# I once hit a concrete wall out of frustration....



## dorian (Mar 31, 2004)

...but I cannot imagine what would've happened had the concrete struck back.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

What is the point that you are trying to make?


----------



## dorian (Mar 31, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by KenR_
> 
> What is the point that you are trying to make?


That such blatant threats to the world's greatest power is possibly the most idiotic move, given Iran's impending face-off with the IAEA via the UN SC.

I was seeking opinions and responses.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

Nothing will happen. The bull will fly and pols of all stripes will harrumph mightily, but nothing will happen.

Especially not from the U.N.

They'd have to find an ayatollah planting a nuke in Kofi's toilet tank before they'd even acknowledge a problem.


----------



## dorian (Mar 31, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> 
> Especially not from the U.N.
> 
> They'd have to find an ayatollah planting a nuke in Kofi's toilet tank before they'd even acknowledge a problem.


Classic. There are realistic people out there.

Now, where is Steve B.? [}]


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Dorian,

An Iranian oil embargo, coupled with a few terorrist attacks in Saudia Arabia (even unsuccessful ones) and Iraq could easily drive oil up to $80 a barrel. That being said we need to be ready to deal with Iran very quickly - I believe and a nuclear armed Iran will make North Korea look like Sweden. Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Period. No questions. It amazes me that so many people, people who will attribute the most sinister intentions to the Bush administration will give Iran a pass or even defend Iranian nuclear ambition. And the Chinese and Russian continue to sell advanced radar and air defense systems to Iran (though Mathias Rust may have something to say about the PVO Strany.)

Osirak 2 here we come!

Karl


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Period. No questions. It amazes me that so many people, people who will attribute the most sinister intentions to the Bush administration will give Iran a pass or even defend Iranian nuclear ambition. And the Chinese and Russian continue to sell advanced radar and air defense systems to Iran (though Mathias Rust may have something to say about the PVO Strany.)
> 
> Osirak 2 here we come!


I agree 100%. These extremists have been extremely annoying for more than 35 years, and now is the right moment to end this bloody stage play once and for all.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Iran's desire for nuclear capacity also reflects national pride. Persia/Iran is one of the world's oldest nations. It is surrounded by a nuclear India, Pakistan, Israel, Russian federation and USA via Afghanistan and Iraq. The government is unpopular and a feeling of hopelessness is filling much of that nation's psyche. I certainly don't want those Mullas with a nuclear devise. But we will surely only estrange the iranian nation as a whole more by force or sanction. I am no fan of Pakistan, either it's current dictator or the national atitude to us in the past and present. Where is the outrage over India and Pakistan possessing such weapons? It's a nasty Genie we let out of the bottle, and not one of the Arabian Nights or Hoffez.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> Iran's desire for nuclear capacity also reflects national pride. Persia/Iran is one of the world's oldest nations. It is surrounded by a nuclear India, Pakistan, Israel, Russian federation and USA via Afghanistan and Iraq. The government is unpopular and a feeling of hopelessness is filling much of that nation's psyche. I certainly don't want those Mullas with a nuclear devise. But we will surely only estrange the iranian nation as a whole more by force or sanction. I am no fan of Pakistan, either it's current dictator or the national atitude to us in the past and present. Where is the outrage over India and Pakistan possessing such weapons? It's a nasty Genie we let out of the bottle, and not one of the Arabian Nights or Hoffez.


This is probably the same what Chamberlain said in the 30s, when uncle Adolf went on his little shopping spree.


----------



## Horace (Jan 7, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> It's a nasty Genie we let out of the bottle


That we agree on...


----------



## Mr. Knightly (Sep 1, 2005)

It's really coming down to a choice between the lesser of two evils. Iran is building a nuke to provoke a response that will unify its people behind an unpopular government. You can take action and create an Iran that is many times worse than Iraq is now, or you can sit and wait until there's a mushroom cloud in Israel, Britain, or the US.

Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
But not express'd in fancy; rich, not gaudy;
For the apparel oft proclaims the man.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

What's interesting is that there really isn't any proof that Iran has an active nuke program. We certianly have some indications, and their behavior would seem to indicate...

