# Let's try again on Iran



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

_My apologies for the length of this piece but Salon, from where it comes, requires you view an ad to get a day pass.

This is obviously an important topic and the other thread seems to have descended into, well, whatever one wishes to call it, it certainly is not a debate._

*If the U.S. attacked Iran, the consequences would be catastrophic -- including a possible American retreat under fire in Iraq.

By Joe Conason*

Apr. 21, 2006 | As George W. Bush contemplates the prospect of attacking Iran and the regional conflagration that would result, he may be awaiting a heavenly signal that would confirm the doomsday predictions of his allies on the religious right. Here on earth, however, many of the same themes that promoted war on Iraq are beginning to appear again.

While the president arraigned Iran as a rogue state in the "axis of evil" alongside Iraq and North Korea years ago, the rhetoric portraying Tehran as the world's most evil and dangerous regime is increasing in volume and pitch. The story line is simple and scary: Iran is a dictatorial terrorist state on the brink of acquiring a nuclear arsenal, and it is led by a madman who resembles Hitler and threatens neighboring states, especially Israel.

Now that litany, melding truth with exaggeration, must sound familiar to anyone who remembers the arguments for invading Iraq and ousting Saddam Hussein. Like Saddam, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an ostentatious villain who sounds all too eager for confrontation, even though his government officially prefers a negotiated solution.

Soon we will hear that Tehran is allied not only with the Palestinian group Hamas but with al-Qaida (although the latter are Sunnis and the former are Shiites). As with Iraq, suspicion that Iran helped to engineer the 9/11 attacks will be encouraged if not stated explicitly. Indeed, that inflammatory accusation has been floated already in certain precincts on the right and, if the Bush administration decides to wage war, will quickly surface in the mainstream media.

Presumably all those assertions will be treated with the appropriate skepticism, now that we understand the deceptions that landed us in the Iraqi quicksand. Congressional leaders of both parties and journalists of all persuasions must ask hard questions about the intelligence concerning Iran's nuclear program, its ambitions and its responsibility for terrorism.

Politicians and reporters should likewise question any rosy predictions about the outcome of hostilities with Iran. We now know, for instance, that oil prices will go up, not down, in the event of a war, and that the costs in life and treasure will be much greater than any prewar estimate.

Bombing and invasion will be even less welcome in Iran than "shock and awe" was in Iraq. Despicable as he is, Ahmadinejad enjoys considerably more popular support and legitimacy than Saddam did. His armed forces, wielding long-range ballistic missiles and other advanced weaponry, are in far stronger shape than Saddam's enfeebled military.

So war with Iran would be no "cakewalk," to put it mildly. To suppose that the United States, or Israel, could simply drop a few dozen "bunker busters" on Iranian nuclear sites without serious consequence would be exceptionally reckless.

Aside from the obvious impact on America's international reputation and alliances, which have suffered a precipitous decline under Bush, there could be immediate and severe retaliation inflicted on coalition troops in Iraq. For anyone who cares about the well-being of our soldiers, any strike across Iraq's eastern border should be approached with extreme caution. That's why high-ranking American military officers are reportedly urging the president to avoid war with Iran.

Should Bush ignore their advice and order airstrikes, it is possible to imagine a disaster ensuing. At present, the coalition forces in Iraq depend heavily on supply lines that extend for 300 miles along highways from Kuwait and the southern Iraqi port at Basra. Mechanized units of the Iranian military, which currently boasts 800,000 men under arms, would not have far to go to cut those lines as soon as the United States started bombing. And their way into southern Iraq, cutting off the Al-Faw peninsula, would be paved by an uprising of the Shiite militia.

Faced with an Iranian invasion, the British might well be forced to flee. Our strained forces would have to move rapidly southward in large numbers to repel the Iranians -- using equipment that is in poor shape after three years of constant use -- or risk being cut off from their supplies for months. Airlifts are unlikely to suffice, and they would arrive under constant threat from shoulder-fired missiles. As one savvy observer put it, referring to the French debacle in Indochina: "Think of Dien Bien Phu in the desert."

