# Our friend Ahmadinejad



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

There is an illustrative story about Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad in 
Mark Bowden's new book on the U.S. Embassy hostage crisis, "Guests of the 
Ayatollah."

Ahmadinejad, then a Revolutionary Guards Corps officer, questioned hostages 
with intelligence value. He interrogated U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel 
David Roeder. Ahmadinejad asked him if he had a handicapped child. The 
officer was stunned, because he did. Ahmadinejad then asked him if his son 
boarded his school bus at a certain time and place. Now he was alarmed, 
because Ahmadinejad was correct, meaning that the kid had been under 
surveillance. Then Iran's current president told LTC Roeder that he would 
have his boy kidnapped, and mailed to his mother in pieces, starting with 
his fingers and toes, if he didn't cooperate.

The colonel kept his cool, gave nothing, and no harm came to his child. But 
remember that story when you see Ahmadinejad on TV threatening the U.S. (or 
Israel) with harm; take him seriously.

And the DPRK is getting ready to launch another missile. All the "smart" people laughed when Bush called Iran and North Korea members of the Axis of Evil. I wonder if they are still laughing now?

Karl


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Aaaahh Karl, your world is so black and white.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

DD,

Only when it comes to theocratic, Holocaust denying thugs who threaten to dismember the children of hostages and to use nuclear weapons. If that is not a black and white issue for you then nothing is. Those who see this issue in shades of gray are naive at best. I will extend goodwill and assume you are naive. I do however issue an invitation to join me in reality and see this issue for what it is. Otherwise best to stick to arguing about the merits of sack suits and what breed of dog is Trad.

Thanks for sharing DD.

Karl


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Thanks for sharing DD.


Hey, no problem Karl. Always happy to help out.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Karl89 said:


> The colonel kept his cool, gave nothing, and no harm came to his child. But
> remember that story when you see Ahmadinejad on TV threatening the U.S. (or
> Israel) with harm; take him seriously.


While past performance is no guarantee of future returns, what this story shows is someone who didn't follow through on his threat despite the American's lack of cooperation. Perhaps there's a different story that better illustrates why we ought to take him seriously, but this one seems to indicate he's all talk.


----------



## Srynerson (Aug 26, 2005)

crs said:


> While past performance is no guarantee of future returns, what this story shows is someone who didn't follow through on his threat despite the American's lack of cooperation. Perhaps there's a different story that better illustrates why we ought to take him seriously, but this one seems to indicate he's all talk.


Or it shows that Roeder decided now was an opportune moment to fabricate the identity of his interrogator, unless there is (a) another party who independently verified this sequence of events, or (b) Roeder previously identified Ahmadinejad as his interrogator several years ago or more (i.e., before it would have been advantageous to attach Ahmadinejad's name to this particular bit of perfidy).


----------



## JoshuaHManning (Sep 21, 2005)

crs said:


> While past performance is no guarantee of future returns, what this story shows is someone who didn't follow through on his threat despite the American's lack of cooperation. Perhaps there's a different story that better illustrates why we ought to take him seriously, but this one seems to indicate he's all talk.


I take your well stated point, but would also respectfully redirect you toward the vast pool of Islamist terror activities that reasonably mandate our taking seriously threats from sincere Islamists.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

I think I've just seen three people either defending or downplaying Ahmadinejad. I must be drunk.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> I think I've just seen three people either defending or downplaying Ahmadinejad. I must be drunk.


You may well be drunk, but the point being made is that this specific story is a poor example of why we ought to take him seriously because this specific story seems to indicate the opposite. There may well be other stories that illustrate why we ought to take him seriously, but this isn't one of them.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

crs said:


> You may well be drunk, but the point being made is that this specific story is a poor example of why we ought to take him seriously because this specific story seems to indicate the opposite. There may well be other stories that illustrate why we ought to take him seriously, but this isn't one of them.


 Yes. It must be the vodka. Now I'm seeing double.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Crs,

Just to be clear - you don't advocate taking seriously a man who takes hostages, threatens to dismember children, actively funds terrorism and wants to use nuclear weapons against Israel and the United States? 

I think your posts on this subject are good examples of why I won't take you seriously

Srynerson - Former hostages Dr. William Daugherty (who worked for the CIA in Iran), Kevin Hermening, David Roeder, US Army Col. Charles Scott (Ret.), and US Navy Capt. Donald Sharer (Ret.) all claim that Ahmadinejad was among th hostage takers and interrogators. Funny that you would choose to doubt Col. Roeder (he retired a full bird) and not Ahmadinejad.

Goodness gracious.

Karl


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

For some reason this thread reminded me of the scene in DANCES WITH WOLVES of the Sioux leaders discussing Kevin Costner. It's not a very heartening news report lately. North Korea lights some erratic, but high theater skyrockets on our 4th of July, Israel is fighting a two front war that could explode faster than the event at Sarajevo in 1914 , India suffered another bomb attack, Russia just eliminated the chechen leader responsible for Beslan and Red China just opened a railway to the former hermit Kingdom of Tibet, ever hastening the ethnic destruction of that people with chinese immigration. It almost makes one miss the good old days of the Cold War, and ponder what happened to the Peace Dividend mentioned by Ronnie. We can all choose our worry beads, plenty to go around. If Karl concentrates on Iran and contributes insights then the post is valid and worthy. Like those Lakota in the teepee, we need to talk about this again.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Karl89 said:


> Crs,
> 
> Just to be clear - you don't advocate taking seriously a man who takes hostages, threatens to dismember children, actively funds terrorism and wants to use nuclear weapons against Israel and the United States?
> 
> ...


I could not possibly care less whether you take me seriously. You are an anonymous person on a message board. It would be completely irrational for me to care what you think of me, even if we were in complete agreement about all things political. If you can't handle anyone disagreeing with you or pointing out flaws in your argument, there are other forums where the discussions are only among like-minded people. Find one of those and you can be free of opposing viewpoints.

When a bully threatens and does not follow through, I become less afraid, not more afraid, because he has proved his bark is worse than his bite. If Ahmadinejad is someone we ought to fear, the story you gave us presents a weak case. I did not write that we shouldn't be afraid of him, only that you did an ineffective job of showing why we should.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Crs,

Ahmadinejad took part in the taking of American hostages. But you feel better bc he didn't take act on every threat he made to those hostages. The fact that the Iranians had the family of one of the hostages under surveillance and considered murdering them doesn't bother you, bc as you write "his bark is worse than his bite." Why not ask the families of the Israeli servicemen killed by Hizbollah (an Iranian proxy) how bad his bite is.

I marvel at your inability to grasp the obvious, wonders never cease.

Karl


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Again, my point has nothing to do with whether we should or shouldn't take Ahmadinejad's threats seriously. My point is that the story you recounted atop this thread weakens rather than strengthens your point. To put it another way, should our government ultimately decide to do something about him, I doubt this incident will factor into the administration's thinking, although you say it should be part of ours. Surely this incident won't make the top 100 reasons why our government would choose to take him on. After all, it is more than 20 years old and he didn't follow through.


----------



## jeansguy (Jul 29, 2003)

crs said:


> Again, my point has nothing to do with whether we should or shouldn't take Ahmadinejad's threats seriously. My point is that the story you recounted atop this thread weakens rather than strengthens your point. To put it another way, should our government ultimately decide to do something about him, I doubt this incident will factor into the administration's thinking, although you say it should be part of ours. Surely this incident won't make the top 100 reasons why our government would choose to take him on. After all, it is more than 20 years old and he didn't follow through.


I think the point of this thread wasn't that he would always follow through on his promises, rather that even at that early date he had signigicant resources available to him within the continental United States. I would speculate that having ascended to his current position, his resources are not likely to have shrunk, and therefore he probably knows a lot more about America and her interests than one would consider appropriate.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

*CRS:*

Now that the vodka has worn off (took my last serious drink about 23 years ago), a question of you if I may. I have most carefully re-read all of your posts. Nowhere did you defend Ahmadinejad. Nowhere did you say he was not dangerous. Hence my two-part question:

1] Do you believe Ahmedinejad is or is not dangerous to the Western world?

2] If he is dangerous, what, if anything, do you believe the Western world should do about it?


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

I think everyone here agrees that Ahm. is a bad man -- I certainly do, make no mistake of that.

But there are a lot of bad men in this world, many of them in positions of power in western democracies. And many of those men utter all manner of hostile threats. And some of those men are in much better positions to carry out their threats than Ahm.

Personally, to retain my ability to think clearly, I refrain from branding world leaders as "good" or "evil", since that sort of black-and-white thinking allows for many crimes or adventures to be justified in the name of "good". That sort of thinking clouds one's thinking.

Alex:
1. I believe he is dangerous, but I am not convinced he can do much (he does talk a good line, though). And I don't consider the Western World as a monolithic block which is at odds with the non-Western World.
2. Since I believe he is dangerous, I think the US should do nothing overtly and see what happens. On the side, however, the US should start making deals, double-sided deals, underhanded deals, etc. Do like the Brits did in Lebanon and Palestine in the 1970s, or like the Byzantines did always, i.e. play factions against each other, get your enemies fighting amongst themselves, divert their attentions, etc. Remember, Ahm. may be the ruler of Iran but he's hardly calling all the shots and he certainly does not have the support of everyone in Iran, including the elites.

Karl:
You won't care, but for the record I read less than 10% of the trad threads and post on even fewer. Unlike some forum members, published and otherwise, I don't ascribe any political or cultural significance to sack suits. Nor do I care about trad dogs. Or trad bow ties. Or trad whatever.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

I agree with Doctor Damage on this. Further, while I don't believe Ahmadinejad is harmless, I do not believe there is justification at this point for the kinds of preemptive military actions some favor. I also believe that the course of action ought to be worked out with our allies, and they ought not be bullied into a consensus.

To those who believe the anecdote atop this thread is sufficient to assess the other side as barbaric, I invite you to read "Confessions of an Army Interrogator" in the August issue of Esquire:

"On December 2, 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld authorized twelve new methods of interrogation, including stress positions, hooding, nudity, and the use of threatening dogs -- and also four harsher methods that were "legally available" but did not have blanket approval, including exposure to cold, mock executions of prisoners (or their family members), and the sense of drowning suffocation caused by the method known as waterboarding."

I would consider mock executions of prisoners' family members in the very same class as the anecdote Karl provided.

Ahmadinejad may become a problem, but the solution isn't for us to become just like him. We need to clean our side of the street before we begin to claim the moral right to attack him.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

*CRS:*

1] Do you believe Ahmedinejad is or is not dangerous to the Western world (or to use your phrase, "our allies")?

2] If he is dangerous, what, if anything, do you believe the Western world (or to use your phrase, "our allies") should do about it?

I repeat my simple question because it was originally directed solely to you. Additionally, I do not wish to put words in your mouth and so have rephrased the question using your words, but unless you decline I really would prefer an original answer from you which does not reference other posters.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

I think he's potentially dangerous, emphasis on potentially. I favor non-military pressure on him, but again, I do not believe the decision on how to handle this ought to rest with one person or one administration.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

DD,

I stand corrected on your Trad affiliation. Apologies. I do care about being accurate and if I made a factual error I am glad that corrected me.