...but isn't this just what we were dead wrong about with Iraq?

I'm not saying Iran isn't a serious threat, but let's not go down the same road of fluffed propaganda we did in 2003.

-spence


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

If nuclear weapons are so terrible, why are the USA, G.B., Russia,France, the PRC, Israel, Pakistan and India allowed to possess such weaponry? Lets either eliminate all such devises, or distribute them equally to truly balance the playing field. Some of the individual leaders and political forces in the above nations are no more to be trusted than Teheran. I'll let the reader decide which.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Kav and Spence,

Just wondering - in your previous lives did you work as diplomats in Whitehall or the Quai d'Orsay around 1938? And Kav I am very surprised by your comments - if you think there is moral equivalence between the existing nuclear powers (yes even Pakistan)and Iran than I will find it very hard to take your political comments seriously in the future. Why not just give bin Laden nuclear weapons, give the chap a sporting chance and all that? Come on Kav, you are smarter than that!

Seeking the abolition of nuclear weapons is an admirable goal (see Reagan's overture in Iceland in Oct. of 1986)but let us first concentrate on preventing rogue states from acquiring nuclear weapons. We can tilt at windmills later.

Karl


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Yes, and what would Pakistan's position be had the current leader not taken control via military coup?

The position I'm echoing is from the former CIA National Intel Officer on Middle Eastern affairs, Paul Pillar. 

It's more and more likely that Iran is gaming the system like N Korea has become so skilled at doing.

Again, it doesn't mean there isn't a threat, but it does justify some pragmatic and objective thought...

-spence


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Albert_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I fail to see how Kav's statement resembles anything Chamberlain said or did. But hey, the Nazis and Hitler had to appear at some point, so we may as well have that genie out of the bottle.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Spence,

I donot say we launch an Osirak style attack on Iran just yet but we have to be prepared in a relatively short period to do so. Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Gaming the system as you say makes Iran responsible for the ensuing consequences. The Russians have offered a reasonable deal that would allow Iran to develop nuclear power for civilian uses and so far the Iranians have refused. Threatening to use nuclear weapons against Israel may be bluster but if I were to threaten to shoot you I would be arrested and rightly so, so if we would not dismiss the threats of an individual why should we dismiss the threats of a state that has sponsored terrorism throughout its 25 year + existence?

Let us go through the motions, let us try and mobilize the UN, EU, Russia and China, let us support those who wish to liberalize Iran but let us be prepared to take military action if Iran does not comply with the NPT and refuses reasonable offers. The stakes are too high not to take the Iranians serious and one doesn't have to live in Tel Aviv to realize this.

Karl


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Bosthist,

Are you accussing me of what Isaiah Berlin termed "Reductio ad Hitlerum" - or was it Leo Strauss? Kav wrote the the leaders of some of the exisiting nuclear powers are to be no more trusted than Iran. This statement I believe is patently false. The ChiComs only joke about nuking LA while the Iranian regime talks with glee about the destruction of Israel. Iran has been a major sponsor of terrorism. Such willful ignorance of the threat Iran poses is similiar to the tragic blindness that inflicted British and French diplomacy in 1938. Just ask any Czech. Iran may very well be a faraway people we know little about but they will very quickly possess the means to inflict great harm upon us and our allies and I do not think this should be allowed to happen.

Karl


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> Bosthist,
> 
> ...


No, I was quite clearly talking to Albert, as evidenced by my quoting of his post. If I were accusing you of something you wouldn't have to ask.

But since we're on the subject, Kav quite clearly stated he didn't wish to see Iran with nuclear weapons. He also wondered where the outcry was over Pakistan and India possessing nuclear weapons. I also wonder about this, especially Pakistan, which has proved itself to be a completely unreliable steward of nuclear technology. I don't think either Kav or I downplays the threat Iraq poses, but to sit there and get all upset because some people think neither Pakistan or Iran can be trusted is ignoring Pakistan's role in proliferation throughout the region. I don't trust Pakistan and I don't trust Iran. I'm not sure how you can say you trust one more or less than the other. It isn't a matter of degrees.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Bosthist,

Pakistan has had nukes for awhile and yes that fact is worrisome given their unstable political situation. But the raison d'etre of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is not to destroy Israel. I share your concern over Pakistan but my concern is far greater over Iran.