If an attack on Iran provoked full-scale rebellion by the Iraqi Shiites, then an even worse outcome is conceivable. Our forces, along with the tens of thousands of contractors and bureaucrats employed by the occupation, might ultimately be forced to retreat from an Iraq in flames. That would mean horrible casualties and utter humiliation. Think of Saigon in the Green Zone.

And that imagined scene doesn't begin to delineate the costs to humanity of war sweeping across that volatile and essential region. War with the Iranian mullahs may be inevitable someday, though we should hope not. Perhaps we could try talking to them first.

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


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Here is the link from the article to the piece linking Iran to 9/11:
https://www.kentimmerman.com/2003_06_11zakeri.htm

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


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

So what conclusions do you draw from this article gmac?

Warmest regards


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

I think Conason sums up the situation very well indeed.

1. Do we really know how close Iran is to have a nuclear capability. We learnt from Saddam that middle-eastern sabre rattling may be just that. Have people really forgotten so quickly about the incredible intelligence blunders made about Iraq's supposed WMDs?

The drum beat for war has started already from the right, playing the exact same tune as before Iraq - they have WMD, they support al qaeda, they were involved in 9/11. Is anyone buying this time around?

2. What would the reaction be to any American/Israeli attack? A quick look at the map will demonstrate that the Basra-Baghdad road is vulnerable to Iranian retaliation plus the British forces in southern Iraq would be left wide open in what would very quickly become hostile Shia territory.

I'm personaly skeptical about the strength of the Iranian forces but Iraq has shown how vulnerable modern armies are to a sustained resistance.

3. Diplomatic efforts contine - shouldn't they be given a chance? (cue Chamberlain comments.....)

Any thoughts?

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


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> So what conclusions do you draw from this article gmac?


You've now seen mine.

What conclusions do _you _come to after reading this piece?

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


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

You might find I agree more than I disagree with you on this topic, but probably for different reasons.

We of course do not know exactly how far along Iran is with nuke development but we can be fairly certain it is to be measured in years, not months. This takes it from a crisis status unless we want to make the crisis just the fact they have fissionable material, which they may or may not sell to others.

I do not think the US should use the military option on Iran. I feel that the rather moribund democracies of old Europe as well as Russian and China should take the lead. If diplomacy fails, I feel the EU or UN, 100% sans US help, should take action. Until the US is actually nuked by Iran, I feel it needs to stay out of this except for diplomatic intervention.

Why I feel this way is a different matter. I think Western governments are still not dealing with the actual problem, namely that the West is headed towards a general conflict with the pan-Islamic world. While the West deals with nation-states piece-meal, they are missing the true nature of this situation. Therefore the US must not further expose itself to the pan-Islamic threat by another military venture against a mere nation-state.

Warmest regards


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> You've now seen mine.


Some things are best left unsaid. 

Warmest regards


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

What has been left unsaid is Bush's apocalyptic, even messianic, reasoning; behind all the rhetoric is the simple belief that he has been anointed by God (Jehovah, not Allah) to bring about Armageddon.

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


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

1. Deport all outstanding illegal aliens in the US. Round 'em up and herd 'em out. Goes for ALL races/countries of origin/colors/whomever.

2. Offer open immigration to all the poor Palistinians eeking out a life in those nasty refugee camps, many of which are in neighboring Arab countries, IIRC.

3. Those US companies hiring illegals have a choice, hire the incoming Palestinians at a decent wage, or face massive fines.

This defuses some of Iran's main political sustinance, that Isreal and the US are trying to wipe out the Palestinians. It makes the US look good, at least.

Four birds, one, or one and a half, stone(s).

OK, OK, it's an insane scheme...


Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

I'll ignore the comment about Europe's moribund democracies other than to point out that democracy is at least alive and kicking there, as opposed to the cash and lobbyist driven system of crooks and liars that runs the USA. The only Americans who see Europe as moribund are those who either don't like Europe for philosophical reasons or know nothing about it - witness the debate on French labour laws for evidence.

As for this theory of a global conflict between the west and Islam, what evidence do you see of that?

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


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

gmac - 

So, if a left-wing, internet magazine writes an un-sourced article with make believe claims that anonymous, right-wing voices are advocating for attacking Iran by lying and confusing sunnis with shiite then it must be true? And you would draw conclusions about W or Iran based on your reading of this article? Surely, you must have a more informed opinion on the topic than Salon Magazine?