Crs - I haven't defended some of the administration's interrogation practices nor do I intend to so do here. But at least in the US we can address our excesses and people are held accountable. I for one have never held that Americans are more or less virtuous than anyone else but I am firm in my belief that our system is the worst in the world except for all the rest. Seen anything in Pravda or Izvestia lately about brutal Russian tactics against Chechens? Anything in Le Monde about how the DGSE operates? Any review of North Korean prisons lately? 

Nor do I favor a strike against Iran at this time. I would hope the Russians and the Chinese would agree to impose sanctions but the longer that takes, the more Iran will continue to destabilize the Middle East and get closer to developing a nuclear weapon.

Karl


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

*Great Plan, Doctor Damage!*



Doctor Damage said:


> 2. Since I believe he is dangerous, I think the US should do nothing overtly and see what happens. On the side, however, the US should start making deals, double-sided deals, underhanded deals, etc. Do like the Brits did in Lebanon and Palestine in the 1970s, or like the Byzantines did always, i.e. play factions against each other, get your enemies fighting amongst themselves, divert their attentions, etc. Remember, Ahm. may be the ruler of Iran but he's hardly calling all the shots and he certainly does not have the support of everyone in Iran, including the elites.


 Now Yer Talkin' my language! Covert ops. Backroom intrigue. Get them so they don't know who's friend or foe. We've got the special ops guys. We've got the spooks ready and willing. All we have to do is keep it on the Q.T. I am all for it. What they don't know can certainly hurt the hell out of them.

It worked for the Byzantines; it will work for us. All we have to do is make darn certain they are off balance; that they can't tell truth from fiction. BTW, I found this newspaper front page from November 6th, 2006. Wonder what the Byzantines would have thought of this?
.
.
.

​


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> I stand corrected on your Trad affiliation. Apologies. I do care about being accurate and if I made a factual error I am glad that corrected me.


I was just having some fun, although the 10% or less thing is true. They will be coming for my trad membership card on Monday, I can feel it...

Alex: Your enthusiasm for something is boundless, but I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me, or using sarcasm, or...something. For the record, though, I am opposed to states using such underhanded methods on their own citizens, but targeting foreign gov'ts is another matter entirely (gloves off! for you hockey fans). I just want to see the military "solution" being replaced with a more clever, less costly approach (fewer lives lost, less money thrown away). A good back-stabber should be able to get both his enemies blaming each other, while coming up smelling of roses himself and not getting hurt or doing any pushing and shoving himself. But I am drifting off.

How do the new smileys work, anyway?


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

I've stayed out of this one due to my "Thou shalt stay out of political posts" mantra.

I am sorry, I just can't bite my lip any longer.

Potentially dangerous? As Israel and the world has seen this week, Iran's surrogates have access to very advanced delivery systems. While it is not clear that North Korea could hit water if Kim Jung Mentally Ill fell out of a freaking boat it is clear that Iran has the technological ability.... strike that, the petro dollars to buy the technology - to deliver warheads with a fair degree of accuracy and at sufficient distance to obliterate Israel if those delivery vehicles are mated to the advanced warheads Iran seeks.

My personal take on this is that Europe and the US should be deeply ashamed. Israel is a nation of what... 6 Million? Iran and Syria combine for what 80 Million? Israel, you big bullies.

This bovine excrement about proportional response is not worthy of maggot feed status. In order for Israel to make a proportional response you must first quantify the value Israel and her enemies place on human life. Israel has survived not due to negotiation but due solely to the fact that Israel has very large fangs and the willingness to use them to remove a large chunk from the ass of anyone who is stupid enough to attack them.

Stop for a moment: Israel is willing to go to war over the life of one Israeli captive. Her enemies believe it is glorious to blow yourself up in order to kill a few Israelis. Thus in order to quantify 'proportional' you must first acknowledge a different set of valuation.

Next, ...who places missiles in schools and apartment buildings? Not Israel. If a missile is pointed at Israel while sitting atop an apartment building and that missile is taken out to the detriment of the residents then responsibility for those caualties lies with those who placed the missile and those who allowed it's placement.

Why do I say that Europe and the US should be ashamed? Simple... America decided to stay out of the Iran issue and let the UN (the EU and the many anti-US dwarves) handle it. What happened? Two years of an extended Iranian middle finger without a slowdown in Nuclear production (of course Iran is short of energy sources, cough cough... and the tooth fairy is a personal friend of mine).

Meanwhile Iran's well intentioned 'leader' has stated that Israel should be wiped from the map - those were his polite comments. He's also said that the Holocaust was a myth... sure, those Israeli grandparents got those numbered tats because it is in fashion and they want to look cool. Maybe Europe should tap into some lingering guilt there. Funny how losing 20+ Million folks to Hitler and Stalin makes people paranoid.

The world powers know good and damned well that they would never accept what has happened to Israel. They know damned well that withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza at the UN's bequest only encouraged their enemies and they know good and damned well that two years of negotiating with the head whackjob in Iran has only served to bring them two years closer to a weapon with which to force Rand McNally to make the edits they so wish to bring about. While discussing 'proportional' response in light of differing value systems let's also look at how different cultures interpret concessions. Concessions make the UN think you are good and decent... unfortunately it makes terror groups think "See, kill a few more kids and we'll get whatever we ask for, woo hoo!".

The G8 is sitting on the sidelines while thanking God... or whatever they thank, that Israel will eventually deal with Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. When Israel does so they will decry Israel's over-reaction so as not to cause hard feelings with their petro suppliers.

Cowards - liars, cowards and amoral phonies. They want no part of a nuclear Iran, they know full well that in Israel's shoes they would respond in force but they pity Israel's attackers and denounce Israel. Why? Israel is strong, Israel is successful and Israel is built upon values the world has forgotten. Better to see those who send teenagers to Israel wearing Semtex briefs as 'oppressed' and 'noble' than to respect Israel for fighting for it's survival.

I hope Israel will destroy the terror groups attacking them and I hope they will castrate the attack capability of those terror groups sponsors. Meanwhile I am disgusted with the 'powers' who are ignoring the "If you fund, arm and harbor terrorists you ARE a terrorist" doctrine. What - did we forget that one? It might not make us more popular at the UN if we support Israel to the hilt but this is not middle school, the UN is not homeroom and popularity isn't all that - do what's right. Let Israel, her enemies and anyone else who is curious know that the US will view an attempt to take out Israel as an act of war against the US. Balls are inconvenient at times but sometimes they are required.

Appropriate response? When outnumbered 20:1 you can't trade equal and proportionate responses - you can only survive if you make it clear to your enemy that the loss of a single Israeli life will mean the destruction of your entire Army - or whatever price you deem to great to pay. Israel values one single life - her enemies clearly do not.

Now returning to my 'stay out of political threads' doctrine.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

duplicate post - angy finger clicked submit twice


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Geez, Chuck. I don't think that was very politically correct. My satire may be misunderstood, but at least I don't just write down the truth in plain black & white for all to wince at. 

I think you owe the whole class an apology, son. :icon_hailthee:


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Yeah - right after you apologize for egging me on Alex.. or is it Mr Kabbaz? oh screw it - shut up Yoda.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

I doubt the Moslem world would have had much of a gripe with the United States if not for U.S. support for Israel over the years. Don't get me wrong, I do not favor abandoning Israel. But U.S. involvement in this conflict is what put the United States between the rock and the hard place in the Middle East in the first place.

While taking a class in Middle East studies in the 1970s, I heard a retired U.S. general who served in the Middle East describe to us why there "NEVER" will be peace in the region, complex issues that never will be resolved by negotiation or by warfare, with our best hope being brief, intermittent periods of uneasy peace. So far the general's prognosis has held up. Our support of Israel has been a matter of principle from the get-go, not one of self-interest. I don't begrudge this support of Israel, but neither do I think we ought to be scolded for not doing more in her behalf.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I still think the US should leave Iran alone. "Why?" one might ask. Good question.

I feel the US is in the "damned if it does, damned if it doesn't" position. So I chose the "damnded if it doesn't" position. It will save my tax dollars and give the moribund democracies of old Europe, or the weak knee'ed UN, a chance to do some good. Let the Euro's fund and die for reeling in Iran.

I think the world does not appreciate the US. Everyone loves to complain about the US, thumb their noses at the US, act ashamed if they support the US, and then hide in the mighty shadow cast by the US when bad things happen. A good example would be all the complaints some time ago in the EU concerning US military bases. Remember Germany's reaction when it was announced some US bases there were being closed? Why suddenly *that* was a bad thing!

So back to Iran....

Let someone else bare the burden of this, the US has a couple of countries it needs to withdraw from gracefully at the moment.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

crs said:


> Don't get me wrong, I do not favor abandoning Israel.





crs said:


> I don't begrudge this support of Israel ...


Well. Thanks for clearing *that *up. I'm convinced!


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> It will ... give the moribund democracies of old Europe, or the weak knee'ed UN, a chance to do some good.


 I agree with some of your theory. The parts I agree with include:

1] Moribund
2] Weak knee'ed

As far as the rest, though I know your wallet's in the right place, I get kinda teary-eyed thinking we're not gonna be able to shoot at anyone anymore. Remember: If we hadn't shot at people, there would be no European democracies to be moribund and if we didn't pay the bill there'd be no weak-knee'ed UN to park illegally all over Manhattan.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

If we changed some of the names and places we may as well be discussing Czechoslovakia in the summer of 1938. I always wondered why British Airways didn't advertise their flights to Prague with the slogan "Visit a faraway people you know little about."

And Crs you continue to astound me. The fundamentalist Muslims will always have a problem with people who choose to live freely. Is it any coincidence that the fundamentalists are targeting the democracies in the Middle East - Israel, Lebanon and Iraq?

Karl


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Last night I watched an interview of Salmon Rushdie by Bill Moyers. Rushdie stated his belief that fundamentalist Islam will only be defeated when the mass of the Muslim people put their feet down and reject the fundamentalist minority.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Doctor Damage said:


> Last night I watched an interview of Salmon Rushdie by Bill Moyers. Rushdie stated his belief that fundamentalist Islam will only be defeated when the mass of the Muslim people put their feet down and reject the fundamentalist minority.


 He is correct. Perhaps our burden to bear is to help make room for their feet.


----------



## Srynerson (Aug 26, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Srynerson - Former hostages Dr. William Daugherty (who worked for the CIA in Iran), Kevin Hermening, David Roeder, US Army Col. Charles Scott (Ret.), and US Navy Capt. Donald Sharer (Ret.) all claim that Ahmadinejad was among th hostage takers and interrogators. Funny that you would choose to doubt Col. Roeder (he retired a full bird) and not Ahmadinejad.