India has possesed nukes for an even longer period and is a responsible steward of nuclear technology. And as former Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes has noted, India's deterennce capability takes into account not just Pakistan but China as well.

I think the focus must be to prevent the further proliferation of nuclear weapons (now Burma is supposedly pursuing them) to non-nuclear states and then the roll back of some nuclear states into non-nuclear ones where possible.

Karl


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

O.K. I'm your average iranian man on the street. My democratically elected government was overthrown by a US operative and a general installed as Shah. Thats Farsi for Ceasar, Kaiser, Czar- you get the picture. Dissent was crushed and only the equally ruthless religous leaders maintained any opposition. And then SUPRISE! revolution came and the power void was filled by those same Ayatollas. It was payback time, and the embassy was siezed and hostages taken. Depending on who you believe, the hapless Carter was replaced by Ronnie who may have brokered a deal to gain their release after the election. Meanwhile this longtime FRIEND, recipient of military aid and neat dresser in suits or black berets like the later Monika Lewinsky attacked Iran in a horrific war. Later still that same country invaded and occupied both Afghanistan and Iraq. And in spite of ANCIENT political, cultural and religous ties Iran was told to keep out. Now, Ayatollas are no different from any other onerous regime or failed texas oilmen. They do eventually fail or collapse. But the people, the land and history go on. In spite of the US having a significant iranian population, in spite of that population both here and in Iran genuinely friendly toward American CULTURE: We are rattling a sabre allready dulled and hard to unsheath from neglect, abuse and excessive waving. As the iranian 'man on the stret,' I may not like my present leadership. But I would be very ticked off if ANYBODY threatened me with some wrastling diatribe and threats of a smackdown. WE are again, blowing it bigtime. There is appeasement. There is war. Finally, there is diplomacy.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Kav - I'll tell you what the main difference is between israel, india, pakistan, the US etc. and Iran - Israel has had the bomb for about 30 some years. during that time, Israel has been attacked or involved in 5 wars, as well as being attacked literally thousands of times by terror cells armed and supported by national governments. Israel hasn't even thought about using the bomb. india and pakistan are both involved in a low intensity war, india has had a mild cross borer war with bangladesh recently. at no times did a realistic idea of using the bomb come up. the US has been in 4 wars while it had the bomb. see the pattern here?

Iran (like Iraq) has shown itself to be willing to use what ever horrible weapons it can get its hands on, with no rational thought to the consequesnses.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

Globe, I know you don't live there any more, but you did serve in the IDF. Isn't there a pretty strongly enforced tabboo against acknowledging that Israel is a nuclear power? I'm not criticizing, just curious. I always thought there was.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Appeasement towards a terrorist regime. That's what I'm talking about.

The argument as outlined above clearly resembles the appeasement arguments in the 30s, when the Nazi government conducted massive armament, uplifting the German forces from a 100,000 mostly Infantry troops with no airpower (1933) to a fully fledged army of ~ 3,000,000. ("it's an old and proud nation" -- "intervention just makes things worse" -- "they have the same right to possess these weapons as we do" etc. etc.)


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Albert_
> Appeasement towards a terrorist regime. That's what I'm talking about.
> 
> The argument as outlined above clearly resembles the appeasement arguments in the 30s, when the Nazi government conducted massive armament, uplifting the German forces from a 100,000 mostly Infantry troops with no airpower (1933) to a fully fledged army of ~ 3,000,000. ("it's an old and proud nation" -- "intervention just makes things worse" -- "they have the same right to possess these weapons as we do" etc. etc.)


Now I may be simple minded, but Kav also said, "I certainly don't want those Mullas with a nuclear devise" so he clearly isn't saying Iran has a right to nuclear weapons and your attempt to portray his statement as saying such is intellectually dishonest.

