# Iran, anyone?



## lawschool82 (Oct 29, 2005)

It seems as though our friends in Iran are serious about their desire to enrich uranium, although they claim that they have no intention of using the technology to manufacture nuclear weapons. I was wondering what people thought about 3 questions:

(1) Do you think Iran intends to manufacture nuclear weapons;

(2) Can Israel wait for the rest of the world, or should they act pre-emptively; and

(3) How does the Iraq intelligence fiasco affect the Iran situation?
Thanks.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

lawschool82,

I started a smiliar thread a few months ago. I think you will be surprised by how many people don't take the Iranian threat seriously and how many are quite content to live with a nuclear Iran. Be prepared to be lectured on how American policy is responsible for terrorism (rather than sponors like Iran and Syria), the idiocy of George Bush and the superior diplomatic skills of Europeans. I do think the Iranian leadership wants nuclear weapons and I think there are no good options. As John McCain has said the only option worse than using military force is Iran having nuclear weapons. Lets ratchet up the diplomatic pressure, lets see if the UN will impose sanctions but lets also be prepared to use force as a last resort.

I think Christopher Hitchens had a fantastic suggestion - Bush should go to Iran ala Nixon to China, and offer the Iranians a deal that would offer them incentives to not develop nuclear weapons. If they don't respond to such a gesture then prepare to take out their nuclear capability. Unfortunately I doubt Bush would do something so dramatic and the only saving grace is that there won't be a bad opera about his Iranian gambit, unlike Nixon in China.

Karl


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

1.) I think so.

2.) If you mean should Israel nuke Iran preemptively, it would be the end of Israel and possibly the end of the world.

3.) Hopefully the burden of proof will be greater this time.

I really don't see what gives the United States the moral right to dictate which nations are allowed to have nukes. I also don't see that the U.S. could effectively do this anyway, since we certainly never wanted the Soviet Union to have nukes and in fact probably did not want any nation other than the United States to have nukes -- and guess what, we couldn't control access to nuclear weapons then and we can't control it now. My instinct is that Iran wants nukes as a defense, because we would be far less likely to attack if they had the capability to vaporize New York. I would imagine the Iranian leaders understand that if they pushed the button first, they would be unlikely to have the upper hand for more than a few minutes, so I doubt their motive is to initiate a nuclear war.


----------



## lawschool82 (Oct 29, 2005)

I did not clearly state question 2. I actually meant to ask if Israel should launch strikes to take out Iran's nuclear capacity.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

1) Yes
2) No (And this is why having a nuclear Israel is a mistake in my view. Everyone knows they have our backing, why do we need them to have them? That only makes Iran want them more.)
3) Not at all. IMHO.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by lawschool82_
> 
> I did not clearly state question 2. I actually meant to ask if Israel should launch strikes to take out Iran's nuclear capacity.


If they try it, I hope their spies are better than ours were. I don't think there would be a lot of support around the world if they tried and missed.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

crs,

Your statement is beyond comment - almost. I guess you really did want Gus Hall in the White House. lawschool82, see what I mean? The US according to crs has no moral right to dictate which nations have nuclear weapons, even if some nations are dedicated to the destruction of an ally. crs, Iran may or may not decide to use nuclear weapons but by possessing nuclear weapons they will have the leverage to dictate the course of events in the Middle East. I suppose this doesn't trouble you either. I will give you the supreme benefit of the doubt and assume you are naive. Its very dubious as to whether your view is seriously grounded in classic deterrence theory (though I suppose I could give you the benefit of the doubt again) but deterrence only works with rational actors and MAD assumes a grisly logic that can easily come undone. Reagan and Gorbachev abandonned MAD and Flexible Response (the INF Treaty of 1987 is the fruit of this vision) nearly twenty years ago. MAD may work with North Korea but not Iran. 

Karl


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Karl, have we ever prevented any nation from developing nuclear weapons? I think it is fantasy to believe we can.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> 
> Karl, have we ever prevented any nation from developing nuclear weapons? I think it is fantasy to believe we can.


israel prevented iraq from getting nuclear weapons.


----------



## lawschool82 (Oct 29, 2005)

Regardless of whether or not we can prevent a nation from acquiring nuclear weapons, the broader question seems to be how to handle a nuclear Iran. Iran is a sponsor of terror (no dispute about that), and they are vitriolic in their hatred of Israel. Is it responsible to sit around and talk about the problem like the UN will certainly do for several years, or should there be some sort of action (whatever it may be) to address the situation? I do not mean to imply that I support action over diplomatic efforts.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

crs,

Yes we have. South Africa gave up its nuclear program in the late 1970's bc of enormous pressure. Libya agreed to stop pursuing nuclear weapons in 2003. The Israeli Air Force took out the Iraqi program at Osirak in 1981. At various times during the last thirty years the ROC, South Korea, Brazil, Argentina and Algeria have all considered developing nuclear weapons but US and international pressure has led to the abandonment of nuclear ambitions by those countries. Either we are serious about non-proliferation or not. 

Karl


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My understanding is that Israel destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 but that Iraq did not abandon nuclear capability until 10 years later.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> 
> My instinct is that Iran wants nukes as a defense, because we would be far less likely to attack if they had the capability to vaporize New York. I would imagine the Iranian leaders understand that if they pushed the button first, they would be unlikely to have the upper hand for more than a few minutes, so I doubt their motive is to initiate a nuclear war.


No offense, but I prefer not to be depending on your _instincts_ bracketed by your _imagination and doubt _ for my survival. They don't seem so good to me. I'm sure you wouldn't depend on mine. Would you?

Facts out of Iran predict as soon as they have a functional bomb it's headed straight for Israel, not NY. We would be dragged in, in the next 5 minutes. Why not prevent that happening IF we can?

Do you really believe the Iranian leadership is scared of retaliation? If so, then you must think the Iranian leadership is lying when they say they aren't. When they say they will all die to destroy Israel in a nuclear flame they are just BS-ing us all?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

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


We used diplomacy and threat of economic sanctions to convince some nations not to pursue that path. I don't think it would accurate to say we prevented them from doing so.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> When they say they will all die to destroy Israel in a nuclear flame they are just BS-ing us all?


Yeah, I do. We see a lot of "martyrs" in the Middle East, but we don't see the leaders volunteering for that role.


----------



## lawschool82 (Oct 29, 2005)

Crs, you are sounding a bit like President Clinton, for whom I do have respect. You say convince; I say prevent.

This thread is red hot!!


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by lawschool82_
> 
> Crs, you are sounding a bit like President Clinton, for whom I do have respect. You say convince; I say prevent.
> 
> This thread is red hot!!


OK, you guessed. Monica, don't stop while I'm typing.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

lawschool82,

We do have some time before Iran develops nukes. We need the Europeans to get serious about sanctions, so far they have not been willing to go that far. We need to promote reformers and liberalizers in Iran. The Iranian people, many who live in extreme poverty, desire decent lives, not nuclear weapons or the destruction of Israel. We need to get the UN's blessing (even if means threatening the PRC and Russia with tariffs and technology embargos) and we need to plan for a strike and gather intelligence. Let us exhaust every diplomatic option, lets us pressure, cajole and arm twist the UN Security Council members to impose sanctions on Iran. But let us realize that in the end we may have to use force to prevent the Iranians from developing nukes. Israel should refrain from using force unless the international community and the US refuse to prevent a nuclear Iran. But in practical matters, short of using nuclear weapons themselves (which I cannot imagine under ANY circumstance), Israel lacks the force projection capability that is required to disrupt the Iranian nuclear program. This is a very bad situation - the question is which bad option do we pursue. 

Karl


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

" I don't have to wipe out everybody, just my enemies.'- Michael Corleone


----------



## lawschool82 (Oct 29, 2005)

Crs, a great reply!

I think a lot is made of the young Iranian population that apparently desires a more "Western" style of government, but there is a lot of political inertia in Iran behind the past and present leadership, which will be incredibly difficult to overcome. When you control the elections, it makes "revolution" fairly tough.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, in that case, I respect your opinion. However, if that's your true feelings, I think you should put yourself on the hot seat and take the next plane to Iran.

