countries the very fact that a thing is in print gives it far greater significance than it does in the west. We on the other hand dismiss such stories as just another columnist.

In Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries a columnist s NOT just a columnist and especially not where an official government supported newspaper is involved as in the case that I quoted

The assumption that we have common values and understanding is WRONG.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue May 16, 2006 2:36 am

How about coming at this from another angle. What makes you think the Iranians are going to back down on this?

In diplomacy if you threaten a country with military action and leave no room for concession except total surrender then most people will stand and fight.

Yes you can totally destroy iran with nukes and that might be the best option. The alternative is a long drawn out conflict with thousands of US casualties and a festering sore in the middle east that will remain for generations to come. The cost of the war and the occupation afterwards will probably bankrupt the US and you will lose control of the oil anyway.

On the other hand if you nuke the middle east you lose the oil anyway.

There is no such thing as a limited war or gunboat diplomacy any more. The problem with the current administration in the US is you have people in power who seem to believe being the most powerful militarily means you should use it to extend US interests not just for defence when attacked.

Maybe the real debate in the US who should be who gets to define what those interests are and set the agenda for action. The people who vote or a narrow group of powerful interests setting the agenda.

Yes the military are all volunteer and are there to do a job. But they are surely not just cannon fodder whose lives don't matter.

What if anything will America gain by attcking Iran? Is it likely to make terrorism worse or make it go away? Quite simply what would be the point in attacking Iran? If it wasn't for oil would anyone care about the middle east?

I must admit to being flabbergsted at the number of americans who seem to think Iraq was in any way connected to 911 or Osama Bin laden and that past policy of the west (not just the US) in the middle east has no connection to what is happening now, or even that saddam had WMD's but sneaked them away somehow, Actually I know a very few british people who expound the same views and want to attck all moslems as raving nutters but at least I can tell them they are talking rubbish without being called anti british.

People keep harking back to ww2. Couple of points,

yes France and Britain did the dirty to czechoslovakia. On the other hand the Czechs could have fought. The sudetenland was given to them becaause it formed a natural defensive barrier tio an invader that had been heavily fortified by the czechs and they could have stopped the germans or at least made it too costly for them to continue. But they didn't they just caved in.

Finland, on the other hand stood up to the Russians an gave them a bloody nose to the etent that they remained independent. No one helped them they stood up for themselves.

Sweden stood by and did nothing when Finland,Denmark and Norway were invaded. The third most powerful nation in europe who stood by and watched it all happen.

Post by **spot** » Tue May 16, 2006 4:23 am

golem wrote: The fundamental mistake that is being made is assuming that there is significant common ground between the two warring factions. There is in fact very little.I wonder whether we could discuss the political motive for a few moments, and see whether that holds water?

We see a Presidential administration in Iran which is frankly multi-layered, but which has an elected leadership whose roots are firmly revolutionary and puritan. If you graph support for that revolutionary administration against critical external rhetoric, they increase in line with each other. The more critical the world becomes, the more the people stand behind the administration - they are a proud people. Who benefits from racheting up external criticism? The Iranian administration does.

We see a Presidential administration in the United States which is frankly simplistic, but which has an elected leadership whose roots are firmly right-wing authoritarian. If you graph support for that right-wing administration against perceived terrorist threat, they increase in line with each other. The more the perception of terrorist threat increases, the more the people stand behind the administration - they are a media-led people. Who benefits from racheting up the perception of terrorist threat? The United States administration does.

If you hear a crescendo of Western criticism of Iranian intransigence, with realistic US threats to lower the nuclear threshold so that their armed forces can employ tactical devices in the field against nations which have no nuclear response, with increased demands for intervention in Iranian internal affairs, who benefits? The current US administration benefits because it hopes to be re-elected on a surge of patriotic fervor. The current Iranian administration benefits because it hopes to be re-elected on a surge of patriotic fervor. Is it any surprise that this thing is growing? The current US administration rachets up the public fear for its own political survival. The current Iranian administration rachets up diplomatic intransigence for its own political survival. The correct answer for both the US and the Iranian people is to recognise a common enemy - their own political servants turned masters - and eject them from office at the first available opportunity.

Post by **spot** » Tue May 16, 2006 4:59 am

SnoozeControl wrote: Bush's approval rating is only about 30% right now.Indeed so, and he hasn't exploded his Device yet, has he. The more that people watch his friends wallowing at the trough, the more his domestic policy will drag his ratings down. What happens when Homeland Security scares get triggered? What happens when new Fronts On The War Against Terror are opened? What'll happen when his daddy's Carlisle Group friends decide to hand him an Osama head on a silver platter, as though that's going to calm matters worldwide? His ratings will soar, because that's what media events do to ratings. That's the pressure to talk it up and make it go bang - political survival.