Knowing that there are third parties who also say that Ahmadinejad was present at Roeder's interrogation increases the believability of his story, but you didn't mention them in the original post. Merely telling me that a person has made a politically convenient, yet completely unverifiable, recitation of long past events does not instill me with confidence in their testimony.

And I would ask Alex how asking for proof of rather extraordinary claims constitutes "defending or downplaying Ahmadinejad" (since my original post was apparently one of those three)? Are we required to believe any statement regarding Ahmadinejad's perfidy until such time as Ahmadinejad *dis*proves it? I'm sorry, but maybe it's just because I am a lawyer, but that's not my understanding of how burdens of proof work.


----------



## MER (Feb 5, 2006)

*Protecting Israel is currently in our self-interest*

No, part of the reason we support Israel is because it is in our self interest. We have very poor intelligence in the area and so have been very dependent on Mossad in order to find out what is going on. Of course the problem there is that you can't trust a foreign government's intelligence agency to give you unbiased information. They have their own self-interest at heart after all. So they tell you what they want you to know, not necessarily all they know or an unbiased account of the facts.

As far as Chuck's rant:

North Korea has the capability to strike South Korea, and it is fairly clear the ability to strike Japan. The difference is he has the material whereas Iran is, by all acounts, years away from having sufficient material.

I find it highly offensive that you find the lives in Israel are worth so much more then the lives of those in Lebanon. Why? Because they are muslim? Well almost half the country is not. Because they belong to Hezzbollah? Most of the country does not.

As far as Iran, the more involved we become the further we push the country toward the Mullahs. As has been true with almost every middle eastern leader since the beginning of time Ahmadinejad is precariously placed. If he is not combative enough with the US the more reactionary figures in the country will begin to take over. Remember after the first gulf war the reactionary forces in Iraq began to smell the blood in the water and we saw Saddam become more reactionary as a result. But he wasn't invading other countries anymore so we were happy. Plus it was one more enemy of Iran in the world.

Now I totally agree with Chuck that the most recent pullouts by Israel were a mistake. They seemed to come out of nowhere and so were seen as a show of weakness. Really they should have waited until a strong leader emerged from Palestine after Arafat's death and offer the withdrawl as part of a negotiation. That would have solidified the palestinian leader's position and possibly set up a very powerful relationship.

As far as the current situation in Lebanon, which we have to remember is the latest in a long series of "because of what you did to old aunt margaret." The history of the region is one long list of "because of what you did to old aunt margaret's." But Hezzbollah's most recent "because of what you did to old aunt margaret" was that Israel had refused to release three hostages in violation of an earlier agreement. They released all the others but where holding onto these for bargaining power. So Hezzbollah was angry about that and there were skirmishes back and forth. Finally, Hezzbollah pulled a big one, larger then any of the previous skirmishes where they killed 8 and kidnapped 2. Then Israel responded with tremendous force, basically declaring war on the entire country of lebanon, and in their zeal to punish Hezzbollah and cut them out of the country they have killed and terrorized many innocent citizens in Lebanon. Which of course is going to push the people closer to Iran, and if the situation is allowed to develop naturally Iran will then do something huge to Israel and there will be a war in the area resembling those of thirty years ago.

So in summation, Hezbollah has done horrible things, Hamas has done horrible things, Israel has done horrible things, so what now?


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

> I find it highly offensive that you find the lives in Israel are worth so much more then the lives of those in Lebanon. Why? Because they are muslim? Well almost half the country is not. Because they belong to Hezzbollah? Most of the country does not.


You are assigning to me a belief I don't have so defending it is not an easy task. You're further assigning me beliefs that would be bigoted at best, racist at worst. Please re-read and see that neither is in evidence since I find being called a racist highly offensive.

My point, specifically, was that Hezzbollah and those of their ilk do not value life in the same way that I do or that Israel does.

I think there is a fundamental difference between the deliberate and intentional targeting of civillians and the targeting of weapons trained on your country.

The Lebanese are not evil - but a government (and of course the people they represent) has a responsibility to clean out terror groups using their territory to launch offensive operations against another sovereign state.

If they are unable to remove them, a few phone calls would get them all the assistance they need.

If Hezzbollah places rockets capable of striking Israel in schools, hospitals and (insert place not to drop bomb here) then who has shown a lack of concern for innocent life?

I fundamentally disagree with the notion that there is moral eqivalence here. For the first time some of Israel's old enemies in the region are even coming out publicly against these terror groups and correcting Iran's leader when he speaks for the Arab world.

So again - I don't value the lives differently, the combatants in this conflict clearly do.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

There are two reasons, and two alone why we are even involved, Oil and our considerable jewish citizenry, the largest anywhere. The irony is most people have a clearer understanding of how and where drugs are produced, delivered and consumed than the flow of energy. We can wake up tommorow driving Julia Butterfly Hill's french fry oil powered bus and nothing will have changed. Our common Judeo/Christian civilization , however good at killing jews in past pograms and the Holacost, not to mention each other simply has not assimilated Islam into our cultural world and vs a vs. Otherwise if we were truly altruistic marines would be raising the flag over a palace with the Himalayans in the backdrop in defense of practising Bon and lama traditions of buddhism. But then we cavalierly wipe out religous sites of our own true native americans for more water so other americans can waterski on the 4th of July. Even a usefull idiot doesn't believe that fairytale anymore. Nor is Israel our best friend in spite of tourism commercials to the contrary. Just ask the U.S.S. Liberty Survivors Association, or that Marine officer who put a .45 to the head of a Israeli tank commander's head when they tried to ignore a Marine roadblock. The israeli spin on that was the marine was drunk. Finally you may recall an exasperated President Reagan himself saying, and I quote " These guys sure make it hard to help them sometimes." Maybe we should just let the signatories of the Balfour Agreement fix their mess and go back to exterminating Indians. A plague on everybody's house on this one.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Chuck Franke said:


> I fundamentally disagree with the notion that there is moral eqivalence here.


You see, there is where the camps break down. Some of us can discern this difference, and some of us cannot. To attempt to hold a rational debate with those that do not discern a moral difference is sheer folly. Folly, that I admit, I continue to be guilty of too. I think that we continue the conversations as it is impossible for us to comprehend how someone cannot discern that, for instance, putting undewear on someone's head and posing them nude, while degrading, is simply not of the same moral eqivalence of video taping one's self hacking the head off a living and conscious person.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Kav,

You repeat the old canard that oil and the Jews drive our policy. If they did oil would be a lot cheaper and Damascus would be an Israeli suburb. 

We could easily accomodate ourselves to some sort of Islamic fundamentalist order in the region and at least for awhile get very cheap gas. We could less easily, but still possible, make the Middle East an American colony and the price at the pump would be cheaper than a can of Coke.

And maybe we protect Israel bc they are an ally and a democracy. The problem with the Middle East isn't Israel or the Jews, the Jewish flight from the Arab world has been a disaster economically. But to me the most telling sign is that an Arab is on the Israeli Supreme Court while virtually all Jews have had to flee their centuries old homes in the Arab world. If you don't think Israel is worth protecting than nothing is. 

Karl


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Karl,I never said Israel wasn't worth protecting. There are winners and losers in the world. Israel won, by devine will or superior numbers and force of arms in 1948. That the palestinians cannot accept this; just, fair or whatever is no different than Sioux indians still demanding the Black Hills return but settling for defacing a mountain with Crazy Horse in reply to our defacing Mount Rushmore. And that is what Teheran with a nuclear devise is threatening to the land that contains sites holy to all three religons. Nobody wants to walk away branded a loser. It can be a football game, high school dance or Idaho meadow with two rutting bull elk. Trouble is, Israel/Palestine is one land with two people. Jordan doesn't want the palis, they allready outnumber jordanians there, They've been kicked out before from other arab states countless times. We could blame Italy with the sins of Rome and Palestrina and create a new Palestine at the foothills of Vesuvius. That would be Machaivellian when it again erupts.And that is basically rediculing what nobody dares speak of, the genocide of palestinians for being recalcitrant, nasty and inconvenient.Sort of reminds me of another stereotype, and the day I put a .45 In Irv Rubins face because he didn't like me dating Roya Gabbai, an iranian jew. I told old Irv there was lots of room elsewhere, and to go find some. A week later I repeated the exercise with a loud mouthed Mulla who only saw an american with a persian girl. This is after all America, for better or worse and at least our ideals can be maintained here, if not promoted among all these bickering sammites, semites and other assorted children of Adam.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Karl89 said:


> And Crs you continue to astound me. The fundamentalist Muslims will always have a problem with people who choose to live freely. Is it any coincidence that the fundamentalists are targeting the democracies in the Middle East - Israel, Lebanon and Iraq?


Well, Karl, that's what our president keeps telling us. But I always thought he was offering simplistic sound bites in order to tell the American fundamentalists what they'd rather hear and that no one, including the Yale-educated president, actually believed the Middle East situation could be summed up so easily. Up until now, I had not personally encountered anyone who drank this particular flavor of Kool-Aid. Maybe I need to hang out at the Wal-Mart more.


----------



## Mahler (Aug 5, 2005)

Gents,

I wanted to attract your attention to Sy Hersh's new piece on Iran in the recent New Yorker (well, I got the issue today, but I'm in Poland and international subscriptions always work slow, so it may all be well known to you all), which is excellent as always. More than anything else, the article really shows how complicated the situation with Iran has become, and it only deals with the possibility of attacking the regime. Throw into the picture Iraq, the current Israeli conflict, and you have one big mess.

I share Chuck's aversion to posting on political issues here, because while at some level it is indeed good vs. evil (or, people who share our values vs. people who want to erase us from the planet), such postings inevitably tend to simplify the picture.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

This article pretty much sums up my views on the matter.

https://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0717/p25s01-coop.html

Cheers


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Mahler said:


> Gents,
> 
> I wanted to attract your attention to Sy Hersh's new piece on Iran in the recent New Yorker (well, I got the issue today, but I'm in Poland and international subscriptions always work slow, so it may all be well known to you all), which is excellent as always. More than anything else, the article really shows how complicated the situation with Iran has become, and it only deals with the possibility of attacking the regime. Throw into the picture Iraq, the current Israeli conflict, and you have one big mess.
> 
> I share Chuck's aversion to posting on political issues here, because while at some level it is indeed good vs. evil (or, people who share our values vs. people who want to erase us from the planet), such postings inevitably tend to simplify the picture.


Just because something is messy it still doesn't change the fact that there is a moral simplicity to the situation.


----------



## Mahler (Aug 5, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Just because something is messy it still doesn't change the fact that there is a moral simplicity to the situation.


Of course it doesn't, but just condemning somebody to being evil wouldn't quite make the trick, would it? Moral judgments often lead to actions, and the connection between the two isn't trivial.

For the record: I'm absolutely against Iran (and North Korea, for that matter).


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

This thread escalated faster than the damned conflict. Wishing to someday do business with several forum members and avoid any chastisement from Malinda, I will do the unthinkable- withdraw to my safe and secure borders back in the other forum. Peace, Shalom, Salaam al lekum to everyone.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Kav,

We have to keep talking what else is there? Unless of course you are building Katyusha rockets in your basement!