Kav's point about trying to devise a solution which doesn't completely alienate the average Iranian is a good one. Once the mullahs fall, the world will have to work with whoever steps up. Recognizing the deep history of Iran and the motivations of its citizens would go a long way to helping figure a reponse that moves beyond mere military destruction.

I'm amazed at how soon people trot out the appeasement argument as soon as someone expresses an opinion different than their own.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> Now I may be simple minded, but Kav also said, "I certainly don't want those Mullas with a nuclear devise" so he clearly isn't saying Iran has a right to nuclear weapons and your attempt to portray his statement as saying such is intellectually dishonest.


Chamberlain "certainly didn't want" Nazi airforce and naval armament as well. But he accepted it exactly due to the reasons mentioned ("we shouldn't alienate those fellows" etc. etc.).



> quote:Kav's point about trying to devise a solution which doesn't completely alienate the average Iranian is a good one.


So what is this kind of solution? Nuclear bombs with mint flavour? A word of "honour" from the mullahs that they will try to avoid bombing Israel?



> quote:Once the mullahs fall, the world will have to work with whoever steps up.


They will not fall. It's an oppressive regime with all necessary means to preserve power over its subjects until distant future. The islamists are perfectly willing and able to kill, rape, murder and torture in order to retain their position of power. This is what they are doing right now.



> quote:Recognizing the deep history of Iran and the motivations of its citizens would go a long way to helping figure a reponse that moves beyond mere military destruction.


LOL - can you offer this response? I'm really curious.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Albert_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Chamberlain accepted Nazi airforce and naval armament because it had already happened. Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon. This is a key distinction. But since you apparently have decided that using the military to destroy Iran is necessary and desirable and can only call people who disagree with you "appeasers", further discussion is pointless. Good luck with your war.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> Chamberlain accepted Nazi airforce and naval armament because it had already happened.


This is not entirely correct. Think about the treaties regarding naval parity etc. etc. Moreover, Germany left the league of the nations in 1934, the official announcement of commencing rearmament took place in 1935 and Hitler moved troops into the Rhine land in 1936. At any of these occasions, the Western Allies could have stopped the Nazi government quickly and very easily.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_preceding_World_War_II_in_Europe



> quote:Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon. This is a key distinction. But since you apparently have decided that using the military to destroy Iran is necessary and desirable and can only call people who disagree with you "appeasers", further discussion is pointless. Good luck with your war.


Tell me your peaceful solution. I'm curious.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Albert_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Neville Chamberlain became Prime Minister in 1937, after the events you have described had happened. So yes, Chamberlain had to accept things as they stood. Changing the argument to say that the "Western Allies" could have stopped the Nazi government makes all the difference in the world. I don't disagree with you on this point.

The problem is that the situation in Iran isn't analogous to the rise of Nazi Germany. People like to think that history repeats itself and that the lessons learned in one situation can be reapplied to future events based on superficial similarities. But the contexts are completely different and assuming that the outcomes will be the same just won't work.

As to my solution, I really have to go through and understand the Russian proposal before I can begin to comment.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> Let us go through the motions, let us try and mobilize the UN, EU, Russia and China, let us support those who wish to liberalize Iran but let us be prepared to take military action if Iran does not comply with the NPT and refuses reasonable offers.


The problem is, we're talking about nukes in Iran as fact when the reality is there isn't any proof.

Given that Iraq and now Iran are part of a broader agenda of transformation, we should be extremely mindful of mistakes made over the past 3 years.

-spence


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

There's no proof that Iran, right now, has a finished bomb. But no one claims that they do. There is no doubt whatever that they have a massive uranium enrichment program which could produce piles of fuel for a nuclear weapon. They say it's all for civilian reactors. There are a number of reasons not to believe that claim. In any case, the extistence of this fuel-producing infrastructure is not disputed by anyone, least of all the Iranian regime.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> As to my solution, I really have to go through and understand the Russian proposal before I can begin to comment.


All right, that's fair enough.