Iran did just promise the new Hamas government $50 million in support. I think they have supported Hamas all along financially, haven't they? Does that mean anything about their intentions towards Isreal or the validity of their claim to destroy Israel? Maybe.

BTW, who do you attribute the opening phrase "As George W. Bush contemplates the prospect of attacking Iran" to? Has W said that's what he's doing? In which speech or press conference did he say that? All W would say was Isreal is an ally, and if attacked the US will defend her. 

Or to 'rip' the one about being sent by God to start Armageddon, when did W say that? Or can you read his mind? If you really want to start reading people's minds as a basis for your policy opinions you really won't like what the right will put in a new Patriot Act with that philosophy.

I'm afraid y'all let your imaginations run wild. I'm pretty sure W is busy contemplating how to keep the house in Republican hands right now with gas going above $4 in California, not attacking Iran.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> Or to 'rip' the one about being sent by God to start Armageddon, when did W say that? Or can you read his mind?


Of course I can... can't you? It's really not that difficult. It just takes a very strong stomach.


> quote: If you really want to start reading people's minds as a basis for your policy opinions you really won't like what the right will put in a new Patriot Act with that philosophy.


 They already have; there are some thing they just don't make public.

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


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

Its always amusing to see leftists recant their fantasies in plain view, facts being merely a pot hole on the road of innuendo and hearsay. Its ever more hilarious considering the same antics lead to the embarassing defeat in 2004, I guess you can't teach an old donkey new tricks.

___________

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


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rip_
> They already have; there are some thing they just don't make public.


When you can disclose what they are let us all know.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:They already have; there are some thing they just don't make public.


This is rubbish, cite some evidence, your 'gut' feeling ain't going to cut it. There have been investigations in the handling of the Patriot Act and groups like CAIR have tried feverishly to find anything that smacks of impropreity and have come up empty handed, time and again. When are these witch tales and scare tactics going to stop?

___________

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


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> 
> Its always amusing to see leftists recant their fantasies in plain view, facts being merely a pot hole on the road of innuendo and hearsay. Its ever more hilarious considering the same antics lead to the embarassing defeat in 2004, I guess you can't teach an old donkey new tricks.


What "fantasies" am I recanting?

What "facts" are you referring to?

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


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Here is the link from the article to the piece linking Iran to 9/11:
> https://www.kentimmerman.com/2003_06_11zakeri.htm
> ...


I guess you missed this one ksinc - I posted it immediately below the article.

I posted it seperately as the hyperlink from the article obviously didn't survive the cut and paste.

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


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

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


I read that, but it doesn't mention 'Bush' or 'his contemplation of attacking Iran'.

I don't know the author. Is he a member of the Bush Administration?

It is also dated 06/24/2003, so I'm guessing if W was going to attack Iran based on that article he would have done it by now.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> Iran did just promise the new Hamas government $50 million in support. I think they have supported Hamas all along financially, haven't they? Does that mean anything about their intentions towards Isreal or the validity of their claim to destroy Israel? Maybe.


I don't think Iran's hostility toward Israel or backing of Hamas is in question. Conason certainly doesn't in his piece.



> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> BTW, who do you attribute the opening phrase "As George W. Bush contemplates the prospect of attacking Iran" to? Has W said that's what he's doing? In which speech or press conference did he say that? All W would say was Isreal is an ally, and if attacked the US will defend her.


Incorrect. When asked if he would use force against Iran Bush refused to rule it out. And of course there are those updated war plans that Sy Hersh revealed.

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


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> I read that, but it doesn't mention 'Bush' or 'his contemplation of attacking Iran'.


Nobody said it did. What it does is attempt to link Iran to al qeada and thence 9/11. Bush and his cronies did this effectively in the lead up to the Iraq invasion although it has since been shown pretty conclusivley that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.



> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> It is also dated 06/24/2003, so I'm guessing if he was going to attack Iran based on that article he would have done it by now.


I imagine Bush thought Iran was next after Iraq in 2003, not knowing what a mess Iraq would turn out to be.