Karl


----------



## MER (Feb 5, 2006)

*Because we need more Chuck in politics...*



Chuck Franke said:


> You are assigning to me a belief I don't have so defending it is not an easy task. You're further assigning me beliefs that would be bigoted at best, racist at worst. Please re-read and see that neither is in evidence since I find being called a racist highly offensive.
> 
> My point, specifically, was that Hezzbollah and those of their ilk do not value life in the same way that I do or that Israel does.
> 
> ...


I think you'll find we agree on a whole lot, I am totally in agreement with you that horrible things have been done to Israel.

As far as why I took offense: If Israel responded to the killing and kidnapping by doing the same to 60 members of Hezzbollah, then you would have a point. But, sadly, that is not what happened. Instead they attacked very broadly and a lot of civilians died. So you can't pretend to justify that action as being proportional by saying that the enemy cares less about loss of life unless the enemy you are talking about are the lebanese at large. Which, thankfully, you have admitted you do not believe.

So the history of the situation starting with the kidnapping and killing was Hezbollah ramped things us with the killing and kidnapping, it was great then any previous skirmish along the border. Israel ramped things up even further with their attacks on lebanon. The Hezzbollah ramped things up again with the rocket attacks. Then Israel ramped things up again with the ground troops, ships, etc. Things escalate quickly if left to their own devices. We all know how far the Hatfield's and the McCoy's took it over a pig. Further, by 1882 finding out whose pig it was would have done nothing to ease the violence.

Now about this governmental responsibility to clean out terror groups, does that extend to our close allies pakistan? Do I have to remind you of all the terror attacks committed against India? Not to mention that the pentagon thinks Osama Bin Laden is in the country?

And you know, Israel hasn't done the greatest job about that either, what with their various policies regarding the settlers.

The fact is you take what you can get. I would love it if Saudi Arabia did a better job controlling the hate taught in its schools, or the money its people give to terrorism, or even those who leave the country to become terrorists elsewhere. But you have to ask yourself how are you going to do that? Are you going to take out the house of Saud? Guess what, chances are the guy who takes over for them is going to be worse. Same with Pakistan.

Arafat was horrible, but chances are if we were to take him out someone worse would have risen up.

And who said anything about moral equivalence? All I said is people do horrible things back and forth to each other, which, if left unchecked, only gets worse. I don't think there is a need to list all of the horrible things that have been done to or by israel and try and weigh each of them against each other. I don't think it adds anything to an understanding of the conflict, and after all, as we have seen, the weight given to each can vary greatly. So if you want to say Israel has had more awful things done to it then it has done to others, great, as long as you acknowledge that they've still done things that have given other people a reason for hating them.

If we were in Israel's position would we do the same thing? Of course, in fact i would be wililng to bet our reaction would be even more disproportionate. If we were in Lebanon's position I think we would have reacted far stronger. But we're not in Israel's position or Lebanon's position. We have the benefit of standing above and looking down objectively at the situation, which puts us in the best position to solve it.

So a few solutions that have been done in the past:
Shuttle diplomacy - well we don't really have anything Syria or Iran want nor do we would we want to give it to them anyway.

Picking a side - we pick Israel's side the Arab street hates us even more and we've bred a new generation of terrorists, but we're tight with Israel who is probably going to win anyway. We pick lebanon's side and we lose the intelligence Mossad gives us, alienate our only ally in the area, but gain some points on the street.

Sitting around and doing nothing - as we have seen things continue to escalate, chance of outright war with Iran, Syria, and Israel with other Arab countries potentially sending troops in an attempt to placate the extremists in their own countries.

So what is it going to be?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

*Dangerous times*

Gents,

It could always be worse..........

Poisoned Missiles: Syria's Doomsday Deterrent
by Dany Shoham

This is Part II of a two-part examination of Syria's chemical and biological weapons (CBW). Part I, which appeared in the Summer Middle East Quarterly, revealed how Syria built its capabilities. Part II catalogues Syria's present CBW stocks, investigates how Damascus has weaponized them, and ponders possible scenarios for their use.

Syria today has the most formidable chemical and biological weapons capabilities of any Arab state. How did Damascus achieve this? As we saw in Part I, Syria's chemical "Los Alamos" was abetted by Western suppliers, ever eager to provide chemicals, factories, and technology, and also by Western governments, conveniently content to look the other way.

Iraq under Saddam Husayn had the same ambition, but Hafiz al-Asad proceeded with greater caution. The Syrian military built the infrastructure under ostensibly scientific auspices, abjuring grand innovations and sticking to tried and tested technologies that the Syrians knew they could implement without much direct foreign guidance. And because Asad joined the international coalition against Iraq, and then entered a "peace process" with Israel, Syria's progress was never scrutinized like that of Iraq and Iran.

Read the rest here -

https://www.meforum.org/article/510


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

crs said:


> ... Up until now, I had not personally encountered anyone who drank this particular flavor of Kool-Aid. Maybe I need to hang out at the Wal-Mart more.


 My, my. Is this how we've resorted to depicting anyone with whom we disagree?

Reminds me of the infamous quote attributed to Pauline Kael, "I don't know *anyone* who voted for Nixon." Maybe you should get out more?

Seriously. I'm no expert in sociology or anthropology or international relations. But if someone says "Death to xxxx" or "XXX should be blown off the face of the earth" or such, and takes steps to accomplish those ends, I tend to take them at their word. Does that make me a Walmart-shopping Kool-Aid drinker?


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Thing is... Like the linked in 'fish story' I don't think proportional response is a deterrent. I think a call from Tel Aviv into Damascus and Tehran letting them know that weapons from those capitals, given to terror groups and then lobbed into Israel will be interpreted as an attack by Tehran/Damascus. It might be interesting to see how those leaders who are so willing to trade a few hundred militants and civilians for a few Israeli lives would react if they got a call from Israel saying "One more attack and we won't be bombing everyone in your country - just you personally and anyone else within the blast radius.... 

Proportional response doesn't thwart violence, shuttle diplomacy might work on warring shuttles but hasn't helped much in the Middle East.

Won't claim to know the answer but if, God forbid, I had to pick the best of many bad options it would be a very believable threat of a very disproportionate response from Israel.

I guess it depends on what one believes truly deters aggression. There are those who do the right thing because it is the right thing, there are those who do the right thing (or at least decide against the wrong thing) because the cost is too great.

Right now, what is it costing Iran and Syria to fund those attacks on Israel? Not a damned thing..... yet.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Jill said:


> My, my. Is this how we've resorted to depicting anyone with whom we disagree?
> 
> Reminds me of the infamous quote attributed to Pauline Kael, "I don't know *anyone* who voted for Nixon." Maybe you should get out more?
> 
> Seriously. I'm no expert in sociology or anthropology or international relations. But if someone says "Death to xxxx" or "XXX should be blown off the face of the earth" or such, and takes steps to accomplish those ends, I tend to take them at their word. Does that make me a Walmart-shopping Kool-Aid drinker?


Well, I thought I would give Karl the bully a taste of his own medicine, as his usual tone is to attempt to belittle those with whom he disagrees. His message said he was "astounded" that anyone could think as I do, thus my retaliatory volley.

Sorry, but the best minds in politics, diplomacy, military and academia have been attempting to sort out the Israeli-Arab conflicts for more than half a century and have failed to even approach a successful solution to this perpetual quagmire. And to be lectured haughtily by a cliches-writing blowhard on a clothing message board that it is all simply a matter of Moslem fundamentalists hating democracies is stupid and arrogant beyond belief. The solution to the world's problems is unlikely to be discovered on Ask Andy, thus there should be a little more tolerance for opposing viewpoints. In absence of this, people like Karl will reap what they sow. There, is that better?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I guess My past position has changed, a rare possibility online. Karl posts about some fool who doesn't wear ties, fails to shave and shoots his mouth off at people who should be shooting back by now.His dress alone would bring condemnation on the fashion forum. I feel like Indiana Jones in the first movie. Harrison Ford had food poisoning and in one scene faced a highly skilled swordsman. Remember? Harrison simply pulled out a Smith and Wesson .44 SPL, shot his antagonist and moved on to the next scene.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Stepping out of the discussion now and putting on the mod hat. You can disagree with another member - strongly in fact.... but you can't call him names fellas - that's ad hominem (not to be confused with ad synonym) and that's not nice. 

Cool?

PS> Me you can call names.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Crs,

Once again you are wrong. I believe the solutions to the world's problems CAN be discovered on Ask Andy.

Blowhardedly,

Karl


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Let's not forget that our "friend" has been immensely helped by the Bush Administration's desert adventure. Iran has been the real winner in this mess. The U.S., by taking out Saddam, has helped push a Shia minority into a position where its religious and ethnic sympathies could encourage regional sectarian violence that extends to Iran. Certainly Saddam's demise emboldens Iran, as we've seen in our "friend's" recent tirades. 

Good to see that the science of cause/effect remains constant, even when everything else has gone to hell.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Doctor Damage said:


> Aaaahh Karl, your world is so black and white.


This may appear to be black and white, but then against the worst mistake in war is to underestimate your enemy. We have to force ourselves from living in a paranoid state, but we can not be laxed in regards to our safety.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Let's not forget that our "friend" has been immensely helped by the Bush Administration's desert adventure. Iran has been the real winner in this mess. The U.S., by taking out Saddam, has helped push a Shia minority into a position where its religious and ethnic sympathies could encourage regional sectarian violence that extends to Iran. Certainly Saddam's demise emboldens Iran, as we've seen in our "friend's" recent tirades.
> 
> Good to see that the science of cause/effect remains constant, even when everything else has gone to hell.


Ah yes, it was only a matter of time. Iran is Bush's fault. All is right with the world.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Wayfarer,

Quelle surprise, non? 

Karl


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> Ah yes, it was only a matter of time. Iran is Bush's fault. All is right with the world.


 LOL! On day one, we surmised how many long it would take...


----------



## Aus_MD (Nov 2, 2005)

BertieW said:


> The U.S., by taking out Saddam, has helped push a Shia minority into a position where its religious and ethnic sympathies could encourage regional sectarian violence that extends to Iran.


The Shi'a are a majority in both Iraq and Iran.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

In other news, The President was terribly misquoted today when he said he hoped Syria would tell Hezbollah to knock off this _*Shi'ite*_.... referring to the Iranian leader.

Sigh.... the media thinks it is so smart but still can't translate Texan into English.


----------



## maxnharry (Dec 3, 2004)

Am not a regular poster here, but another forumite directed my attention this way. Sorry I'm so late to the party.

1. Israel was attacked by a group that is harbored within the borders of Lebabnon and is completely within its rights to respond with force. Can't really see another way around that. Imagine some group within Mexico starts firing rockets into Texas. I am certain of what our response would be. 