But didn't they refuse the Russian proposal?


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by Albert_
> 
> But didn't they refuse the Russian proposal?


Not exactly. They wanted better (for them) terms. The Russians acceded to US and EU pressure and said "Sorry, no."


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by manton_
> 
> There is no doubt whatever that they have a massive uranium enrichment program which could produce piles of fuel for a nuclear weapon.


There is no conclusive evidence that indicates the program isn't for peaceful energy generation. There is plenty to suspect, and for sure they are acting guilty as hell, but Saddam did the same thing.

-spence


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

Well, six points:

1) The regime has said over and over that it has the right to the bomb, that no should stand in its way, etc. But of course they always follow that up with "But we're not building one _now_, just asserting our rights." Uh, okay.

2) Iran has huge oil and gas reserves. Why the rush for nuclear power?

3) If Iran wanted only nuclear power, it would not need to enrich uranium; reactors that run on non-bomb-grade fuel do that just fine.

4) Iran would have no need to produce its own fuel; Russia vastly overproduces what it needs for its own reactors, and could sell it to Iran. Many times other countries have tried to work out such a deal, but Iran always asserts its right to produce its own stuff. This leads many to suspect that is for two reasons: 1) They want to produce bomb-grade, not merely reactor-grade, fuel; 2) They don't want to have to deal with the foreign oversight that would accompany a buy-from-abroad deal. Looks a little suspicious, no?

5) Iran has been caught lying and cheating on its NPT obligations numerous times over the last five or so years.

6) The behavior and rhetoric of the regime over the last 25 years does not give anyone confidence that they will behave responsibly.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Given: The present iranian government in power is not very 'nice.' They have 'not acted responsibly in the past 25 years.' Given: A considerable % of the world does not think our present government is very 'nice' either or has acted responsibly in the last 25 years. We are one of the very few nations not to sign the ban on landmines. We are developing and deploying weapons systems in direct violation of signed treaties. GOOD GRIEF! Ain't we the kettle calling the pot black. Just because our rather exausted military is #1 doesn't make "Might makes right" vs "Might for right" as a retelling of an earlier leader instructs.Pax Americana better rethink this current emperor's agenda. The watchfires on the Rhine are a little low on pitch for the torches.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> Given: The present iranian government in power is not very 'nice.' They have 'not acted responsibly in the past 25 years.' Given: A considerable % of the world does not think our present government is very 'nice' either or has acted responsibly in the last 25 years. We are one of the very few nations not to sign the ban on landmines. We are developing and deploying weapons systems in direct violation of signed treaties. GOOD GRIEF! Ain't we the kettle calling the pot black. Just because our rather exausted military is #1 doesn't make "Might makes right" vs "Might for right" as a retelling of an earlier leader instructs.Pax Americana better rethink this current emperor's agenda. The watchfires on the Rhine are a little low on pitch for the torches.


This seems like an overreaction to what I wrote. Someone asked why the international community (not just the US) does not believe that Iran only wants nuclear power but suspects that they really want nuclear weapons. I gave some reasons why people believe that, nothing more. I did not say I wanted a war or make any other policy conclusions.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> Given: The present iranian government in power is not very 'nice.' They have 'not acted responsibly in the past 25 years.' Given: A considerable % of the world does not think our present government is very 'nice' either or has acted responsibly in the last 25 years.


I can't take you seriously. Even suggesting that there might be some way of comparing Iran's terror regime to the US government is ridiculous. Why don't you just go there to have a nice time abroad? I'm sure you will love it - if you avoid getting stoned too soon.



> quote:Ain't we the kettle calling the pot black.


Curiously, I don't remember 15-year old girls hanged in the US because they didn't want to enter an arranged marriage. If they do this to their own people, god knows what they would do to others...



> quote:The watchfires on the Rhine are a little low on pitch for the torches.


You don't really care whether Israel gets wiped out in a bomb blast, do you?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Kav,

Lets try diplomacy. But dont expect too much.