You can meet with their leadership and either change your own mind about their intentions or you can change their mind and prevent World War 3.5


----------



## lawschool82 (Oct 29, 2005)

I do fear that the US may begin to sound like Scarface. "F*** the Taliban Afghan gov't (we were correct to invade); f*** Saddham's Iraqi gov't; and f*** the f***'in Iranian gov't."


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

crs,

Please lets not play semantics. You seem to lack a very basic understanding of the current Iranian leadership. Also if Iran does develop nuclear weapons it is unlikely they will possess the delivery capability to hit CONUS. The more likely scenarios for the use of Iranian nuclear weapons are 1) against Israel, 2) against US interests or assets in the region such as a Carrier Battle Group in the Persian Gulf or 3) used by proxy terrorists against US interests. In the third scenario Iran through the use of proxies could smuggle a nuclear weapon into CONUS and inflict damage that way. I think you need a better grasp of the problem before you start suggesting policy.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> crs,
> 
> Please lets not play semantics. You seem to lack a very basic understanding of the current Iranian leadership. Also if Iran does develop nuclear weapons it is unlikely they will possess the delivery capability to hit CONUS. The more likely scenarios for the use of Iranian nuclear weapons are 1) against Israel, 2) against US interests or assets in the region such as a Carrier Battle Group in the Persian Gulf or 3) used by proxy terrorists against US interests. In the third scenario Iran through the use of proxies could smuggle a nuclear weapon into CONUS and inflict damage that way. I think you need a better grasp of the problem before you start suggesting policy.


Karl, you said what had to be. And so nicely.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> crs,
> 
> Please lets not play semantics. You seem to lack a very basic understanding of the current Iranian leadership. Also if Iran does develop nuclear weapons it is unlikely they will possess the delivery capability to hit CONUS. The more likely scenarios for the use of Iranian nuclear weapons are 1) against Israel, 2) against US interests or assets in the region such as a Carrier Battle Group in the Persian Gulf or 3) used by proxy terrorists against US interests. In the third scenario Iran through the use of proxies could smuggle a nuclear weapon into CONUS and inflict damage that way. I think you need a better grasp of the problem before you start suggesting policy.


Karl, we have a difference of opinion. You may be a military strategist, you may be a nutcase in a compound in Idaho. This is the Internet. You may or may not have a better grasp of the situation than I do. But you said in your initial post that many people feel differently than you do, so I think you ought to drop the condescending tone.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

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


What is beyond comment here is your pomposity. Just who are you to give anyone the benefit of the doubt? You set yourself up as some kind of authority, yet you apparently subscribe to the repugnant and woefully outmoded theory of moral right accruing to the biggest gorilla in the room.

Spend a little less time regurgitating old political theories, which you seem to understand only superficially anyway, and a little more studying vocabulary, particularly words like "hubris".


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Rip,

Want to discuss nuclear weapons policy and deterrence theory or do you want to misuse the one word you know in Attic Greek?

Karl


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

This is Iran we are talking about, not Panama. Go to any bookstore and look at the Penquin classics. You won't find many panamanian titles, but Persia will figure prominently in more than a few.A nation with that much history and acumulated pride ( and deservedly so)maybe, just maybe has another reason to possess the football besides nuking Israel.Look at a map.Afghanistan, in many ways a rough country cousin in culture with ancient ties is partially occupied by the US. Iraq, a former client state of the US who waged a horrific war against Iran is again, partially occupied by the US.If an enemy takes out the very pitbull he once sicced on you wouldn't you be nervous? Pakistan, India, Israel possess the bomb.I guarantee if the Pahlevi's were still sitting on the Peacock throne today, Iran would be working toward the bomb. Nations do things for sometimes overlooked reasons. After all, didn't a world leader cook up a war because a former client " tried to kill my daddy?" Iran is merely 'keeping up with the Jones's' and it may prove to be as much a bluff as the leased Mercedes their food stamp nieghbors have unwisely invested in. We have so many of the damned things It seems the best solution is to give EVERYBODY a nuke or two.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

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


You make my point for me so well.

Train your eye! Then train your brain to trust your eye.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> It seems the best solution is to give EVERYBODY a nuke or two.


I'll take two, please. [}]


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Another nice summation by the chaps at Stratfor:

Idealism, Realism and U.S. Foreign Policy

By George Friedman

Iran says it has enriched uranium. Hosni Mubarak is claiming that Shia in Sunni states are traitors to their countries. The French are in political and economic gridlock. With all these urgent things going on, it seems to us that it is time to talk of something important, something that has driven and divided American politics for centuries and will continue to do so: the argument between those who have been called idealists and those who have been labeled realists in U.S. foreign policy.

When the United States was in its infancy, France experienced a revolution that was in many ways similar to the American Revolution. Some Americans wanted to support the French revolutionaries, arguing that the United States had to pursue its moral ideals and stand by its moral partner. Others pointed out that the American economy was heavily dependent on Britain, the major market for American goods. Moreover, the young country relied on its ability to send exports to Europe, and the waters were controlled by Britain. Whatever moral inclinations the Americans might have had toward France, prudence required that they not take on Britain. The idealists tried to frame their arguments strategically and the realists tried to create a moral cast for their argument, but the problem, in the end, was simple: America's survival depended on not alienating a country that was everything the colonists had fought against.

This argument has constantly torn apart American thinking about foreign policy. Consider this example from the more recent past: In World War II, the United States was allied with the Soviet Union, which was ruled by a genocidal maniac, Josef Stalin. At the time that the United States allied with Stalin, Adolf Hitler was only beginning to climb into Stalin's class of killer. There were those who argued that the alliance with Stalin was a betrayal of every principle Americans stood for. Others, like Franklin Roosevelt, recognized that unless the United States allied with Stalin, Hitler likely would win the war. Those who opposed an alliance with Stalin based on moral ideals certainly had an excellent point -- but those who argued that, apart from an alliance with the devil, the Republic might not survive, also had an excellent point.

Consider a final example. In 1972, the United States appeared to be a declining power. It was losing the war in Vietnam, and its position globally appeared to be deteriorating. The Soviet Union had split from China years before, and their confrontation along their frontier had, on occasion, been bloody. War was possible. Richard Nixon created an entente with the Chinese that was designed to encircle the Soviet Union. In retrospect, the strategy worked. However, in establishing relations with Mao's China, the United States once again aligned itself with a murderous regime. The alternative was an unstoppable Soviet regime.

In each of these cases, the United States confronted this dilemma. On one side was the argument that unless the United States stood for its moral ideals, it would survive but lose its soul. Siding with Britain, Stalin or Mao might have been prudent, but it was a shallow prudence that would eliminate the raison d'etre for the American regime. On the other side was the argument that there could be no moral regime unless there was a regime. The United States did not have the strength to resist, on its own, Britain, Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Without such questionable allies, the moral project would be impossible because the United States either would not survive, or would survive as a spent force.

It is important to note that these arguments cut across political and even ideological grounds. In 1972, people on the left celebrated Nixon's alliance with Mao, and it was the right wing that raised moral doubts. Of course, many on the right supported Nixon and some on the left, not taken by the romance of Maoism, were appalled at the alignment. Similarly, it was the left in World War II that wanted an alliance with the Soviets, and Winston Churchill -- far from a leftist -- stood with them. In other words, the debate has never been an ideologically coherent argument. It has been all over the place.

The current incarnation of this argument concerns the U.S.-jihadist war, and the ideological complexity shows itself quickly.

There are two flavors of idealists here. First, there are those who argue that in waging its war against the jihadists, the United States should never do anything that would violate basic principles of human rights -- and that it should avoid alliances with states that are themselves oppressive. So, for example, some argue that working closely with Saudi Arabia, a kingdom they regard as antithetical to American moral standards, is unacceptable.

There are also those who argue that the primary reason for going to war in the Middle East is to create democracies there. There are two sorts of idealists here. There are the neoconservatives -- some of whom sincerely believe the prodemocracy argument, and others who have adopted it as a justification for military campaigns they supported for other reasons. But alongside the neoconservatives, there are liberals who argue that the protection of "human rights" -- often used interchangeably with "democracy" -- should be the primary justification for any war. Recall liberal support for the Kosovo war as an example.