2. Innocent Lebanese are being killed. It is a true tragedy and more so because of all the suffering that various groups have caused in the last 20 years using Lebanon in a tug of war between the Arab World and Israel. IVO #1, not sure how this can be avoided. 

3. For those just joining us, we have been in conflict with Iran for a long time. I think the world needs to think long and hard about allowing them to have nuclear weapons, but a little perspective on their crazy rhetoric is in order. They have been saying crazy stuff for years. While I am certain they would be delighted to erase Israel, I don't think they posess the capability and propose those comments were for the Arab Street (which is very fond of crazy rhetoric).

I have my issues with the prosecution of the war in Iraq (and am probably closer to the problem than most here), but would find it hard to ascribe anything going on in Iran to the current administration. 

4. As far as the Arab Street hating us. Well they do and they don't. The most radical obviously do just because of Babewatch and bacon, but the rest of them envy us and also are frustrated because they would like to have a freer life, but are not sure how to bring it about. 

5. Concerning Israel. The road to the modern state of Israel is a sad one for both sides, filled with missteps by various world powers and punctuated by wars that were fought and won by the Israelis. My advice to the Palestinians is to arrange a settlement as soon as possible, because (with perhaps the exception of Jordan) no other Arab nation is prepared to offer the Palestinians a homeland elsewhere.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Yes, mea culpa. I used minority where majority was intended. A gaffe, to be sure. But no one has argued against the substance of the point that the Iraqi War has emboldened Iran.

Saddam's removal is a gift to Iran. And in this case, the enemy of one's enemy does not seem to be working in the U.S.'s favor with respect to Iran.

But clearly some snarky types here have this one all figured out a priori.



Aus_MD said:


> The Shi'a are a majority in both Iraq and Iran.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> And the DPRK is getting ready to launch another missile. All the "smart" people laughed when Bush called Iran and North Korea members of the Axis of Evil. I wonder if they are still laughing now?


Yes, I do think they are. And with good reason.

The fact is, of course, that the "smart people" were not debating the fact that Iran, North Korea and Iraq were dangerous. They were at the time (Iran less so than the two others) and are still (Iran now at least as much as anyone else). They were debating (or as you put it "laughing at") other points:
- the idea that those three are the only ones (what about Sudan? Zimbabwe?)
- the idea that being dangerous to the stability of the world, to a certain extent, warrants a moral-sounding name like "evil"
- the idea that there is a link between them ("axis")


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> I agree with some of your theory. The parts I agree with include:
> 1] Moribund


Fascinating. I am sure you have countless good arguments to justify that statement. Maybe it could provide the subject to another thread?


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

Étienne said:


> ...the idea that those three are the only ones (what about Sudan? Zimbabwe?)


 Are Sudan and Zimbabwe working on nuclear proliferation? I didn't know that. Seriously.


> the idea that being dangerous to the stability of the world, to a certain extent, warrants a moral-sounding name like "evil"


 Semantics, really. I may not have chosen the word personally. But apparently the wordsmiths in DC thought its application was appropriate to describe nation states that are seeking nuclear weapons for the express purpose of conquering their immediate region of the world, with threats of destroying other parts of the world, oftentimes supporting terrorist groups which INTENTIONALLY blow up innocents. I wasn't there when the speech was written, but I would imagine that was their thought process.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Jill said:


> Semantics, really. I may not have chosen the word personally. But apparently the wordsmiths in DC thought its application was appropriate to describe nation states that are seeking nuclear weapons for the express purpose of conquering their immediate region of the world, with threats of destroying other parts of the world, oftentimes supporting terrorist groups which INTENTIONALLY blow up innocents. I wasn't there when the speech was written, but I would imagine that was their thought process.


Oh come now Jill, do not be so plebian! To deem countries wishing to unleash nuclear hell on others....who are we to judge?

Amazing, is it not?


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Oh come now Jill, do not be so plebian! To deem countries wishing to unleash nuclear hell on others....who are we to judge?


To the extent of my knowledge only one country has unleashed nuclear hell on another.

Here's a clue - it wasn't North Korea or Iran.......


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gmac said:


> To the extent of my knowledge only one country has unleashed nuclear hell on another.
> 
> Here's a clue - it wasn't North Korea or Iran.......


Ah gmac, so predictable....so ending WWII as quickly as possible is the exact equivalent of the current situation with North Korea or Iran?

You see Chuck, as I said, people that fail to discern differences....


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Jill said:


> Are Sudan and Zimbabwe working on nuclear proliferation? I didn't know that. Seriously.


At least as seriously as Iraq. There are other threats that nuclear proliferation, you know. Sudan and Zimbabwe have been involved in destabilisation of their respective regions. As recently as one month ago, the French troops in Chad had to foil a Sudan-backed rebellion there.

But the point is not here. Sudan is an active support of islamic terrorism. Both Sudan and Zimbabwe have been involved in slaughter of parts of their own populations. I do know that Sudan has stopped its official support for him, but they were Ben-Laden's base before he moved to Afghanistan.


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

OK, well then let's add them to the list as well.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Ah gmac, so predictable....so ending WWII as quickly as possible is the exact equivalent of the current situation with North Korea or Iran?


Wayfarer, you might wish to try making these points _before_ I have had to correct you - save a little credibility for yourself.....

As for ending WWII quickly, that piece of conventional wisdom is uncreasingly under question. Some historians believe that if the Allies had guaranteed the preservation of Hirohito that the Japanese would have surrendered thus avoiding the deaths of up to million GIs in an invasion _and_ the incineration of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civillians.

Perhaps it was necessary, but let's not pretend that not at least part of the reason for the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to send a spectacular demonstration of American power to not only the Japanese but the Russians.

To my knowledge North Korea and Iran have dropped nuclear bombs on no-one.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gmac said:


> Wayfarer, you might wish to try making these points _before_ I have had to correct you - save a little credibility for yourself.....


gmac, could you please show me the correction? I fail to see where I was erroneous in any matter of fact. And as for my credibility...the thing that can help it the most is for you to continue disagreeing with me in this manner. It only reflects well on me.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

gmac said:


> As for ending WWII quickly, that piece of conventional wisdom is uncreasingly under question. Some historians believe that if the Allies had guaranteed the preservation of Hirohito that the Japanese would have surrendered thus avoiding the deaths of up to million GIs in an invasion _and_ the incineration of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civillians.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> gmac, could you please show me the correction? I fail to see where I was erroneous in any matter of fact.


Error by ommission - fairly straightforward for all to see.



Wayfarer said:


> And as for my credibility...the thing that can help it the most is for you to continue disagreeing with me in this manner. It only reflects well on me


Interesting that your credibility is judged solely by your relationship to me.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

This article refers to two American scholars, Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington DC and Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York.

I haven't read their source material.

He's not a historian but his opinion might be considered valid:

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."

Dwight D Eisenhower, _The White House Years_


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gmac said:


> Error by ommission - fairly straightforward for all to see.


I see. So your proposition then is, if I say so and so is a murderer and murder is wrong, I must then provide an exhaustive list of all murderers or I have committed an error? An interesting thesis. Irrational, but interesting.



gmac said:


> Interesting that your credibility is judged solely by your relationship to me.


Ah, this statement gives much light on your prior one. It lets me into your thinking process. You see, I said, "the thing that can help it the most..." not "the only thing". Since you feel my actual statement was the sole criteria, I can see how you would find my original statement in error, since it was sans a complete historical preface.

So how many posts shall we have in petty rhetoric over my rather easy to understand statements vs. the actual substance of the matter?


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> So how many posts shall we have in petty rhetoric over my rather easy to understand statements vs. the actual substance of the matter?


I don't know. I guess it depends on if you ever choose to address the points I made or continue to make foolish rhetorical arguments.

I've got all day....


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gmac said:


> I don't know. I guess it depends on if you ever choose to address the points I made or continue to make foolish rhetorical arguments.
> 
> I've got all day....


I am quite sorry, I fail to see any points, merely insults and logical errors. Is that your definition of debate?

Please sir, carry on in your merry way. I shall merely stick to that most indefensible position **chuckle**, that for Iran and/or North Korea to use nuclear weapons would be a bad thing for the world.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

gmac said:


> This article refers to two American scholars, Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington DC and Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York.
> 
> I haven't read their source material.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the link.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I am quite sorry, I fail to see any points, merely insults and logical errors. Is that your definition of debate?


No need to apolgise. Your failure to adequately comprehend my posts and respond in a serious manner is not an issue to me



Wayfarer said:


> Please sir, carry on in your merry way. I shall merely stick to that most indefensible position **chuckle**, that for Iran and/or North Korea to use nuclear weapons would be a bad thing for the world.


No doubt.

I'm sure you will also agree that for the United States or anybody else to use nuclear weapons is also a bad thing for the world. And since the US is the only country to have ever used suuch weapons in anger, it is the greatest, nay, the _only_ offender in this context.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

*Kuznick*

GMAC,

Your buddy Kuznick has quite an agenda...

https://www.thejerusalemfund.org/images/fortherecord.php?ID=55

And Lefties wonder why the Dems cannot win elections. Selling out a populist like Truman is not going to get you very far.

Cheers


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

This will be my last post to you on this thread until you wish to offer a cogent point.

What I would like to point out is the difference in our posts to each other.



Wayfarer said:


> I am quite sorry, I fail to see any points, merely insults and logical errors.


I address your posts and their contents. Not you personally, but rather what ideas you put forth. Your reply is:



gmac said:


> No need to apolgise. Your failure to adequately comprehend my posts and respond in a serious manner is not an issue to me.


You insult me personally. This is fine, it merely makes me chuckle, but it shows a rather intractableness on your part. I see this pattern by you with anyone that disagrees with you, personal insults vs. factual rebuttal. And then you whine you are targeted due to political affiliation. I will admit I have crossed the line with you on occasion to insult rather than critique points, but it was just that, on occasion. It is your SOP however. I think a quiet moment of introspection on your part might reveal to you the reason you have been spoken to.

Food for thought; chow down.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

OK. Bye.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

JRR said:


> GMAC,
> 
> Your buddy Kuznick has quite an agenda...
> 
> ...


All sounds pretty reasonable to me - the comments regarding Truman are accurate.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

gmac said:


> All sounds pretty reasonable to me - the comments regarding Truman are accurate.


Do you agree with Kuznick's assertion that 9/11 was orchestrated by the US Govt?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

JRR said:


> Do you agree with Kuznick's assertion that 9/11 was orchestrated by the US Govt?


JRR, you must get with the program sir! That is an irrelevant question as clearly either a) Bush organized it or b) the US deserved it for electing Bush.

While of course that was almost morbid satire, very sadly, that statement would get kudos in many crowds.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> JRR, you must get with the program sir! That is an irrelevant question as clearly either a) Bush organized it or b) the US deserved it for electing Bush.
> 
> While of course that was almost morbid satire, very sadly, that statement would get kudos in many crowds.


LOL...

I guess I was brainwashed by the Wal-Mart shopping hordes.