*Secretary of Iranian Guardian Council Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati:I Spit in the Face of the West, which Has Made Homosexuality Official and Legal

Following are excerpts from a Friday sermon at Tehran University, delivered by Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, Secretary of the Guardian Council. The sermon was aired on Channel 1, Iranian TV on February 17, 2006.

Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati: Western culture and civilization - and especially criminal America - are heading towards a serious collapse.

Crowd: Allah Akbar.

Allah Akbar.

Allah Akbar.

Khamenei is the leader.

Death to those who reject the rule of the Jurisprudent.

Death to America.

Death to England.

Death to the hypocrites [Mojahedin-e Khalq] and Saddam.

Death to Israel.

Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati: The Koran tells us about the Jews in the early days of Islam: "They destroyed their homes with their own hands, and with the hands of the believers." It says: With their very hands and with the hands of the believers they are destroying their homes. This is exactly what is happening now. They destroying their homes with their hands and with ours.

[...]

You have made homosexuality official and legal. I spit in your face. The world should be ashamed of your deeds. Humanity should be ashamed. Your shamelessness should cause humanity to sweat in shame. A boy marrying a boy...

[...]

People are prepared to sacrifice their lives for the sake of the Prophet. There is no doubt about it. We've sacrificed so many martyrs. You insult him...

Crowd: Death to America.

Death to America.

Death to America.

Death to America.

Death to America.

Death to America.

Death to America.

Death to America.

Death to America.

Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati: You have trampled everything underfoot.

 *

From

Karl


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Well Albert, it's been awhile, but yes, I have visited Iran. Have you? I treasure the experience. There are aspects of persian culture I greatly admire and some I find deeply distastefull. Lets put aside islamic shar'ia law can we? Honour killings of women by Latin men are a factor still deeply entrenched in South America.An irish father and son were prosecuted for their daughter/sister's death. They were convinced she was a 'changeling.' 12 year old Mormon girls are habitually married off to men old enough to be their grandfathers in a theocratic state that decries homosexuallity.We have our own fundamentalist (look up the root word fundament's meaning sometime) Mullas and Ayatollahs in Falwell, Roberts et al making horrific statements no better than those quoted. I would gladly visit Iran today. I have no doubt I would be safer than a few cities in L.A. County.But then I have this perverted habit of learning about a culture. It's like my bears. I can easilly kill them, as they me. But then I don't mythologise the world into Chuck Norris crisis resolution option A or walk into the alaska bush in a tux like Timothy Treadwell.


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> ...12 year old Mormon girls are habitually married off to men old enough to be their grandfathers in a theocratic state that decries homosexuallity.


This is actually a very small faction, NOT endorsed by the leaders of LDS, if this is to what you refer. Literally a few hundred or thousand who have NO influence over the official policies of their religion. It's a little silly, isn't it, to compare this to the multi-millions who DO dictate the policies of thousands of mosques and a few nations. While there are those Muslims (probably a majority) who disagree with them, they will rarely decry them publically for fear of their own lives. You can't possibly think this is a legitimate comparison to the Southern Baptist Convention or any other legitimate "fundamental" religious organization in the US.


> quote:We have our own fundamentalist (look up the root word fundament's meaning sometime) Mullas and Ayatollahs in Falwell, Roberts et al making horrific statements no better than those quoted.


 I beseech you to provide for me any provable documentation in which Rev. Falwall has said:

"I Spit in the Face of the [any region]"

"Death to the hypocrites."

"Death to [any country]"

"I spit in your face."

I could be wrong, since I've not heard everything he's ever said, of course. I would just be VERY surprised to hear such hate spewed from his mouth. You may find his belief system to be intolerant, but I do not think you can honestly call it hateful.

I can't defend Robertson.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Kav,

Your logic fails you. To equate a few fundy windbags with the Iranian theocracy either means you are prone to extreme hyperbole or you lack the ability to discern between real and imagined threats. But suppose Roberts and Falwell (who last I checked were not trying to acquire nuclear weapons) are the very sinisters characters you make them out to be - does that mean we ignore the threat that Iran poses? If the State Department puts Robertson or Falwell on the states sponsoring terrorism list, and if there is a covert nuclear program on the campus of Liberty University then I would be in full support of military action. But thats hardly the case, is it?