On the other side of the rhetorical divide are those who make two arguments. The first is that -- as in the historical cases involving Britain, the Soviet Union and China -- the practical reality is that the United States must always work with allies when fighting in the Eastern Hemisphere, and that those allies frequently will be morally repugnant to Americans. In other words, whatever you may think of the Saudis' view of women, an alliance with Saudi Arabia has been indispensable for fighting the war against al Qaeda, regardless of whether the later Iraq campaign was justified. In other words, the argument for alliance in the past remains valid today.

This is extended to the argument that the United States should have as its goal the creation of democracy in the Middle East. The counterargument goes like this: Democracy in the Middle East may be, in some moral sense, a good idea, but American power -- though enormous -- is not infinite. The jihadists in Iraq and elsewhere have not been crushed, and the United States needs regional allies. The Americans, the logic goes, cannot simultaneously seek alliance and try to overthrow regimes.

The idealist argument -- that a country that pursues only its physical and economic security will lose its moral foundation -- is not a frivolous argument. At a certain point, the pursuit of security requires the pursuit of power, and the pursuit of power is corrupting. At the same time, pursuing justice without a sufficiently large sword will get you whipped. And staying out of the fight does not mean that the fight won't come to you. The American moral project can be lost in two ways: through opportunistic corruption or through annihilation.

Politicians do not have the luxury of contemplating the paradox of being. They must make decisions, and inaction is very much a decision. George Washington decided that safety trumped political principle and broadly steered clear of the French revolutionary regime. Franklin Roosevelt saw the path to preserving democracy through alliance with Stalin. Nixon swallowed political principle by flying to Beijing. In retrospect, it is very difficult to see how any of them could have chosen differently. A doctrine emerges in looking at these three examples: the pursuit of political principles is possible only when one is willing to look at the long term; the near term requires ruthless and unsentimental compromise.

Had the idealist demand that the United States never work with oppressive nations been honored, Hitler well might have won World War II. The pursuit of democracy that forces the United States beyond its military and political resources ultimately will weaken democracy. Moral demands that are not rooted in political and military reality achieve the opposite of the desired end. But the realist position also has its weakness. Sometimes being ruthless becomes an end in itself. Sometimes the defense of the national interest becomes a justification for defending one's own interest.

These are not simple matters but, as noted, politicians do not have time to contemplate them for very long. Their natural inclination is to act, and the action they gravitate toward is the pursuit of power. It is interesting to note that the president most often associated with the pursuit of human rights, Abraham Lincoln, was -- in the course of its pursuit -- a ruthless violator of those rights. No one violated constitutional protections more systematically than Lincoln, and no one was more dedicated to those protections. The paradox, however, is simply solved: The path from Point A to Point B is almost never a straight line. Anyone who heads in a straight line will fail. This is a lesson that is equally applicable to the neoconservatives and Amnesty International.

This discussion becomes important now because the United States is pirouetting between factions in the Islamic world. The United States won World War II by pragmatically taking advantage of the totalitarian states and allying with Stalin. The United States won the Cold War by taking advantage of a split between Communist states and allying with China. And viewed from a high level, the United States is in the process of trying to win the jihadist war by taking advantage of the split between Sunnis and Shia and allying with Iran.

There are excellent moral arguments in favor of fighting a war to bring democracy to Iraq. There are excellent moral arguments for never having gotten involved in Iraq in the first place. There are excellent moral arguments for not having gotten into Desert Storm -- against having based troops in Saudi Arabia and getting al Qaeda furious at the United States in the first place. From all directions, the world is filled with outstanding moral arguments, and they have their place.

But first there is the reality that exists now. The United States has too many enemies and too few forces through which to impose its will. As in World War II and the Cold War, splitting the enemy is a practical imperative that precedes all moral imperatives. In this case, that means playing off the various factions within the Muslim world and making the best deal possible with one power or another. In any deal, the United States will wind up allied with someone that the Americans disapprove of, much as their future ally will disapprove of them.

The United States may well wind up making a deal with Iran over Iraq. Alternatively, a Sunni coalition led by Saudi Arabia might give Washington the opportunity to negotiate with the Baathist guerrillas in the Sunni Triangle. Whichever path is followed, it will be condemned by both left and right for dozens of excellent moral reasons.

Bush has been pursuing the path of pragmatism, however clumsily or adroitly, for months now. He will make a deal with someone because going it alone is not an option. The current situation in Iraq cannot be sustained, and all presidents ultimately respond to reality. Bush might have to eat some words about democracy and the United States' commitment thereto, but if Roosevelt could speak of the Four Freedoms while working with Josef Stalin, all things are possible.


> quote:


********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by BertieW_
> 
> Another nice summation by the chaps at Stratfor:


 Beautifully written. Thanks for posting it.

1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) Poorly.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

Why don't the politicians themselves ever explain it that way?


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

If I ever hear the words "moral right" again, I have to vomit. Bomb the whole sh**hole to ashes and the world will be a better place.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> " I don't have to wipe out everybody, just my enemies.'


I didn't think that we would ever agree on this topic. Very good.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> I guarantee if the Pahlevi's were still sitting on the Peacock throne today, Iran would be working toward the bomb.


Nobody would object that (at least not me). It's about the terrorist-sponsoring mullahs.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

Unfortunately, for reasons that are hard to undrstand, there are a couple of currents in the US that make any action on our part appear to be futile.

1. Antisemitism. In the academic NE, there is a strong belief among the intellectual elite that all of the middle east problems would go away if we would just stop supporting Israel. 

Not too long ago, Rep Cynthia Mc Kinney (yes, that one) had a fund raiser here that was well attended by the liberal elite. Her purpose was to raise money to fight against our support of Israel.

Later, she went on the floor of Congress (guess she didn't have to punch out a police officer to get in that day) to read into the Congressional Record that the President obviously knew about 9-11 in advance and allowed it to happen.

2. The party out of power is trying to regain power be reliving Viet Nam and rallying support for us to cut and run in the Middle East. Their constant drum beat is beginning to have an effect. The NY Times almost gleefully reports casualties.

This has not only eroded our will to do much in the face of a Nuclear Iran, but is making the point in the Middle East that if they will just wait George Bush out, you will again see American helicopters pulling us out of there and leaving the Iraqis to their fate.

Under the Carter Administration, Z Big did what was suggested earlier, and had a pleasant chat with the Iranians about how we just wanted to be friends and offer support to them. There response was to take over the American Embassy, and hold the people inside as hostages, until the day Carter was replaced as President by someone that they thought just might be nuts enough to get tough with them.

One of the liberal elite that I mentioned made a comment like one voiced above, to me at a cockltail party, as in" what right do we have to dictate who has nuclear weapons? "Since I can't reason with people like that I just moved on.

However, " for evil men to succeed, the only thing necessary, is for good men to do nothing". Same conversation in 1940..."What right do we have to keep Hitler from murdering train loads of Jews?"

Not any good news that seems apparent..............


Carpe Diem


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


taking out the reactor put the iraqi program back almost uncurably. several iraqi nuclear scientists had unexplained "accidents" - if having a few 9mm slugs run through your brain can be discribed as an accident. sevaral europeans who were working with iraq on the program met with similar accidents. a number of very important peices of capital equipment, mostly centerfuges, were destroyed on their way to iraq. between these activies, which were all together relatively low in cost of life (maybe two dozen people, all involved in the nuclear program, lost their lives) the iraqis had to close down their program.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

_If only _ we had the "guts" for a Mossad in this country.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I have been saying this for months, the US is damned if it does and damned if it does not over Iran. It is my firm belief the very people that would damn Dubya for any military action in Iran will also be the very same people that would cry, "Why didn't Dubya do ANYTHING??" if Iran were to go nuclear and manage to bomb the US or an ally. However, Dubya will be long gone from office by the time Iran has a nuke.

That being said, I'll re-state that I think the Euros should be left to deal with Iran.

Either that, or let the US actually help every country become nuclear as was suggested. I feel if one assumes humanity in general does not have moral authority to prevent nuclear proliferation, it is a small leap to decide we have a moral obligation to help spread the technology.

Warmest regards


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Do the Mullahs or Iran sponsor terrorists? Probably yes. But given our own human rights violations in Central and South America with School of the Americas trained 'interogators'and supporting regimes with human rights violations and an utter lack of any semblence of democracy or even open societies: This argument is as specious as a certain Police inspector stating "I'm shocked, shocked to find gambling in this establishment."