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


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Incorrect. When asked if he would use force against Iran Bush refused to rule it out. And of course there are those updated war plans that Sy Hersh revealed.


Ah, that would be the Pentagon contemplating attacking Iraq. Which is their job - anticipating what they might be asked to do FAR IN ADVANCE.

Presidents tend not to make the 'Big Happy Face' when told "Gee, we never thought about that" when they ask their Cabinet members tough questions like 'what are my options?'. Is it possible that the time will come when W might need to contemplate attacking Iran. Probably not, but it could. The next President, maybe so.

Tangentially, this makes 'Katrina' a pretty tough pill to swallow IMHO.

As for what the right is talkign about, what I hear is that W has his hands pretty full getting the tax cuts made permanent with a 30% approval rating before the Republicans possibly lose the House. And then there is SS reform and something else that is fighting for time on his agenda.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

I want you to name one instance where Bush, his officals or anyone in the pentagon for that matter linked 9/11 to Saddam Hussien. Linking SH to AQ is one thing and has been established at the very least at a casual, not operational, level, but linking SH to 9/11 has never been in question and no a poll done but USA Today is not evidence...

As far as the Sy Hersh piece, if we didn't have a plan to take them out I'd be worried like hell and I think its extremely naive to believe that plans aren't in the works for several contingencies with nations that are threats to our interests, aka North Korea. Thats why the Pentagon and senior military strategists are in the business of doing...





___________

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


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> I'll ignore the comment about Europe's moribund democracies other than to point out that democracy is at least alive and kicking there, as opposed to the cash and lobbyist driven system of crooks and liars that runs the USA. The only Americans who see Europe as moribund are those who either don't like Europe for philosophical reasons or know nothing about it - witness the debate on French labour laws for evidence.


That's not quite true. Europe gets a whole lot right that we fail continuously and miserably at in America. Health care, for instance. And, except for Darfur and Zimbabwe, foreign policy. It has been quite a while since a European state has embarked on naked and unjustifiable aggression on a defenseless people, as we have against the Iraqis and our religious extremists (along with other bloodthirsty classes) wish to repeat in Iran. However, one doesn't have to be a theocon to see that Europe has a lot of flaws right now. I'm not convinced that a corporatist interest intermediation structure is the best fit for the modern world, though it probably was for the world between the end of WWII and the dawn of the internet. Today, I think the reluctance to reorganize society along a more plurialist model is a severe economic hindrance that ironically is all the less necessary because of Europe's incomparably superior methods (each state being slightly different) of health care delivery. See the employment contract debacle in France for an example of corporatism, vs. each company setting its own hiring rules with a floor of minimum standards set by the government as an example of a more plurialist model.

Also, Europe's immigration policies since the 1960s have been a travesty. The US and Canada do immigration much better, giving newcomers a stake in the system much more readily and with much less racism than persists in Europe's "guest worker" programs. Of course, the same mindless reactionaries who bash Europe incessantly for reasons residing only in their own imaginations now want to import Europe's single most flawed program into the US. Go figure.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

Arrived in Austin after lunch and had to check the Interchange.

Gmac, here are better articles on Iran. And what if Iran has a nuke and still engages in such terrorism? As the fellow from The New Republic says, the hawkish doomsday scenario is far, far scarier, so if your argument is based on how bad the Iranians can be, then the hawks argument wins.

https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1757132,00.html

Let me say again - launching strikes aginst Iran is a bad option. Allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons is a worse option. Perhaps the Iranian people will rise up and stop the madness from their leadership. Perhaps we will be at war. The choice is up to Iran.

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by SGladwell_
> Health care, for instance.


ROFLMAO! That was funny!


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

There are a lot of old people in France that would take up your claims that healthcare is done "right" in Europe if only they didn't die from heat exhaustion.

___________

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


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> 
> There are a lot of old people in France that would take up your claims that healthcare is done "right" in Europe if only they didn't die from heat exhaustion.


Considering air conditioning a health care item is a pretty wild stretch, don't you think?


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

[double post. Sorry.]


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> [Gmac, here are better articles on Iran.