And its nice to know that you would feel safe in Iran, its just a pity that Christians, Jews, homosexuals, Kurds, reformers and millions of Iranian women who don't want to live by 12th century social mores can't feel as comfortable as you. Its also a shame that Israelis have to make contigency plans for their very survival bc Iran has REPEATEDLY threatened to wipe them off the map. But Kav why worry - as long as you are comfortable!

Get a grip on reality or stick to telling us about your loden coat.

Karl


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> I would gladly visit Iran today. I have no doubt I would be safer than a few cities in L.A. County. But then I have this perverted habit of learning about a culture.


In this case, I would propose you go there and stay there. Maybe we can have in exchange a few of the fellows who are currently tortured and killed in Iranian prisons.


----------



## dorian (Mar 31, 2004)

Some of the suggestions and, more generally, the argumentation in these posts is positively priceless. 

Kav, no one will disagree with you in Iran, and if you anyone did, you'd likely be thrown in a cell without notice. The weather in Tehran is getting pretty nice this time of year...


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Ah yes, bring out on a forklift that calcified retort " America, love it or leave it- If you like (_______) so much move there argument." Well gee people, lets get those backhoes of ignorance out and dig moat America a little deeper. Britain can use their beloved gardening spades to backfill the Chunnel. The fact is, people visit Iran for various reasons daily, and they aren't all Christiane Annanpour. Do they observe regional discretions? You bet. I dare, I beg, I challenge any one of you people who do business with the PRC to hold up a portrait of His Holyness the Dalai Lamma in Tiannamen Square. Shall we take Manzanar off the Park Service's hands in preparation for interning the considerable expatriate iranian community? Have any one of you even had a converstation with an iranian and asked their perspective? That brunch at the persian restaurant with double portions of baklava doesn't count. I stated in Karl's earlier post on this subject my philosphical opposition to iran increasing the 'club' of nuclear armed nations. Ironic term that word, 'club.' Conjures up old boys getting together over drinks and cigars and sending other people's young men off to die. Maybe if the people increase contact those ayatollas and high priests of Haliburton will have to get honest jobs. So beat the drum of war folks. Just don't ask my nephews to lockstep to it's DRAFTy creshendo.


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

WTF with all the Halliburton sh.t. You guys always pull this impotent bunny out of your hats when you run out of legimate arguments. I'm a little surprised in you doing it though, Kav. You've always proven yourself to be one of the sharper minds here. If they're doing something illegal, then indict them, by God, and wipe them off the face of the marketplace. Otherwise, drop it. You think if you say it often enough, it will become true.

No one is drafting anyone last time I checked.

And all the Iranians I know HAVE or ARE moving here to get away from the lunatics who have taken over the beloved homeland. Their words not mine. And these are 4 different families/groups that I know from 4 comletely different area of my life.

And I don't know anyone who is "beating the drum of war". But on that topic, what do you think they're doing over there? If indeed that ARE building a bomb, what DO you think should be done if anything?

Ironic, isn't it, that the very people who thought Bush/US were doing TOO much are suddenly coming to call now that we're not doing "enough".


----------



## dorian (Mar 31, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> That brunch at the persian restaurant with double portions of baklava doesn't count.


Cultured.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Preston_
> 
> WTF with all the Halliburton sh.t. You guys always pull this impotent bunny out of your hats when you run out of legimate arguments.


Preston:

Are you saying Halliburton has been a model of corporate integrity in administering its contracts in the Middle East?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Kav,

Stop embarrassing yourself. You are the most dangerous type of dilettante - someone with a little knowledge and experience, enough to reach all the wrong sorts of conclusions. Enough with your world weary, ennui inflected pathos. The world doesn't quite work the way you imagine it but if it helps you to resort to stock cliches than have at it.

And you have the nerve to call your willful ignorance of Iran's oppression of its own people "regional discretion?"