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Kav,

The Iranians "probably" sponsor terrorism? Does 1 + 1 probably equal two? And bc the US isn't perfect and bc we don't have a spotless record it now means that we can never take action and that countries like Iran are now our moral equals? I have no clue what you stand for but that seems par for the course. 

Karl


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Actually, sometimes 1+1 = 11.It's all a matter of perspective isn't it? Mine is simple, I have a limit to my personal hypocrisy and that of my culture and nation.I'm hardly 'Chesty ' Puller, but my military service witnessed some sad moments under the stars and stripes. I've known men and women who are considered terrorists by others. And I've known people raped, tortured and murdered by terrorists. When american catholic nuns are raped and murdered by graduates of the School of the Americas I can hardly fear attack by a hypothetical nuclear devise in Iran more so than the potential threat to my safety and liberties here by elements of my own society and government. People who draw lines in the sand should clear it from their own eyes first.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Kav,

Just one question - if Iran acquires nukes and uses them, who will you blame - the Iranians or their victims? Your crude moral calculus - we are no better, we have done bad things - leads to an intellectual dead end. No one is saying the US is perfect or is without sin but if you really think that the US and Iran are moral equals then I am afraid you are long gone my friend.

Karl


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Actually, persian and american culture have many systems of morallity and social conduct. We also share immorallity. But morallity, immorallity and amorallity have little impact on the machinations of nation states. So by all means lets just nuke the greasy rugheads and leave that area a radioactive wasteland as a warning to North Korea and Venezuela. Of course we have a million odd iranians here in the USA. But we can reopen Manzanar or expand Gitmo by finishing off that irritant Fidel once and for all. Rumour has it he threatened Bush's mom. It will make oil acquisition a more difficult proposition, what with wind drift and all. I can't begin to tell you how pleased I am paying $3.00+ a gallon for that secure oil flowing out of Iraq. But of course like Hitler's wunder weapons Bush promised marvelous technological breakthroughs in alternate energy in his last state of the union.So, Who would I blame if the Mullahs manage to build a bomb, manage to deliver it and the massive retaliation leaves a functioning world? The british. We toppled a legitimate. democratically elected iranian leader at their request. Nuke em all. let your god sort them out. Do it now! HURRY! Do it!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> I can't begin to tell you how pleased I am paying $3.00+ a gallon for that secure oil flowing out of Iraq.


It was much more than that when I left Canada to live in the US. You actually should be happy.



> quote:
> But of course like Hitler's wunder weapons Bush promised marvelous technological breakthroughs in alternate energy in his last state of the union.


Extra points for a creative Bush/Hitle juxtaposition!

Warmest regards


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Kav,

I think you should contact the VA for a mental health evaluation. In your words - do it now! Hurry! Do it!

Karl


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

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


Why is it necessary to be such a troll? From reading your comments, I'd say you're the most likely candidate on this entire board to be posting from a mental institution, and it's highly unlikely you are occupied on visiting day.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Crs,

Call me crazy (though I think you just did) but when someone suggests nuking everyone and letting God sort them out, in addition to contemplating driving a car into a federal building (as Kav has done in the past) I come to the conclusion that they are either so drenched in sarcasm and cynicism that their judgement is impaired or that they need some more serious help. If being concerned about Iran's impending development of nuclear weapons and having little patience for those who are flip about the issue makes me a troll then flame on Sir! 

Karl


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

My interest in Iran would be to get over to Isfahan and learn all I can about their rugs.

M8


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The serendipity purchase of an Isfahan financed my grad school.It started a long interest in the nation and one all to brief visit.As with all cultures some aspects of iranian society are beautifull while others leave me cold.But on balance I find Persia worth fighting FOR, not AGAINST. As for garritrooper Napoleons who excuse themselves from real world experiences with trick knees etc while exhorting the call to boots and saddles I have nothing but utter disdain.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Kav,

I don't excuse myself from anything. I was unable to pass the APFT after a serious knee injury. The Lt. Col. in charge of my ROTC program at the time didn't think I was gutless even if you do. Had they been willing to accept me otherwise, I would have served. But if the Spartan analogy makes it easier for you to dismiss my opinion than so be it. Secondly, I make no call to "boots and saddles" other than the preparation of a military option if all other efforts fail to disuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons. I think the Iranian people and culture are worth fighting for as well but I am not resigned to, nor am I willing to accept a nuclear Iran. You may be willing to sacrifice Tel Aviv but I and my Israeli friends are not. If you want to take cheap shots at me be my guest but just remember I am not the one who advocates handing out nuclear weapons like so much Halloween candy nor have I publically (or privately for that matter)pondered violence against a federal building. Anytime you are serious about discussing US Iranian policy or non-proliferation issues let me know.

Without disdain,

Karl


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps Iran should have nuclear weapons. After all, they are reasonable, right?



Karl


----------



## Jimmy G (Mar 23, 2006)

Yep, attack America with nukes the ayatollahs will. Much the same way Saddam was going to " secretly " anchor a barge - off the coast of Greenland - from which he was going to launch unmanned drones carrying bio/chemical agents with a mission to spray them over Brooklyn, NY so as to ruin everybody's Yom Kippur. 
That and similiar whale poop was routinely spewed by neocon agitprop outlets and/or spokesmen in the run-up to Operation Brain Fart a.k.a. Iraqi Freedom. 
As far as Israel is concerned, Iran doesn't even need to use nukes against her. Given the size of the place and population density, knocking out Dimona along with oil/gas/chemical processing facilities with conventional warhead carrying Shahab-3s should do the trick. Which they - the Iranians - said they would if attacked. Additionally, Iran can deploy its Lebanese Hizb'Allah proxy armed with untold thousands of short-range missles - supplied by Teheran - capable of taking out a sizeable chunk of northern Israel. 
As a side note I must stress that all the Iranian solidarity-with-the-palestinian-people mumbo jumbo notwithstanding, no sane persian - let alone the unelected leadership - is going to start and/or fight battles of pan-arab importance such as the liberation of Palestine. But that's a whole new thread. 
The upcoming acquisition by Iran of nuclear weapons is going to re-draw the MidEastern chessboard in that it'll spell the end of Israel's domination of the region which the latter ejoyed for 40 odd years - in no small measure - due to its nuclear arsenal. And that's what really makes the neocons get their panties all bunched up in the crack of their gluteus maximus. 




" Do not attempt to touch the bull or he will touch you back " 
San Fermin Guide


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Warmest (nuclear) regards


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Jimmy G_
> 
> Yep, attack America with nukes the ayatollahs will. Much the same way Saddam was going to " secretly " anchor a barge - off the coast of Greenland - from which he was going to launch unmanned drones carrying bio/chemical agents with a mission to spray them over Brooklyn, NY so as to ruin everybody's Yom Kippur.
> That and similiar whale poop was routinely spewed by neocon agitprop outlets and/or spokesmen in the run-up to Operation Brain Fart a.k.a. Iraqi Freedom.
> ...


you throw the term neocons around pretty sloppily. Israel has enjoyed domination of the region, if you can call it that, for 40 years. but israel has shown a great deal of maturity and responsiblity in how it excersizes this dominance. no reasonable person can expect the iranians to exersize this kind of restraint and maturity.

as to Israel's dominance - it has still not allowed israel to avoid the 30,000 or so deaths at the hands of arab agression. for a country of a scant 5 or 6 million, that is a pretty heavy price to pay for existance.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> Warmest (nuclear) regards


 More heart-warming news from the Religion of Peace. [xx(]


----------



## Mujib (Jan 8, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If â€œAmerican and British interestsâ€ means non-combatants, this is something Islam, the religion of peace, clearly forbids. That is a fact that has been made very clear by many.

If you donâ€™t already know this, please do, good sir.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Mujib,

Then it would be fair to say that the Iranian leadership is fairly unIslamic. When can we expect the vast majority of Muslims to denounce Iran then? What does Islamic law have to say about historical revisionism - can we expect a universal Islamic denounciation of Holocaust denial or an apology from Ankara for the Armenian genocide? I hope you are right but forgive me if I remain skeptical. 

Karl


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Mujib_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I dare say then there are some muslims using very interesting definitions of "non-combatants." The religion of peace seems to be infested with heretics one would think from many happenings. I await the army of holy muslims marching on the heretics that hurt non-combatants!