I will report to "sensitivity" training at once. The "judging" part of my personality obviously needs to be curtailed.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

JRR said:


> Do you agree with Kuznick's assertion that 9/11 was orchestrated by the US Govt?


I'm not at all certain that that is what he said.

But, no, I don't believe the US govt orchestrated 9/11.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gmac,

I knew you couldn't stay away from the fray. Now keep an open mind and you just might learn something. Welcome back.

Karl


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

I'm just stopping by briefly Karl - I missed tweaking wayfarer's nose (but not that much).

He seems to miss the irony of the world's largest hoarder of nuclear weapons, and the only nation to have used such weapons in anger, telling (certain) others how they must disarm.

I don't want Iran or North Korea to have nuclear weapons any more than I do Israel, Pakistan or France (to name three at random) but if was in charge in Iran and I had the Israeli's rattling their sabre at me then I'd be a bit nervous and looking for a way to protect myself.

Multilateral nuclear disarmament anyone?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

'Tis sad when one is so roundly spanked on an intellectual basis, that suddenly the _ad hoc_ reason given for participating is to merely act the buffoon.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

I thought you weren't responding to me?

And what's this, personal insults? Tut tut!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gmac said:


> I thought you weren't responding to me?
> 
> And what's this, personal insults? Tut tut!


Again, I can see how you make the conclusions you do from my posts. Very predictable. I clearly stipulated, "if you made a cogent point". You made one by offering an explanation of your impetus. Lastly of course, I offered no insult that I can see, I merely characterized your self-admitted behavior.

This has been a most enlightening thread for me concerning insights into your thought processes gmac. Differentiation between the personal and the abstract or intellectual as well as discerning between qualified statements and universals are just not your strong points it would seem.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Will somebody explain the revisionist history of the two atomic bombings? Japan initiated a war of aggression which included; the infamous rape of Nanking,Bacterial warfare via fleas tested on a chinese city, the Bataan death march, barbarities on the infamous Burma railway against British Empire POWs, forced prostitution of 'comfort women' use of POWs in biological and chemical warfare experiments, decapitation of catured Doolittle Raid airmen and the intended mass execution of the Wake defenders until the Emperor personally countermanded the order in fear of retribution. Their own civilian population was scared into committing mass suicide on Okinawa and organised into suicide armies armed down to bamboo spears for the predicted invasion. None,I repeat none of this is taught today or faced by the Japanese people, a point of contention still with the Chinese. The actual death toll from the two bombs wasn't even close to raids both in Europe and Japan using more mundane and conventional means of inflicting nasty deaths.If a Ward Churchill can condemn innocents as 'little Eichmanns,' then the revisionists should be looking to Nagasaki and Hiroshima as the elimination of 'Little Tojos.' " War is cruelty, and you cannmot refne it." - General William Tecumsah Sherman


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Again, I can see how you make the conclusions you do from my posts. Very predictable. I clearly stipulated, "if you made a cogent point". You made one by offering an explanation of your impetus.


Yup. Exactlly the same one I made this morning - stil no substantive response from you. Other than to call me a buffoon.



Wayfarer said:


> Lastly of course, I offered no insult that I can see, I merely characterized your self-admitted behavior.


So I could characterize your self-admitted behaviour as that of a self-important bore who is unable to address the points adressed to him - but I wouldn't be insulting you? Excellent!



Wayfarer said:


> This has been a most enlightening thread for me concerning insights into your thought processes gmac. Differentiation between the personal and the abstract or intellectual as well as discerning between qualified statements and universals are just not your strong points it would seem.


Way to prove my point above!


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Kav said:


> Will somebody explain the revisionist history of the two atomic bombings?


I'll refer you back to the comments made by Eisenhower regarding his grave misgivings over dropping atomic bombs on an already defeated Japan.

Hardly revisionist since he made those comments _before_ the bombs were dropped.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

"Eisenhouwer, the best clerk I ever had." - General Douglas MacArthur. Ike for all his brilliance never saw combat. Real life experience's are credentials anyone; liberal, conservative or whatever your moniker should bring to any debate, even here Gmac.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

*Bad Form*



gmac said:


> I'll refer you back to the comments made by Eisenhower regarding his grave misgivings over dropping atomic bombs on an already defeated Japan.
> 
> Hardly revisionist since he made those comments _before_ the bombs were dropped.


GMAC,

Ike isn't a historian. And a simple google search exposed the subject of the article you linked.

Sheesh...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

JRR said:


> GMAC,
> 
> Ike isn't a historian. And a simple google search exposed the subject of the article you linked.
> 
> Sheesh...


JRR, twice today I have to correct you! Did you not know that all of his sources are 100% credible and all of yours will be 100% baloney?


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Ike was Allied Supreme Commander Europe, Supreme Commander of NATO and a two term US president.

As such, I think his comments are worthy of some consideration.

MacAurthur's bravado and bravery in battle are not necessarily the experiences required to make strategic decisions.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

JRR said:


> GMAC,
> 
> Ike isn't a historian. And a simple google search exposed the subject of the article you linked.
> 
> Sheesh...


Exposed?

You mean you leapt to conclusions that were simply not supported by his comments.

I can tell you who is exposed.....


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

The way in which WWII ended in the pacific is without question an interesting topic.

I think the question right now is: Is it morally right for
A. Israel to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon
B. The rest of the world to leave that task to Israel.

1940's technology was 15 kiloton single stage warheads, today I think our largest warhead is in the 10 megaton range and the Russians had one 5 times that yield. By today's standards, a 15 kt warhead is a firecracker.

I'm not all that concerned by countries who have large inventories of nuclear weapons - guys who are racing to get one and loudly proclaiming their desire to see a country (ours or another) wiped out scares the crap out of me.

Gmac, hostility free question - what's your take on Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon.
A. Let them
B. Stop them
C. Other


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

Regarding the use of atomic weapons against Japan I think all people, even those of us who feel it was justified, have misgivings. I think most people, when forced to resort to violence, no matter how justified, have misgivings. No one wants to kill and no wants to kill on an atomic scale. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a result of a crude but necessary moral calculus - their use saved 500,000 lives at least.

But there is a growing debate among historians that it was the Soviet declaration of war on Japan on 8 August, 1945 (two after Hiroshima and one day before Nagasaki) that led to a Japanese surrender. The Soviets had promised to open a second front against Japan as soon as Germany surrendered but curiously waited three months after VE Day and two days after the US used atomic weapons. A good book on the subject is Racing The Enemy by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa.

Interestingly enough the only nation on record as having a nuclear first strike policy is France, with its strategically interesting notion of "force de frappe." This policy supposedly has been amended since France put into place its "New Defense: 1997-2015" policies and the retirement of its Hades weapons platform.

Karl


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Chuck Franke said:


> Gmac, hostility free question - what's your take on Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon.
> A. Let them
> B. Stop them
> C. Other


C.

It is unrealistic to tolerate a nuclear Israel yet strive to deny the same to Iran, despite what you may think of their president's public announcements.

But nor do we want a country as unstable as Iran to have such weapons - the same could be said for other members of the nuclear club.

Multilateral nuclear disarmament is the safest solution. I'm not saying it would be easy but without an agreement in principle that we should ALL get rid of these things then proliferation is an inevitability.

Mutually Assured Destruction is an outdated concept in today's world. Israel's nuclear weapons have not protected her, the US arsenal didn't protect the US on 9/11 and Trident didn't help Britain on 7/7.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> No one wants to kill and no wants to kill on an atomic scale. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a result of a crude but necessary moral calculus - their use saved 500,000 lives at least.


That calculus only applies if Japan would not have surrendered prior to invasion and the evidence points to the fact that there was at least a chance of that. Diplomatic maneuvrings had been going on since early 1945.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gmac,

I think a case can be made for and against the use of atomic weapons against Japan. Its all speculation really. What can be said is that once they were used and their awesome destructive was realized the world has been reluctant to use them again. Perhaps had they not been used against Japan and had the world not seen the terrible consequences they might have been used at a later date with even more horrific consequences.

I think we were justified in using them but I can't take much issue with those who say we weren't. But if you wish to take that argument then dont excuse the RAF for Dresden either. British bombing towards the end of the war in Europe was fairly malicious, with little strategic value.

Karl


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> But if you wish to take that argument then do excuse the RAF for Dresden either. British bombing towards the end of the war in Europe was fairly malicious, with little strategic value.
> 
> Karl


No, not in any way, shape or form.


----------



## JoshuaHManning (Sep 21, 2005)

*Classic flaw on the Left*



gmac said:


> That calculus only applies if Japan would not have surrendered prior to invasion and the evidence points to the fact that there was at least a chance of that. Diplomatic maneuverings had been going on since early 1945.


Evidence-pointing-to-a-chance doesn't really seem quite substantive enough for me when hundreds of thousands of both American and Japanese lives hung in the balance.

My understanding is that while a few here and there disagree, the vast majority of scholars believe far more lives would have been lost during invasion (on the order of hundreds of thousands) than in the two nuclear strikes the US carried out.

Of course, there is always a chance that the other side will surrender through negotiation, but then there's also a chance of lots of things happening in this world that we all know from practicality never will.

And that's where people on the Left so often find themselves afoul of the real world: They don't process trade offs well:

A mere shadow of a chance that some lives would be saved (discounting the fanaticism that would have continued to drive many Japanese to their deaths and ours) is worth risking a great many more lives on both sides.

This flaw shows up in the Leftist arguments against the Iraq invasion also: The Left now condemns action (it once supported on the record) because nuclear weapons were not found (and this as they handily gloss over Lord Dulfer's damning report among others).

However, they conveniently ignore the price we'd have paid, had we not acted and had Iraq developed/deployed nuclear weapons (intentions made clear in the Iraq Survey Group's report) or deployed the WMD they did in reality have.

Simple cost/benefit analysis shows the price paid for inaction is surely higher than the price of the action we did take. The same is the case with the nuclear strikes on Japan.

IMHO . . .


----------



## JoshuaHManning (Sep 21, 2005)

*Another point*



gmac said:


> He seems to miss the irony of the world's largest hoarder of nuclear weapons, and the only nation to have used such weapons in anger, telling (certain) others how they must disarm.


gmac, I'm honestly not trying to pick at you (two posts in a row and all), but this one warrants a response too.

I only see as much irony in US demands for rogue states to disarm as I see in a police officer demanding that a dangerous person disarm.

Nobody likes the fact that the US polices the world (including the US), and it's a dirty job--bloody dangerous too--but if we don't do it, there truly isn't anyone else who can. (Witness NATO and the UN in the face of Kosovo.) No other nation can match American preponderance militarily or economically, so it is up to us to at least try to check rogue nations.

Disarm? I'd just as soon ask my local police to ditch their SWAT team.

Sincere regards,
JM


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

JM,

Good to have you as the newest member of the Coalition of the Reasonable.

Karl


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

gmac said:


> Exposed?
> 
> You mean you leapt to conclusions that were simply not supported by his comments.
> 
> I can tell you who is exposed.....