Or at least one of them. Note that Prof. Juan Cole is an actual area scholar rather than an ideologue with no actual region experience like most of the so-called experts quoted in this thread.

https://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060313_fishing_for_a_pretext_in_iran/

Clearly, the danger is that otherwise decent people are going to be suckered into yet another pointless destruction of thousands and thousands of people - this time maybe even using "tactical" nukes! - because of the bloodthirstiness of the "last days" dead-enders currently in control of much of our government and this country's foreign policy establishment's unhealthy genuflection towards Israel.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

Dr. Cole's feelings aside, I agree that a war on the nation of Iran would be a mistake. The fact is 20% of the people actually support the nutcase in office and those 20% just happen to be the dregs of society. However, strategic strikes on nuclear facilities I don't think should be out of the question, in fact if talks continue to fail it should be our first military option. I'd feel much better putting back there nuke program a couple of years and seeing how things play out than the full on military option or a feebled "deal" such as was done in the 90's in North Korea....

___________

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


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> 
> Dr. Cole's feelings aside, I agree that a war on the nation of Iran would be a mistake. The fact is 20% of the people actually support the nutcase in office and those 20% just happen to be the dregs of society. However, strategic strikes on nuclear facilities I don't think should be out of the question, in fact if talks continue to fail it should be our first military option. I'd feel much better putting back there nuke program a couple of years and seeing how things play out than the full on military option or a feebled "deal" such as was done in the 90's in North Korea....
> 
> ...


bill - I agree 100% with your conclusions. one thing that I am not sure about is the percent that support the leadership. the trouble is, we all know nice iranians. I have a couple of really good friends who are iranians, who are really cool people and very anti-government. one of them has a brother who is a high official in a minsitry. we have all heard about the numbers of young people, and others who don't support the government.

but, there are no accurate numbers to say what is the real situation. it could be 20%, it could be 90%, it could be 5%. 90% of indians are vegetarians - the majority of the people I met and worked with when I lived there for 3 years were not. it can be hard to say, sometimes, what the reality is.


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

Here are some things I see as basic truths.

Terrorists will use whatever weapons they are allowed to by their supporters and/or those they can source.

Over the past several decades, terrorists have turned towards increasingly violent and deadly tactics. From small arms and minor homemade bombs, on to hijacking, and we know what. They have not contained their tactics as do the proverbial rock throwing Palestinians.

Iran willingly supports terrorists regimes, but would likely stop short of allowing any group to use them.

Pakistan developed nuclear weapons. Their technology was allowed to leak by a fundamentalist scientist heading their program. Smaller nations often have more difficulty with internal security.

Iran is not a stable country, and would face increased power struggles were it to become a nuclear power.

The leader of Iran has repeatedly stated a desire and a prediction to have Israel eliminated.

I am not suggesting to connect the dots, but I do believe these facts behoove action. At a minimum, Iran should be prevented from producing nuclear weapons. It is irresponsible to merely say "we need a diplomatic solution." That is tantamount to a copout. Offer something specific.

Why the world would take a chance and roll the dice, I do not know. I believe much of this is motivated by a pathetic sense of "cut your nose to spite your face". Nations will tolerate Iran as a sticking point and counterbalance to the US. They better hope the bomb doesn't destroy their city.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Ulitimately, there is no immediate solution to the problems in the middle east. These factions have been fighting each other at various time, longer than the U.S. has been a country. We can not impose democracy on a region of the world controlled by religious extremists.

We are in a no win situation. I don't really see the U.S. government (George W. if you think he makes the decision to go to war on his own) attacking Iran. The threat of possessing nuclear weapons is obviously a concern to be given a significant amount of attention (as with N. Korea), but an attack is highly unlikely.

That said, if the government decides to act against Iran with military force, then whether we agree or not, those are the actions that will be taken.

Fear generates respect. The bouncer at the bar has a reputation, sometimes "his presence" is enough to control the bar, but sometimes he has to reach out and "touch" someone to set an example and to maintain control. The U.S. is the world's bouncer and we're all just having fun at the bar.

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


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> 
> However, strategic strikes on nuclear facilities I don't think should be out of the question, in fact if talks continue to fail it should be our first military option.


I personally find that CoA the most naive one possible. (Which means that with The Decider in power here it's also the most likely CoA...)