Warmest regards


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Mujib_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


M,

what is your take on Hamas, the muslim brother hood and the other groups of people who consider themselves religious muslims and yet are involved in the systematic killing of non-combatants?


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Here is an option. The U.S. could give Iran a nuclear bomb, but we could tell them use it and face the wrath of the U.S.

I know this isn't feasable, but if Iran wants a nuke that bad this would be a way of apeasing them.

_Deny Guilt, Demand Proof and Never Speak Without an Attorney!_​


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Mujib_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Islamic Jihad, members of the religion of peace.

I'll cease from posting more than this link as one can daily find the results of the practitioners of "peace" scattered across the headlines.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

ah yes sucicide, the highest form of self-censorship.

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

suicide, sp!

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## Mujib (Jan 8, 2006)

With all due respect, gentlemen, I do not wish to engage much in these political discussions. As a Muslim, I feel it is a duty to offer the little knowledge I have wherever and whenever I see Islam being misrepresented or misunderstood. The politics is a whole other (heart-hardening) field.

Some of us, it is obvious, are set in our ways, and it does not matter what I or another might say. For them I can only hope for guidance and good.

Again, the position of Islam is very clear. Targeting innocent civilians is the very antithesis of jihad. Take from this what is necessary to answer your questions, good gentlemen.

As for extremists, or â€œheretics,â€ every religious group has them. We really donâ€™t need to name Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, or other extremist groups to get the idea.

Peace

What do you know
of the birdsâ€™ speech?
When did you sit for a night
with Solomon?

â€”Sufi sage


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Mujib_
> 
> With all due respect, gentlemen, I do not wish to engage much in these political discussions. As a Muslim, I feel it is a duty to offer the little knowledge I have wherever and whenever I see Islam being misrepresented or misunderstood.


Mujib, thank you very much for such a polite response. However, I must ask, where is the misrepresentation or misunderstanding? If there was some sort of excommunication occuring for the likes of Islamic Jihad, people might take the viewpoint you express more seriously. If so many people are committing such attrocities in the name of islam, and the great mass of muslims do nothing to distance themselve, demurring rings false in my opinion.



> quote:
> Again, the position of Islam is very clear. Targeting innocent civilians is the very antithesis of jihad.


The old adage, "actions speak louder than words" might apply here. Civilians are being targeted by the leaders of islamic political parties. I can keep saying, "By definition, love handles are sexy" but that does not get me on the cover of GQ.

Mujib, I am sure the vast majority of muslims are peaceable people, my muslim friends certainly are. However, if islam continues to allow such people acting in the name of islam, that is what islam will become. When we have people dying of cartoons, there is a problem.

Warmest regards


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Mujib, 

I apprectiate your knowledge, your respectful tone and your attempt to educate us, civilly.

this is not a minor question - what is your feeling about hamas? 

you say that islam forbids targeting innocent civillians. I would have to ask, respectfully, what your opinion is of the large numbers of clerics, man of whom have millions of followers, who preach, in the name of islam, violence against innocent civillians. 

I am not asking to be argumentative - I have found that very often when I have discussed this subject with arabs, they say something like "of course, Islam forbids targeting civillians, but attacks on israel are allowed" or "but attacks on american interests in the midle east are allowed" etc.


----------



## Mujib (Jan 8, 2006)

> quote:However, I must ask, where is the misrepresentation or misunderstanding?


My original post was in reply to the comments â€œMore heart-warming news from the Religion of Peace.â€ My point, which I hope not to fail in getting across, is that we should not take extremists for teachers. Let us not allow extremists to tell us what Islam teaches; the sarcastic remarks about the â€œReligion of Peaceâ€ only show that we are doing just that. It is true that Muslims in the West have in many ways failed in their duty â€" a religious duty â€" to spread the true message of Islam, but that is not an excuse for us to keep ourselves ignorant of everything but the evening news.



> quote:If so many people are committing such attrocities in the name of islam, and the great mass of muslims do nothing to distance themselve, demurring rings false in my opinion.


Sir, there has not been a single major incident of these atrocities but every major Muslim organization and institution has condemned it.



> quote:The old adage, "actions speak louder than words" might apply here.


How does it apply? If it applies here, it must apply elsewhere, and so the crimes of Christian extremists would speak for Christianity, the crimes of Jewish extremists for Judaism, and so on.

What do you know
of the birdsâ€™ speech?
When did you sit for a night
with Solomon?

â€"Sufi sage


----------



## Mujib (Jan 8, 2006)

> quote: you say that islam forbids targeting innocent civillians. I would have to ask, respectfully, what your opinion is of the large numbers of clerics, man of whom have millions of followers, who preach, in the name of islam, violence against innocent civillians.


It is strange that you would ask such a question after all I have just said.

I know of no such clerics. Keep in mind, you imply more than â€œaudienceâ€ when you say â€œfollowers.â€ And to answer your question, such clerics would be misguided and their teachings false and un-Islamic.

What do you know
of the birdsâ€™ speech?
When did you sit for a night
with Solomon?

â€"Sufi sage


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Mujib,

The problem is that Islam is not a centralized religion and there is no real authority which commands universal respect. Are there Christian, Jewish and Hindu extremists? Of course, but they are relatively small in number and they are marginalized and without widespread support. Also I don't know of any Christian, Jewish or Hindu extremists who are actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons to use against Islamic countries let alone any who have hijacked planes to use as flying bombs. The Islamic world needs to wake up and begin the painful process of reformation. Its not the Zionists or America or Christians or even heathen Danish cartoonists who have reduced them to a state of perpetual decline. If oil is excluded (which is the luck of geography and is only utilized with Western technology) the Arab world of 300 million exports less than Finland. Endemic corruption, lack of pluralism and an unwillingness to embrace the positive aspects of modernity have led to the unsustainable condition which exists in the Islamic world today. High oil prices are terrible for the Islamic world because they delay the necessary reforms which are needed. 

Iran wants to imagine a world without Israel. Can Iran or most of the Islamic world imagine a world without oil? Figs and carpets cannot be the basis of a modern economy. Islam will never be a religion of peace until its adherents can live normal lives, lives that allow them a measure of freedom, self-expression and economic opportunity. Until then Islam will be perverted by an active minority into a violent death cult which sullies the name of its peaceful followers and condemns the world into an escaltaing cycle of increasing violence.

Karl


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Mujib_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


thank you. it would seem that a large number of people in the world call themselves muslims even though they are not.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Mujib_
> 
> 
> > quote:If so many people are committing such attrocities in the name of islam, and the great mass of muslims do nothing to distance themselve, demurring rings false in my opinion.
> ...


I am sorry sir, but respectfully, that is patently untrue.


> quote:
> 
> 
> > quote:The old adage, "actions speak louder than words" might apply here.
> ...


I would like to first, introduce the concept of the _tu quoque_ argument. The Latin translation is roughly, "but you're another". Meaning, that even if Xtian extremists were daily suicide bombing innocents, that act would in no way justify the act of others doing it. It is a logical fallacy.

Second, it is the fact that Xtian, Jewish, etc. extremists are *NOT* doing this on an almost daily basis.

Lastly, I feel the Danish cartoon reaction has shown the Western world just how anti-thetical islam is towards us. Where was the hue and cry when the Taliban blew up centuries old statues of another religion? I fail to see how those acts of a self-proclaimed most pious islamic government are not 100 times more egregious than a few cartoons, yet many people died and/or were injured from the cartoons. I think that there is a gap between myself and the practioners of islam that is simply unbridgable.

Warmest regards


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

Karl I just wanted to say, excellent post.

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> Islam will never be a religion of peace until its adherents can live normal lives, lives that allow them a measure of freedom, self-expression and economic opportunity.