Kuznick is described in the site I linked with the following:

"American University Professor Peter Kuznick used his history course to blame the United States for the attacks and intimated that an American conspiracy was at work. Kuznick, who teaches a class on Oliver Stone's view of history, told his class, "this is very convenient, the Pentagon needs an enemy, and now they have one. Very convenient that such opportunistic things happen." Kuznick then turned the class over to a number of critics of the United States."

How is saying "very convenient, the Pentagon needs an enemy, and now they have one. Very convenient that such opportunistic things happen."
not indicative that one believes that the US was responsible for 9/11?

I did a simple google search on Kuznick and only found items that slanted to the left.

So he is an unbiased scholar/historian? Doesn't appear to be the case.


----------



## JoshuaHManning (Sep 21, 2005)

*Thanks*



Karl89 said:


> JM,
> 
> Good to have you as the newest member of the Coalition of the Reasonable.
> 
> Karl


Thanks for the welcome, Karl. The Coalition of the Reasonable: Sounds like my kind of group. Are you guys giving out laminated cards? It would go well with my Vast Right Wing Conspirator card. 

I've enjoyed the little scuffle here and your comments along with Wayfarer and JRR's among other.

I honestly rarely feel qualified to speak on the fashion or trad forums, but the interchange provides a nice way to interact with AAAC members in a less intimidating environment for me. 

Viva le Reagan!
JM


----------



## Srynerson (Aug 26, 2005)

Kav said:


> "Eisenhouwer, the best clerk I ever had." - General Douglas MacArthur. Ike for all his brilliance never saw combat. Real life experience's are credentials anyone; liberal, conservative or whatever your moniker should bring to any debate, even here Gmac.


Interesting then:



> While Eisenhower's outspoken displeasure with the Hiroshima decision is well-known among historians, perhaps more surprising is that Douglas MacArthur too refused to endorse the atomic bombings as militarily necessary.
> 
> While MacArthur is another figure who changed his public statements over time regarding wartime issues, he remained relatively consistent regarding the bomb. The diary of MacArthur's pilot, Weldon Rhoades, from August 7, 1945 states that "General MacArthur definitely is appalled and depressed by this Frankenstein monster [the bomb]." Herbert Hoover's diary regarding a May 1946 meeting with MacArthur states "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."
> 
> In a postwar interview with journalist Norman Cousins, MacArthur expressed the view that there was "no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier...if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor." (pp.350-352)


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

JoshuaHManning said:


> gmac, I'm honestly not trying to pick at you (two posts in a row and all), but this one warrants a response too.
> 
> I only see as much irony in US demands for rogue states to disarm as I see in a police officer demanding that a dangerous person disarm.
> 
> ...


Sigh.....

Joshua, nobody appointed the US as the world's policeman, the US rarely acts in that capacity and comparing yourselves to the good guy cop is a little dumb after youur most recent war of aggression in Iraq.

American "police actions" overseas have, on the whole, been a disaster or an obvious pretext for military intervention.

There are vast tracts of the globe (curiously, generally ones with no oil) where the US has taken little or no action in the face of man-caused humanitarian disaster. French troops have carried the burden in West Africa, NATO carries the burden in Kosovo and Canada has taken on the lead role in Afghanistan.

And just what do you plan to do with America's nuclear arsenal? Nuke Mecca? Tehran?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I have said this repeatedly and will continue to say it. It is my firm belief the US should not act as the World's cop. It drives my taxes up and people like gmac, Ward Churchill, and all fundie-islam will hate the US even more for it. I agree totally with gmac, withdraw each and every US armed serviced personell to US soil. Only send them out if the security of the US is in direct peril and/or to take control of oil fields if the region is unstable. Yes, that is right, elminate all pretenses about it, use the US armed forces to keep oil flowing. Hell, maybe even take control of Alberta tar sands!

The world spits on the US for "interfering" and then bitches when the US does not. Given that case, give the world what it claims to want, "freedom" from the US. As I have stated earlier, let the Euros deal with Iran.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Yes, that is right, elminate all pretenses about it, use the US armed forces to keep oil flowing. Hell, maybe even take control of Alberta tar sands!


There is a pretense about it now?

I imagine you will have heard of the last time the USA tried invading Canada? We don't want to burn the Whitehouse down again - but we will.......



Wayfarer said:


> The world spits on the US for "interfering" and then bitches when the US does not. Given that case, give the world what it claims to want, "freedom" from the US. As I have stated earlier, let the Euros deal with Iran.


That's right - let hurt feelings drive your foriegn policy!

International opinion does not support US adventurism based on clearly flawed evidence of "mounting threats".

US engagement in diplomatic and multinational military efforts to contain and deal with international threats is not only desireable but in many cases a prerequisite to success.

And, of course, the US, like any other nation, has the right to defend itself against external aggression. Like, for instance, if anyone tried to invade to take over a country's oil resources.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gmac said:


> US engagement in diplomatic and multinational military efforts to contain and deal with international threats is not only desireable but in many cases a prerequisite to success.


Ahhh, there we go folks. Use a little absurdity and even gmac will admit the US *is actually needed by the rest of the world.* However, of course, he wants it chained to the whims and desires of "multinational military efforts", i.e. the UN. So basically, the US is good enough to supply the muscle, might, machinery, and money, but it would be wrong for the US to employ it as it sees fit. No, in typical socialist fashion, the mighty must be chained by the meek.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> i.e. the UN. So basically, the US is good enough to supply the muscle, might, machinery, and money, but it would be wrong for the US to employ it as it sees fit.


Because, of course, any effort by the UN is really just the US doing all the heavy lifting? And the US has no influence in what direction those efforts might take?

Oh.

Of course,we've seen the success of US unilateral action (more or less) in Iraq. Hell of a job you've done there!

Mighty chained by the weak? I've got a hilarious image of you coming home from bandcamp and working out with one of those old fashioned chest expander things in front of the mirror, muttering "Wayfarer is mighty, Wayfarer is mighty! Gmac is weak!" before collapsing to the floor after catching your nipple in one of the springs.

You are indeed absurd.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gmac said:


> Mighty chained by the weak? I've got a hilarious image of you coming home from bandcamp and working out with one of those old fashioned chest expander things in front of the mirror, muttering "Wayfarer is mighty, Wayfarer is mighty! Gmac is weak!" before collapsing to the floor after catching your nipple in one of the springs.
> 
> You are indeed absurd.


So sad, so typcial. Again with the imaginary conversations in your head between us (bandcamp? your invention). And yet again, with the personal insults.

Please though, the thought of you even thinking about one of my nipples in some sort of clamp is, shall we say, a peak into your inner being none of us needs.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Which raises the point: Nipple clips — trad or fashion-forward?


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Which raises the point: Nipple clips - trad or fashion-forward?


Depends on whether they are sack or darted!


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

JRR said:


> I did a simple google search on Kuznick and only found items that slanted to the left.
> 
> So he is an unbiased scholar/historian? Doesn't appear to be the case.


But then you use a website that is slanted to the right to make your case against him?

Hard to find a neutral these days, huh?

Of course he is lefty - doesn't make him wrong about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Are you arguing that is _not_ convenient for the Pentagon for America to have a new bogey man? I think the pentagon and the neo-cons are absolutely thrilled about the opportunities afforded them by 9/11. Doesn't mean I think they did it or are happy about it.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

*Bad Faith Arguing*



gmac said:


> But then you use a website that is slanted to the right to make your case against him?
> 
> Hard to find a neutral these days, huh?
> 
> ...


Wow...seriously... I used his (Kuznick's) own words....

Also, the first article I linked was a left site, sympathetic to Kuznick!

https://www.thejerusalemfund.org/images/fortherecord.php?ID=55

https://www.thejerusalemfund.org/index.php

My argument with you revolves around how I merely asked for references to how new "scholarship" in the history field was leading to the conclusion that Japan could have been defeated without the atomic bomb. You provided a link to an article that promotes the views of Kuznick, who has a clearly left wing agenda, and no other links written by historians.

You want me to accept the views of Kuznick when he clearly has an axe to grind against the US Govt? How is that the basis for good historical research? When I studied history at University, interjecting goof ball theories such as Truman wanting to nuke Japan merely to kill Japanese citizens would not have received much respect.

So, please provide a link to an article, book, paper etc... that has a mainstream historian arguing that nuking Japan could have been avoided. That I would find most interesting.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

JRR, I'm not going to bother arguing with you as you have clearly decided that you won't even consider anything which does not fit into your world view. Prattling on about "leftists" who "have an axe to grind against the US govt" just makes you sound like some kind of McCarthyite worried about reds under the bed.

There are hundreds of historians/scholars who argue that nuking Japan was unnecesary - but I have a feeling you will just discount them all as leftists and commie lovers whose opinions aren't red, white and blue enough for you.

As such, I'm not going to bother citing them here. You'll find them if you chose to open your eyes.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gmac said:


> There are hundreds of historians/scholars who argue that nuking Japan was unnecesary - but I have a feeling you will just discount them all as leftists and commie lovers whose opinions aren't red, white and blue enough for you.
> 
> As such, I'm not going to bother citing them here. You'll find them if you chose to open your eyes.


JRR, what he is trying to say is, "Stop questioning me, drink the kool aide."


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> JRR, what he is trying to say is, "Stop questioning me, drink the kool aide."


Wrong again wayfarer - quelle surprise!

What I am saying is that I am not going to bother providing cites for someone who discounts them because they don't agree with what he wants to think.

Isn't it time for you to declare victory and head off to band camp? Or tell everyone what a "pimp slapping" you handed out to me today before decamping to the wine bar, doubtless located somewhere in 1987? (i know, I made that joke before - but its a good one!).


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gmac said:


> Wrong again wayfarer - quelle surprise!
> 
> What I am saying is that I am not going to bother providing cites for someone who discounts them because they don't agree with what he wants to think.
> 
> Isn't it time for you to declare victory and head off to band camp? Or tell everyone what a "pimp slapping" you handed out to me today before decamping to the wine bar, doubtless located somewhere in 1987? (i know, I made that joke before - but its a good one!).


Just please no more expression of your desire to see me in nipple clamps. Really creeps me out.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Just please no more expression of your desire to see me in nipple clamps. Really creeps me out.


As long as you promise not to tell us what you did with your flute last summer at band camp.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

gmac said:


> JRR, I'm not going to bother arguing with you as you have clearly decided that you won't even consider anything which does not fit into your world view. Prattling on about "leftists" who "have an axe to grind against the US govt" just makes you sound like some kind of McCarthyite worried about reds under the bed.
> 
> There are hundreds of historians/scholars who argue that nuking Japan was unnecesary - but I have a feeling you will just discount them all as leftists and commie lovers whose opinions aren't red, white and blue enough for you.
> 
> As such, I'm not going to bother citing them here. You'll find them if you chose to open your eyes.


Do you have any critical reasoning abilities at all?

Why the ad hom attack? Have I called you any names?