Do you really think it would end with American airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities? Even ignoring that the fallout from such strikes could be an environmental catastrophe tantamount to launching nuclear weapons on the country ourselves.

Why is it naive? One really has to be a rube to think that things will end there. Iran won't take a US attack sitting down, and current "government" and "anti-government", "religious" and "secular" elements will unite against us. Attack Iran and we'll look back to the current unrest in Iraq as "the good ol' days" compared to what Iranian agents will foment there. While contrary to lore Iran has not been particularly supportive of terrorism - though I know some will want to call the legitimate elected government of the Palestinian people terrorists, as well as Lebanese groups fighting illegal Israeli expropriation of Lebanese territory - but there's no doubt they know the "right" people and have the cash to get those people to do what they want them to. If we strike Iran and cause a human and environmental catastrophe, then some psychopath blowing up the Sears tower isn't unprovoked barbarism in the eyes of the world but a retaliatory strike with some collateral damage.

The bottom line, I think, is that Iran having nukes is the second best possibility. The best is that they heed Ayatollah Khamenei's fatwa making nukes haram. (Most Americans, in their abject ignorance, are unaware that Iran's supreme religious leader has declared nuclear weapons forbidden to Iran.) The worst is that bloodthirsty idiots decide in the White House and Right Wing Thinktankistan to go on yet another killing spree.


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

> quote: The best is that they heed Ayatollah Khamenei's fatwa making nukes haram. (Most Americans, in their abject ignorance, are unaware that Iran's supreme religious leader has declared nuclear weapons forbidden to Iran.) The worst is that bloodthirsty idiots decide in the White House and Right Wing Thinktankistan to go on yet another killing spree.


I think history has showm Islamic fundamentalists tend to pick and choose which rules they favor. If you believe Iran will avoid nuclear weapons because of a fatwa...


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

You know SGladwell I'd love to engage in a sensible conversation with you but your attitude is so repugnant you make it damn near impossible. I can honestly say that in my short time on this planet (27 years) I've never encountered someone that uses his high degree of intelligence to pursue a path of such falsity and sheer self-righteousness; it reeks of a bitterness and hatred I have yet to witness to a point that I'm inclined to feel sorry for you. And the problem about all of this is that youâ€™re probably a pretty cool person to be around, hell I enjoy your posts on the fashion forums of both here and SF, I just canâ€™t begin to imagine that youâ€™re such a smug a**hole in reality but maybe Iâ€™m wrong. In any case, Iâ€™ll let others with temperaments much tamer than mine engage youâ€¦

Cheers.


___________

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


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by I_Should_Be_Working_
> 
> I think history has showm Islamic fundamentalists tend to pick and choose which rules they favor. If you believe Iran will avoid nuclear weapons because of a fatwa...


Really? Please post an instance of the Iranian government doing something after their supreme religious figure has forcefully and publicly declared it anti-Islamic. I can't think of one, personally. Which isn't to say that there isn't such a thing, only that I don't know of it. If you know something, please share. If not, your allegations are not helpful to any serious discussion.

After all, with Iran being a real nation-state and not some lone wacko in the hills like OBL, and the current system being in place for a quarter century, they have a record that can be used to support arguments. How about actually citing it instead of making unsupported allegations?


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by SGladwell_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the two attacks on jewish community buildings in BA, and the attempt on one in London. not terror? or not supported by Iran? which is your line on that? is it legitimate oppossion to israel to attack all jews, anywhere?


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> 
> You know SGladwell I'd love to engage in a sensible conversation with you but your attitude is so repugnant you make it damn near impossible. I can honestly say that in my short time on this planet (27 years) I've never encountered someone that uses his high degree of intelligence to pursue a path of such falsity and sheer self-righteousness; it reeks of a bitterness and hatred I have yet to witness to a point that I'm inclined to feel sorry for you. And the problem about all of this is that youâ€™re probably a pretty cool person to be around, hell I enjoy your posts on the fashion forums of both here and SF, I just canâ€™t begin to imagine that youâ€™re such a smug a**hole in reality but maybe Iâ€™m wrong. In any case, Iâ€™ll let others with temperaments much tamer than mine engage youâ€¦
> 
> ...