In the United States we have companies that have a collaborative culture and companies that have an autocratic culture. If you've ever worked for a company that tried to change from an autocratic to a collaborative culture, you've probably seen that even among rank-and-file not many people want to be a part of a collaborative culture -- they'd rather stick to the letter of their job descriptions rather than take on added responsibilities. I believe that it's presumptuous to think the rest of the world wants democracy. What you define as "normal" and what they define as "normal" are two different things. We can attempt to bully the Arab world into adopting our ways, but we will succeed only on the most superficial of levels.
It's unrealistic to expect any more than that.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

crs,

How presumptious to assume that unfree people don't want a have a choice in how they are governed. Many in this country felt that slaves did not not want to be free. I don't expect the Islamic world to embrace US style democracy but a measure of pluralism is necessary. Free societies don't produce terrorists en masse who are dedicated to murder and establishing a 12th century theocracy. And when I say normal I don't mean "normal" in the typical, materialist American way, what I mean is that they have a life which is free from violence, state oppression and that they have a reasonable degree of economic opportunity and freedom of self-expression. I hope that every blighted corner of this world becomes "normal" whether or not they have a Starbucks on every corner.

whnay - Thanks.

Karl


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Let me sort this out. Islam is not a centralised religon like Christianity.So the first african evangelical church I passed this morning in South Central Los Angeles ( it's the one still sporting a failed furniture store logo)receives FAX's from the Vatican. Or am I mistaken and mormon missionaries are acting as couriers from Salt Lake City on their bicycles? And mention was made of arabs. Islam is a creation of that culture. But I daresay a Filipino Moro,Chechen or--------Persian's only cultural connect is that the Qu'oran is written in classical arabic and the religous tenats contained. It is patently unfair, and ignorance unbound to paint a religon with a broad brush and then look at it through the cultural lens of a rose coloured fragment from your stained glass religosity.There is this NIMBY conceit that the pan islamic world should rise in umbrage and crush all threats to western ( read non islamic) civilization. That those islamic istitutions are unable or unwilling may be in no small part to the very disjunct between the two. A disjunct, that made some nations very,very rich. If you can't visit a local Mosque or islamic center for a free Koran ( it opens kind of funny vs those Gideon bibles in the Come Back Inn in Barstow or the Book Of Mormon) at least read some world history- im sha'allah.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Karl, that is the "_we had to destroy the village to save it_" way of thinking that has proven somewhat unsuccesful in previous US adventures overseas.

------------------


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> Let me sort this out. Islam is not a centralised religon like Christianity.So the first african evangelical church I passed this morning in South Central Los Angeles ( it's the one still sporting a failed furniture store logo)receives FAX's from the Vatican. Or am I mistaken and mormon missionaries are acting as couriers from Salt Lake City on their bicycles? And mention was made of arabs. Islam is a creation of that culture. But I daresay a Filipino Moro,Chechen or--------Persian's only cultural connect is that the Qu'oran is written in classical arabic and the religous tenats contained. It is patently unfair, and ignorance unbound to paint a religon with a broad brush and then look at it through the cultural lens of a rose coloured fragment from your stained glass religosity.There is this NIMBY conceit that the pan islamic world should rise in umbrage and crush all threats to western ( read non islamic) civilization. That those islamic istitutions are unable or unwilling may be in no small part to the very disjunct between the two. A disjunct, that made some nations very,very rich. If you can't visit a local Mosque or islamic center for a free Koran ( it opens kind of funny vs those Gideon bibles in the Come Back Inn in Barstow or the Book Of Mormon) at least read some world history- im sha'allah.


Kav,

this is a valid point. I think that there are huge differences between muslims who live in muslim lands or non muslim lands, as well as arab muslims, persian muslims and muslims that come from other parts of the world. the largest muslim countries are not arab - they are indonesia, india, bangladesh and pakestan.

that said - many muslims, who live in non-arab lands, try to embrace the arab muslim culture, as that was the culture of mohamed. this is a relativly new thing, but it exists.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


excellent post


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the people in arab/muslim countries who don't want democracy are the ones who will have to give freedom to others - the old men, the young men from good familes, the oldest sons. why should they want change. that doens't mean the status quo is good.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Kav,

Again you don't seem to address what I say but rather engage in a windy monologue. You seem to forget about the Reformation which set into motion the separation of Church and State, at least in the West. I suppose a few confessional states still exist but by and large it does not matter that Christianity is no longer centralized (though it is far more so than Islam. Benedict speaks for nearly a billion Catholics. The Patriarch of Constantinople (the first among equals) for over a hundred million Orthodox.) since the idea of separation of Church and State is so ingrained in Western culture. And you fail to address the problem of Islamic terrorism but I suppose in doing so it would expose your argument or lack of an argument to a bitter truth which you refuse to admit. Again address what I have said specifically rather than indulging in your obvious dislike of me. Yours seems to be the special province of those with not much to say, who wish to say it repeatedly and without much rhyme or reason. Please note that I argue specifically for pluralism and not Western style democracy in the Islamic world. I don't think Iranian Jews should be persecuted bc of their religion. I don't think women in Yemen should be executed bc of alleged adultery. And I don't think wearing a crucifix in Saudia Arabia should be regarded as a criminal act. Maybe you do, I don't know.

Gmac - I don't get what you are saying either. It is my belief that the Islamic world is angry and this anger has manifested itself dangerously. I further suggest that this anger is due to the lack of political and economic freedom that exists in most of the Islamic world, of course the ruling elite likes to blame Israel and the West but that is hardly the case. The disenchanted in Amman or Damascus don't lack opportunity because of an evil Zionist or American scheme. I believe if there was an Islamic reformation that political and economic freedom would result and that terrorism and religious extremism would be much less of a problem and the great economic, intellectual and cultural talents of the Islamic world could be fully realized. Is this such a radical view? I don't think the US or the West can implement this necessary reformation but ultimately if it does not occur then the continuing clash of civilizations will continue and grow worse. I don't want to burn any villages, I want Islam to be the religion of peace so many claim it to be and I want people in the Islamic world to reach their full potential. The status quo does not allow this.

Karl


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

"Should" is not pertinent. They're going to. We're not going to stop it.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> 
> "Should" is not pertinent. They're going to. We're not going to stop it.


well, there are a few guys with names like shlomo and eyal who might have something to say about that.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Globetrotter,

Thank God for the IDF and the IAF. The willingness of so many in this thread to surrender our future to a nuclear Iran is beyond disturbing. But I suppose if you do not want suicidal madmen to have nuclear weapons you are a warmonger or worse, a neo-con. I am fairly positive that this administration or the next (whether Rep or Dem) will not allow such a thing. A pity for you Kav, your favorite tyranny wont have the ability to kill a few hundred thousand Israelis. You'll always have Pyongyang.

Karl


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

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


have a good night, Karl


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Sunni and Shi'ite's have conflicts with all the gusto of the Protestant and Catholic conflicts. Bahai's originated in Iran and suffer persecution as islamic heretics. The american black muslims are still evolving in reflection to the tumultuos times that gave rise to that manifestation. Wahabism is the Saudi sect that gave us Osama Bin Laden and El Quida. A largely secular Europe is trying to deal with a rapidly growing and islamic population. The old fear of Ottomans at the gates of Vienna while sipping coffee and eating croissants was sadly expressed in the 'ethnic cleansing' in the former Yugoslavia. Turkey sits on the edge of admission to the EU while nations that pillaged much of the world demand that nation come to turns with the Armenian genocide- while overlooking mass starvation in the european mandate if Syria at the same time. Theres a classic tale of some bedu coming upon the ruins of an adobe fortress. Their leader asked everyone to discover and share the marvels in scents held within. One by one they described the faint smell of rare incense, long cold feasts, rare spices etc. Then the old chief went to an empty window, drew a deep breath and said, " this is the rarest, most precious scent of all, the smell of the desert and freedom." Finding truth sometimes means looking out from your own ruins.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Kav,

You may be sorry that Sobieski came to Vienna's defense, I am not. And I believe it was American power that brought an end to slaughter in Bosnia and prevented further disaster in Kosovo. Europe at least admits some culpability in the excesses of colonialism while Turkey only talks about Armenian displacement. 

Karl

P.S. And last I looked with the exception of a few neighborhoods in Belfast and a few country clubs Protestants and Catholics aren't killing one another. I don't even think my grandmother would kill me if I married a Protestant.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Karl, I never, ever said I disliked you. I disagree on a issue. If I really didn't like you, I would track you down, slip into your residence while your family slept and hemm all your slacks 5" shorter.I'm a dangerous man Karl; combat veteran, treehugger, Nader supporter and I even listen to Pat Buchannan. whats more, I beat up a IDF superman who said the U.S.S.Liberty was our fault. Be afraid, be very afraid.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Kav, I can see murder, but rehemming the pants is ABSOLUTELY reprehensible!!