Don't worry your nephew won't get drafted but if he does you can always drive a truck into a federal building as you have already discussed in a previous thread.

Sorry the Trilateral Commission called, have to run.

Karl


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_Preston:
> 
> Are you saying Halliburton has been a model of corporate integrity in administering its contracts in the Middle East?


 I'm merely saying that _"high priests of Haliburton will have to get honest jobs" _ implies not so subtly that they have done business illegally. If you and those who always bandy about this accusation really believe it to be true, then PLEASE prosecute and get it over with. If not, then please get over it. It's very old. I don't know it they have or not.

What I find annoying is not the implication that one may be guilty of some uncomely business or fundraising or anything else. It is the constant drivelling about "petty thuggary", "war criminal", "corruption", "illegal wire tapping", "illegal war", etc being repeated incessantly, with no proof. The *allegations  * do nothing to advance our discussion of the real issues at hand.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Preston_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Preston:

First, many people, both conservatives and liberals, believe the Bush administration's wiretapping program is illegal. There is plenty of proof that the wiretapping is going on, the ultimate decision as to its legality is still in question.

Second, corruption has also been proved, and we will see what happens with folks like Tom De Lay, Conrad Burns, and Bob Ney. One can only speculate as to the reasons for Gale Norton's sudden departure.

I'm so sorry that people's "constant drivelling" upsets you so much.

On to the question of Halliburton:

From https://www.citizenworks.org/news/index.php?id=112

1. Halliburton overcharged U.S. in Iraq contracts, Pentagon audit finds

A Pentagon audit released last week found that Halliburton Inc. subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) charged the U.S. government an unnecessary $61 million for fuel costs in Iraq. KBR was charging the government between $2.27 and $2.64 a gallon to import fuel from Kuwait and between $1.18 and $1.24 a gallon to import fuel from Turkey. By contrast, Iraq's state oil company pays 96 cents a gallon to bring in gas and even the Pentagon's Energy Support Center pays $1.08 to $1.19 a gallon to bring in gas.

The audit also found that Halliburton tried to charge the U.S. an unnecessary $67 million to operate U.S. mess halls, but because of the audit, will not be able to do so.

*President Bush said that he believed that Halliburton had overcharged and said that the company should refund the government any overcharges.*

Halliburton, the oil services company formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, has been under constant scrutiny since it received a closed-bid contract to do oil reconstruction work at the beginning of the war. Halliburton has earned $2 billion so far from the contracts.

However, this is not the first time Halliburton's KBR subsidiary has been accused of cost overruns. In September 2000, the General Accounting Office (GAO) found that the U.S. Army had not taken appropriate steps to limit the $2.2 billion costs Kellogg Brown and Root (now KBR) charged for logistical and engineering support in the Balkans. According to the report, Army officials "frequently have simply accepted the level of services the contractor provided without questioning whether they could be provided more efficiently or less frequently at lower cost."

For more, see: "Halliburton Unit Probed for Possible Overbilling of U.S." by Jackie Spinner and Thomas E. Ricks of the Washington Post:

"Company Overcharged U.S. in Iraq, Bush Says: President Wants Halliburton Unit to Pay" By Dana Milbank and Jackie Spinner of the Washington Post:

And:

https://money.cnn.com/2005/03/17/news/midcaps/halliburton/index.htm

Ex-Halliburton employee indicted
Former worker at Halliburton unit KBR charged with attempt to defraud military of $3.5 million.
March 17, 2005: 2:00 PM EST

WASHINGTON (CNN) - A former employee of Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root has been indicted on fraud charges in connection with a military contract in Kuwait, the Justice Department announced Thursday.

Jeff Mazon faces a 10-count indictment on charges that he devised a scheme to defraud the government of more than $3.5 million in the awarding of a subcontract to a firm that supplied fuel tankers for military operations in Kuwait.

++++++++++++


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

A good friend of mine whose father was a cabinet minister(if that's the proper term) in the Shah's government is visiting Teheran right now. I'll be interested to get her take on things there. Until then, I'm suspending judgment.


----------