Do you think that there is no bias in Kuznick's work?

Why do you care so much that Kuznick's assertions must be taken at face value?

My schooling taught me to question people and to understand their biases.

I was actually interested in reading some of the new opinions on the use of the bomb to end WWII. You've skewered people in other fora for not using cites, so I figured, wrongly it appears, you had backup for the broad assertion you made that the bomb was not needed to end the war with Japan.

Hell, I don't even like Truman that much, I was just curious to see where you were coming from.


----------



## TheSaint (Jun 28, 2005)

*Entertaining*

Just when you thought things were starting to get a little boring on the Interchange. Great stuff gentlemen!!! All of you have given diverse points of view. Funny also. Laughed so hard, nearly fell out of my chair.

Cheers
TheSaint


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

I see more bias in your posts where you refuse to accept the academic work of Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington DC, because you happen to disagree with his political viewpoint. _That _demonstrates a serious lack of critical thinking ability.

I don't take his opinions at face value - nor do automatically discount them because some right wing website has decided he is anti-American. I read them and decide for myself. Try it.

But I'll provide a cite to letter from a number of scholars and historians who form the Historians' Committee for Open Debate on Hiroshima. The letter makes a number of clear points as to why the accepted version of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings needs to be challenged.


----------



## MER (Feb 5, 2006)

*Attack of the Strawmen*

It is frowned upon for historians to deal in conjecture and speculation which an argument about something as unknowable as what effect dropping the bomb versus not dropping the bomb would have had must deal in.

Knowing all that we know now was dropping the bomb necessary to end the war? Of course not. Knowing all that we know now one could come down either way on whether or not dropping the bomb was the right thing to do, however. A person who highly values the life of every human being friend or foe might say it was the wrong thing to do. A person who believes targeting civilians is always wrong would of course say it was the wrong thing to do. A person who has a very cold what-ever is best for America view of foreign policy would of course say it was the right thing to do. And then of course some people will jump ship one way or the other depending on whether you are talking about Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

The big problem was that yes there was a movement within Japan toward surrender, but who knows how successful it would have been and what time frame it would have moved in.

Dropping the bomb had several foreign policy advantages - kept Russia out of the war for the most part and the peace process leaving the US in charge of reconstructing Asia. Show of power, again to Russia and the rest of the world (whether this is an advantage or not depends on your view of the cold war and its development.)

Dropping the bomb had disadvantages which I don't think I have to list.

But if I knew only what Truman knew at the time, I personally would have found it difficult to come to any other decision.

As a side not, the bomb was not the only horrible thing the US did to Japan. It was a war after all. Look at the firebombing of Tokyo and other major cities. These were wooden cities. The first night 100K people were burned alive in Tokyo alone.

Now, about the current situation in Lebanon. I don't buy the idea floated by some that Iran or Syria directly ordered Hezzbollah to step up their activity at the border. While Hezzbollah willingly takes their money, I don't believe they would be so willing to take direction from them. Personally, I think it is more connected to the increased activity from Hamas recently. I think Hezzbollah has been trying to send the message that they are the true organization standing up to Israel and the ones you should send your money to. But they clearly did not anticipate Israel reacting the way they have.

Big mistake letting Hamas take part in the last election. According to the treaty terms any party which advocated violence was not allowed to take part. And fatah of course didn't want Hamas to take part because it meant giving up power. And Israel didn't want Hamas to take part because of Hamas's military wing and again because it meant the more secular fatah might have lost control. But we of course stuck our nose in and said Hamas had to take part because true democracy solves all the world's problems.

Oh and if you want some readings about the atomic bomb: John Hersey's Hiroshima; Gar Alperovitz's "The decision to use the Atomic Bomb" he is very against it. John Skates put out one about invading Japan, I don't remember the title; Doug Long put up a website with tons of information about why he thinks it was not necessary: www.doug-long.com. Personally, I haven't found one I really liked yet.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

*Thanks for the link*



gmac said:


> I see more bias in your posts where you refuse to accept the academic work of Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington DC, because you happen to disagree with his political viewpoint. _That _demonstrates a serious lack of critical thinking ability.
> 
> I don't take his opinions at face value - nor do automatically discount them because some right wing website has decided he is anti-American. I read them and decide for myself. Try it.
> 
> But I'll provide a cite to letter from a number of scholars and historians who form the Historians' Committee for Open Debate on Hiroshima. The letter makes a number of clear points as to why the accepted version of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings needs to be challenged.


Was that hard? Thanks for the citation/web link.

Still don't understand your complete support of Kuznick.

How am I biased when I sought stuff that was favorable to Kuznick? Remember the first link I provided was:

https://www.thejerusalemfund.org/images/fortherecord.php?ID=55

which is part of this site:

https://www.thejerusalemfund.org/index.php

Hardly a right wing site!


----------



## JoshuaHManning (Sep 21, 2005)

gmac said:


> Sigh.....
> 
> Joshua, nobody appointed the US as the world's policeman, the US rarely acts in that capacity and comparing yourselves to the good guy cop is a little dumb after youur most recent war of aggression in Iraq.


I don't remember arguing that the US was "appointed" the world's cop. I did say that no one else could do the job, and that is still an accurate statement. As for portraying the US as "the good guy cop" when compared to Iraq, that isn't an especially hard--or to use your lingo "dumb"--comparison. Let's see, we don't use chemical weapons on our own citizens or tree-chipper them. In fact, the worst we do to our captured enemies (as you kindly pointed out earlier) is induce fear of harm. I think it's pretty safe to say that we're the good guys here.

To argue moral equivilance (which I'm not sure, but suspect, you're doing) might be an indication of a massive blind spot or failure to comprehend basic differences between acceptable human behavior and despotic torture. Against those failures, alas! arguments cannot sway.



gmac said:


> American "police actions" overseas have, on the whole, been a disaster or an obvious pretext for military intervention.


I would then ask why it is that even despots like Kim Jong Il want US power in their regions. The answer: we provide stability that no one else can. The same thing that the police provide.



gmac said:


> There are vast tracts of the globe (curiously, generally ones with no oil) where the US has taken little or no action in the face of man-caused humanitarian disaster.


Hmmm, like Afghanistan, Haiti, and Kosovo? (This of course doesn't even touch on US humanitarian and financial aid or perhaps more importantly US foreign direct investment into fledgling economies.



gmac said:


> French troops have carried the burden in West Africa, NATO carries the burden in Kosovo


I can't speak to West Africa, but I do know that <90% of the ordinance dropped in Kosovo was US made and <95% were launched from US platforms whether air or or sea based. NATO wanted to act, but couldn't do so without the US. And that is simply the situation that exists in the world today.

Nobody in the US asked for this, but like it or not we seem to be in what Joseph Lieber called The American Era.



gmac said:


> and Canada has taken on the lead role in Afghanistan.


But it was the US that actually took the Taliban down there, and it's doubtful that anyone else could have without our help. I'm glad Canada is working to keep the peace there, and I certainly won't object to it. I doubt, however, if Canada could have dislodged the Taliban.

Regardless, my point isn't necessarily that the US SHOULD be the policeman, but simply that it has happened because of an American preponderance that even two generations ago would have been unimaginable.

There are many on my side of the table, like Wayfarer, who think we should withdraw and protect only specific national interest. I respect that point of view, but I also tend to think more in neo-con terms.



gmac said:


> And just what do you plan to do with America's nuclear arsenal? Nuke Mecca? Tehran?


Not especially, but I would ask you a couple of questions that I'd like direct answers to:

1) If the US and rest of the West were to implement nuclear disarmament, do you think that would stop Islamists and rogue states from trying to acquire nuclear technology?

2) Is it in the best interest of the world to have the most dangerous weapons ever created in the hands of fundamentalists if no such counter-balance exists in the hands of free democracies?

3) (And this is just for my own curiosity) Would you prefer no one policing the world (anarchy) or an international governmental organization (UN) keeping the peace?

I hope this has been cogent. I had dental work done today and learned two things: First, having a beautiful dental assistant working on one helps to ameliorate the pain. Second, hydrocodone is such a wonderful invention (and I'm betting some company is making a killing off of it, and you know what: I approve!)


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

GMAC, what do we know of you? Most of the members by design or casual participation have created, for better or worse personas in the forum. A few of us, like Karl 89 and myself have extended mutual respect and friendship inspite of some rather pointed exchanges. But again, what of you? We know you are a brit expatriate landed immigrant in Canada. We also know you are a member in the respected group Amnesty International. And finally, consensus seems to be you have a mouth. Not much to flesh out is there? But let me point something out to you based on your meager file. Article 1 of Amnesty International mentions " Freedom of conscious and expression," Article 2 mentions "mutual respect." and finally, Article 44 provides for expulsion for individuals,and groups who violate the first 3 articles. I do so weary of my own political fellow travellers spasmodically breaking into sporadic goosesteps.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

JRR said:


> Do you agree with Kuznick's assertion that 9/11 was orchestrated by the US Govt?


When you draw faulty conclusions from incomplete quotes found on a right wing slander page and then follow it up with:



JRR said:


> And a simple google search exposed the subject of the article you linked.


Pretty straightforward - you linked to the Jerusalem Fund page to criticize his "agenda" and then "exposed" his "bias" via a site whose sole purpose is to intimidate academics who do not follow their right wing credo.

I'd say some bias has been exposed - not sure it is Kuznick's....


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Kav said:


> Article 1 of Amnesty International mentions " Freedom of conscious and expression," Article 2 mentions "mutual respect." and finally, Article 44 provides for expulsion for individuals,and groups who violate the first 3 articles. I do so weary of my own political fellow travellers spasmodically breaking into sporadic goosesteps.


Well, I'm sure Amnesty will be happy to consider any evidence you may wish to provide them of my alleged transgressions of their rules, although you may wish to do better the suggesting I "have a mouth".

Otherwise, fire away.

I guess I don't have to tell you out loud exactly how much I care about what you think of the "persona" I have created on AAAC.....


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

No, I guess you don't. But have a care less someday you wake up to the world caring equally as little for you as you desperately try to figure out how such a smart littleman could paint himself into a dark, mean little corner.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

If only more diplomats would master GMAC's gentle and soothing way of turning a phrase there would be peace on Earth, the birds would sing, the sun would shine....

LOL.

Hey Kav - my offer still stands - we are still offering up a guest room in the liberal for conservative exchange program Texas has going with California. Not sure if we'd solve the world's problems but at least the Bourbon and cigar surplus would be fixed in short order out back by the koi pond.

PS> In Gmac's defense, we have had good natured exchanges after my crack about how he likes to wear mommy's clothes on the Kilt thread... 

PPS> Gmac, this post is one by a fellow member who finds it difficult to control his impish wit on the interchange, not a moderator. You may pound away at me at will and I won't take offense. Nothing worse than the attack and delete moderator.


----------



## dopey (Jan 17, 2005)

*Proportionality and Moral Equivalence*


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Dopey,

The final word (or picture) is yours - well done. 

Karl


----------