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Kav,

I don't have any slacks - just trousers.  And I am glad we can disagree without resorting to a duel. I am a terrible shot and you'd have to explain to my mother about how her premonition of how my big mouth would one day get me into big trouble came to pass.

Actually I am not even sure we disagree in ends, just means. And besides I am only right 98% of the time anyway.

Karl


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> Actually I am not even sure we disagree in ends, just means. And besides I am only right 98% of the time anyway.
> 
> Karl


Where do you post on those occasions? Style forum?

------------------


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gmac,

Touche! One more zinger and I'll upgrade you from crank to bete noire.

Karl


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Actually this entire thread is coded diplomatic exchanges between the lizard People and Shadow people.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)




----------



## Jimmy G (Mar 23, 2006)

Iran isn't going to attack Israel unless first provoked. Personally, I don't have much time for the bleatings about the diabolical nature of zionism coming from the plumber-turned-president of Iran; especially in light of the fact that he's hardly more than a figurehead. If tomorrow the Religious Council were to instruct him to start wearing trousers on his head, he'd do just that. 
Nevertheless, Israel will find herself on the receiving end of Iranian missiles irrespective of whether she strikes - which I doubt she has the stomach to - the mullahcracy directly, or by proxy. In the latter scenario the heavy lifting and clean-up would be delegated to her loyal sidekick Uncle Sam whose traditional duties of personal banker, arms supplier and diplomatic getaway driver have now been expanded to that of a neighborhood bouncer. ( I know, I know - moral clarity (TM).)
To reiterate what I've said earlier, Iran - all the hiss and steam notwithstanding - doesn't intend to wage battles for the sake of pan-Arab causes. On the other hand, their leadership would seldom miss an opportunity to enhance its pan-islamic credentials - amongst the ranks of the great unwashed of the muslim world - by demonizing what they refer to as the " zionist entity " . Hence the rallies, conferences and all the rest of the usual circus. 



" Do not attempt to touch the bull or he will touch you back " 
San Fermin Guide


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Jimmy G_
> 
> Iran isn't going to attack Israel unless first provoked. Personally, I don't have much time for the bleatings about the diabolical nature of zionism coming from the plumber-turned-president of Iran; especially in light of the fact that he's hardly more than a figurehead. If tomorrow the Religious Council were to instruct him to start wearing trousers on his head, he'd do just that.
> Nevertheless, Israel will find herself on the receiving end of Iranian missiles irrespective of whether she strikes - which I doubt she has the stomach to - the mullahcracy directly, or by proxy. In the latter scenario the heavy lifting and clean-up would be delegated to her loyal sidekick Uncle Sam whose traditional duties of personal banker, arms supplier and diplomatic getaway driver have now been expanded to that of a neighborhood bouncer. ( I know, I know - moral clarity (TM).)
> ...


I would agree with your first sentance, 80%. the trouble is that as iran gets closer to having the bomb, israel has to decide if it trust iran to be rational, and that hasn't always been the case. and then israel has to decide if it is better to cause a possible war now, or wait to be hit. and then we have a situation like 67 or like wwi where rhetoric can actually trigger war. only this time with nuclear missles.


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

Imagine Iran has the bomb and the U.S. does not. Iran invades Canada and Mexico. Is there a U.S. citizen who would not be clamoring for a nuclear deterrent?

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

"But then, a woman is only a woman and an EG is a shoe." - Will

Michael


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Clothesboy,

Your analogy is bizzare - first Mexico and Canada are peaceful democracies, Iraq was not. Secondly I don't want murderous theocrats who sponsor terrorism to able to dictate events with nuclear weapons nor do I want them to be immune to outside pressure. Finally, Iran has repeatedly spoken about using nuclear weapons in a first strike capacity (and I doubt Iranian nuclear strategy is as nuanced as the French first strike policy of "force de frappe.") I wonder - do you want Iran to have nuclear weapons?

Karl


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by clothesboy_
> 
> Imagine Iran has the bomb and the U.S. does not. Iran invades Canada and Mexico. Is there a U.S. citizen who would not be clamoring for a nuclear deterrent?
> 
> ...


This is a great demonstration of what can go wrong when one tries to argue through analogies.

Warmest regards


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_


ROFLM*O


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by clothesboy_
> 
> Imagine Iran has the bomb and the U.S. does not. Iran invades Canada and Mexico. Is there a U.S. citizen who would not be clamoring for a nuclear deterrent?
> 
> ...


Even though this is faulty, I can tell you I wouldn't. I don't depend on large scale weapons like nukes for my personal freedom. OTOH, I support our nuclear program and supremecy.

I ensure my own personal freedom. I have a .45 and an M1A and I feel that we are free because of our covenant as Americans to be united to fight to the last. This is the scary part about illegal immigration to me. As you see demonstrated that the illegality of their status betrays their moral committment to the success and survivial of our Nation and its laws and society.

America was once a simple and powerful system. You do what you want on your property, I'll do what I want on mine. If someone messes with you, I'll come help you kick their butt and vice versa. Simple. Effective.

It's the chumps that are afraid to fight alone that can't stand together that end up owned over and over. How many Americans like this are left? I don't know, but it has to be dwindling rapidly. I don't recognize the attitudes of most Americans as fellow patriots. I think most would surrender to just about anybody. OTOH my attitude is when they come for my neighbor he can rest assured there will be 5-10 less then when they come for me. I think that is deterent enough to any enemy that would invade America.

IMHO that's also the difference between the Arabs and the Jews. We keep talking about the US 'protecting' Israel, but the truth is they handed those people their butts 30 years ago and we still hold them back today.

Remember how the Brits held out during the Blitz? Israel would do the same with Iran or the so-called 'palestenians'. Every Israeli does minimal service in the military and can be called up into local militias quickly.

I actually hope Iran does mess with Israel if only so America can re-learn what really makes us free.

If some foreigners and so-called 'American citizens of the world' wonder why real Americans seem to condescend to you, it's because it's obvious to us that you don't have the attitude required to survive in the big, bad world and therefore eventually you will be someone's slave again. Whether it is Hitler or a stupid cleric and his mob with rocks and swords or a nutcase with a suitcase (nukes).

Didn't "Flight 93" on 9/11 remind anyone of what it means to be an American? God Bless those INDIVIDUALS.

In the words of the kids today - Don't hate the players, hate the game. 

There's one acre of this world that will never surrender or bow to anybody - nukes or not. That's really all I can control. What are you doing over at your little piece of America? [}]

"Liberty or Death!"


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> If some foreigners and so-called 'American citizens of the world' wonder why real Americans seem to condescend to you, it's because it's obvious to us that you don't have the attitude required to survive in the big, bad world and therefore eventually you will be someone's slave again. Whether it is Hitler or a stupid cleric and his mob with rocks and swords or a nutcase with a suitcase (nukes).


In a post of such comprehensive stupidity it is hard to pick out anything specific to laugh at but I picked the paragraph above, not just because of it's brain numbing idiocy but the fact that it is aimed at _everyone _who doesn't agree with him, including me.

Is this the kind of stuff they teach in American schools? No, surely not!

------------------


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> In a post of such comprehensive stupidity it is hard to pick out anything specific to laugh at but I picked the paragraph above, not just because of it's brain numbing idiocy.....


At some point, what Jack has to say about Jill, and how he says it, gives one greater insight into Jack than it does about Jill.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Yes. 

When Jill says things that are breathtakingly stupid and Jack points that out, it says that Jill is an idiot and further says that Jack is capable of grasping the fact that this is a place of discussion where such idiocy cries out to be highlighted.

As to the insights you choose to draw from these facts, well, I guess that is in the eye of the beholder.

------------------


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Thank you for again proving my point. There is dialogue and there is pure spite and insult. One can sometimes be productive and the other never is. YMMV.

Warmest regards


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Not much productivity in having a dialogue with our friend above.

What are you getting out of this by the way? I mean, you're not quite as ill tempered as badrabbit but I give you the same advice I gave him - if you don't like the tone or content of my posts then simply ignore them and save your homely little comments for those who may be inclined to pay some heed to them.

------------------


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Not much productivity in having a dialogue with our friend above.


How would you know, you have yet to dialogue with him.


> quote:
> What are you getting out of this by the way?


I find that question exceedingly comical coming from an avowed socialist. Why must I "get" anything out of this?

I believe one should not sit idly by when a boor is constantly being a boor. Just like I would intervene if a college sport team were raping a stripper, so too do I find myself motivated to occasionally attempt to deflect your poison into something possibly more productive and less toxic. I have seen that in you from time to time and think you should nuture it.



> quote:
> I mean, you're not quite as ill tempered as badrabbit but I give you the same advice I gave him - if you don't like the tone or content of my posts then simply ignore them and save your homely little comments for those who may be inclined to pay some heed to them.


I would offer you the same advice sir. If you do not like my occasional attempts to deflect you into dialogue vs. simply lashing out with supercilious insults, please ignore them.

Warmest regards


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gmac,

If you were a country the international community would be considering sanctions.

Karl


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


On the contrary, I find your attempts to condescend to me to be vastly amusing. Why do you think I keep baiting you?

------------------


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> Actually this entire thread is coded diplomatic exchanges between the lizard People and Shadow people.


At last - someone who makes sense.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Again, you prove my point. 'Tis like shooting fish in a barrel. And this is a pathetic attempt at an _ad hoc_ rescue as it was not even me you were baiting. QED

Warmest regards


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

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


Without the historical existence of progressive and intelligent people such as gmac, there would not be any such thing as an 'international community'. It, like so many other positive aspects of modern life that are taken for granted, is a product of unapologetic rationalism.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Not much productivity in having a dialogue with our friend above.


I wasn't even talking to you or referring to you or your posts ... ya paranoid freak. Do you really think you didn't share enough of your butt in the other threads that any sane person like myself continues to read your rantings?

I was answering the question posed by 'clothesboy' about would anyone not demand nukes as a deterent. I would not. I explained why. There was nothing incorrect, stupid, or idiotic about my opinion. It's my opinion. I would not demand nukes as a deterent just because someone else had them. For politcal and economic reasons I support them, but not for deterence. I do not think they are a deterent. I think the attitude of the people as unconquerable is the only deterent.

I depend on something far greater as a deterent to tyrants, the strongly held belief in INDIVIDUAL liberty that comes from one other than man and can only be expressed by oneself.

This is why so-called 'palestenians' with AK-47s shoot them in the air to demonstrate, but hide their AKs and throw rocks at Israeli troops. Because they know they can never really win, but they can continue to reap sympathy and apathy from most of the world as the Israelis continue to "bully" them.

If you have a problem with that, GFY! [}]

Your own responses and posts say nothing and simply bash others as below you. Frankly, you have expressed not a single viewpoint that would justify your view of yourself.

I on the other hand have a humble view of my own opinion and can articulate it just fine. You may disagree, but you haven't. Instead you just cry that if you did disagree no one would hear you. Probably because they quit reading your whiney drivel. We have a name for people like that down here in the South, we call them "Mother-In-Law"!


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

OK, now I post something mean about you or another poster, you say, "A-ha, he proves my point _yet again_! [insert stupid condescending remark of your choice here]"

I have a quiet chuckle then post something else just to bug you.

See how it works? No, maybe you don't........

------------------


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> OK, now I post something mean about you or another poster, you say, "A-ha, he proves my point _yet again_! [insert stupid condescending remark of your choice here]"
> 
> ...


One might ask, why do you feel compelled to post mean things? Therein lies the rub.

Warmest regards


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Did you just call me Jill? [?] LOL


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Why, to annoy supercillious little upstarts of course!

------------------


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Why, to annoy supercillious little upstarts of course!


My friend, you are not annoying me. Also, as you've used it more than once now, I am glad you like the word "supercilious" that I used as an adjective towards you first in this thread. I am always happy to expand the vocabulary of others.

Warmest regards


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There are simply too many comedic offerings here for me to make use of! Instead I shall GFM as our boy suggested.

Its been fun - my apologies to whoever started this thread for it being hijacked with this, well, whatever this has become.

------------------


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> My friend, you are not annoying me.


Sure I am!



> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> Also, as you've used it more than once now, I am glad you like the word "supercilious" that I used as an adjective towards you first in this thread. I am always happy to expand the vocabulary of others.


I think I could predict _exactly _what you are going to write at any given time.

This power I have over you, it's almost magical!

Okay, I'm going down the pub now. You kids play nice without me.

------------------


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

It's hilarious watching two Canadians slug it out. Almost like a hockey game!


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

C'mon Wayfarer, don't give up on me now!

------------------


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

JLPWCXIII,

Do you have a man crush on Gmac? How cute! I would like to think that Gmac is Chamberlain reincarnated but at least Chamberlain came around after Poland was invaded. 

Karl


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

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


 Have you no dignity?


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

No dignity and not much of a sense of humour either.

------------------


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

When somebody starts touting their 1911 and M1As, visions of National Geographic photos of Highland New Guinea tribesmen sporting huge, exaggerated codpieces dancing en mass before a battle always comes to mind. Those so called 'Palestinians' carry the name from the provincial name given by Rome. However onerous or inconvenient those AK toting, 2 dimensional Chuck Norris bad guys are, your good old boy "git er dooooone" knee jerk final solution lacks only a primative art sculpture welded by Joe Bob from old Jimmy truck bumpers proclaiming ARBIET MACH FREI Y'All. It almost worked on one group of Semetic people, so why not try again?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gmac,

You speak of dignity! Look at some of your posts in this thread, hardly evidence that you carry yourself with a great deal of dignity. You have the sound and fury and we know what you signify. It would be nice to see you actually make a coherent argument in a thread but I won't hold my breath. JLPWCXIII praises you to high heaven as if you are the reason why international relations exist - well Alger Hiss was responsible for the UN so perhaps he is right on the mark. JLPWCXIII, fellow traveler are you?

And Kav you mention the Holocaust, funny thing is that Hamas, the Iranian leadership and much of the Arab world say it never happened.

Have a nice weekend Gents.

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> When somebody starts touting their 1911 and M1As, visions of National Geographic photos of Highland New Guinea tribesmen sporting huge, exaggerated codpieces dancing en mass before a battle always comes to mind. Those so called 'Palestinians' carry the name from the provincial name given by Rome. However onerous or inconvenient those AK toting, 2 dimensional Chuck Norris bad guys are, your good old boy "git er dooooone" knee jerk final solution lacks only a primative art sculpture welded by Joe Bob from old Jimmy truck bumpers proclaiming ARBIET MACH FREI Y'All. It almost worked on one group of Semetic people, so why not try again?


Knee jerk final solution? Perhaps one solution is you could learn to read.

Y'all preface each non-sequitor with three lines of trash. Should I call you names back now? How about 'Nancy boy' or a 'two-dimensional Richard Simmons'? Would that make you happy? Would that make you feel like you were in the conversation since you don't seem to be able to conduct a real one where you read and then respond to what the person said instead of your paranoia?

I'm sorry you're so intimidated by the fact that I don't need or require nukes. Perhaps if Iranians exercised the same INDIVIDUAL liberties and rights I do, they wouldn't want nukes either? How's that for a final solution?

When a 'palestenian' shows the fortitude required to actually fight MEN WITH ARMS instead of blowing up deli's and buses filled with women and children, maybe they'll get some respect. They have plenty of AKs and other weapons. They shoot them at each other all the time in their territorial squabbles. They just don't won't use them against their ENEMY. I say let them.

Contrary to your view, I feel no need to get involved. Israel can handle them just fine. It will probably take only five or six days.

The truth is there is nothing for us to do there. All we do is hold Israel back and perpetuate the problem. You can deride your own culture, but you can't accept theirs is done. The world has evolved and they haven't. Why do others keep dragging them along - perpetuating the problem? Let them go ahead and die. There are enough modern arab societies, we won't miss a few that can't keep up. That's how the Romans handled them afterall.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> C'mon Wayfarer, don't give up on me now!
> 
> ------------------


Oh sorry, I had to leave for dinner last night. Gmac, it appears you do not even need stimuli to be nasty, so I will leave you to it for now. No doubt, against my wisest inclincations, at some point in the future, your boorish behavior will cause me to point out your bad manners again and we can have another lovefest. Until then, the foi gras was great last night and there is nothing like watching the sun set over the mountains in the Sonoran desert. Life is good.

Warmest regards


----------