bill - I'll tell you what bothers me about Glad. I am sure that he is bright, and that he is probrably a pretty interesting person. what kills me is that he is teaching impressionable kids. people are paying $20K or more a year to send their kids to have him corrupt and pervert their minds. I really wonder what the people who are paying for the kids educations would say, if they understood what they were doing? and what scared me, is that there are more like him, hiding out in other schools. you can protect a child for 18 years, and teach to check facts and look for the truth and question common knowledge, and then he spends a semester with Glad and comes home flawed.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> what kills me is that he is teaching impressionable kids. people are paying $20K or more a year to send their kids to have him corrupt and pervert their minds.


So are you like one of those home-schooling nuts?

Learning from commies is part of going to school. You want to deprive kids of that rite of passage?


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

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


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

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


Karl,what do _you _think should be done?

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


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

As we speak, Mr Bush is making reservations for an aerocraft-carrier on which to announce that the Mission in Iran is 'accomplished'.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> As for this theory of a global conflict between the west and Islam, what evidence do you see of that?
> 
> ------------------


No response?

I see you have found the time to post on other threads.

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


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

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


I admit I lost interest in this one.

Why I feel this way is the synthesis of many things, both personal experiences from much, much association with muslims (I did my undergrad in Michigan with a huge islamic population), and happenings around the world. A good example of the latter would be the reaction of the controversial cartoons. What I refer to as the pan-islamic world mobilized over that one. Also, look at the conversation whenever defending Israel comes up. It usually has to do with how all the muslim countries will react, again a pan-islamic reaction, not a nation-state one. I will admit to not having what I would call "hard facts" but it is a very strong feeling I have. From sharia law making inroads in non-muslim countries (hell, even Canada), to the US being seen as the "Great Satan" by so much of islam, I do feel we are headed to a large scale conflict between the West and Islam.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

That's it?

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


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> That's it?
> 
> ------------------


Tell ya what, if over the next 10 years islam and the West do not have a major conflict, I promise to post here that you were right. Sound fair?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Looks like some agree with me.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Yeah, agreeing with Osama Bin Laden is maybe not such a great thing.

Seriously, he is on the fringe of the Islamic world and I'd say anyone who sees the current issues as a war between Islam in general and the west is just as fringe as Osama - though without the murder and mayhem in most cases.

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


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Yeah, agreeing with Osama Bin Laden is maybe not such a great thing.
> 
> ...


sorry, GMAC, you are simply out of touch. you are right in tha tOBL is on the fringe. the question is, of the 1.2 billion other muslims in the world, or more importantly, of the 500 million or so arab muslims in the world, how many of them think that OBL is a hero and who many think he is a nutcase? and of these 500 million or so arab muslims, how many believe that they are engaged in a war with the west?

we are at war with the muslim/arab world, igoring it isn't going to help anybody.


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

It's a trap!



--------------------
Death is...whimsical...today


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

tiger02,

I always disliked the Alliance leadership with their avant garde Italian fashions and lobster like faces. Give the me the desert trad of Mos Eisley Spaceport anyday.

Karl


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Interesting article that seems to support the fringe nature of Bin Laden in the Islamic world:



> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Yeah, agreeing with Osama Bin Laden is maybe not such a great thing.
> 
> ...


********************************
"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."


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

Watch it buster, that's _Armani_ polyester cloth. And it's laserproof, beeotch.

--------------------
Death is...whimsical...today


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> the question is, of the 1.2 billion other muslims in the world, or more importantly, of the 500 million or so arab muslims in the world, how many of them think that OBL is a hero and who many think he is a nutcase? and of these 500 million or so arab muslims, how many believe that they are engaged in a war with the west?


That is indeed the question.

I don't know the answer but you seem to suggest you do. Please share.

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


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> Or to 'rip' the one about being sent by God to start Armageddon, when did W say that? Or can you read his mind? not attacking Iran.


Here are some quotes and the thoughts of a few other voices on this matter:
"Well, my job is to speak clearly and when you say something, mean it. And when you're trying to lead the world in a war that I view as really between the forces of good and the forces of evil, you got to speak clearly. There can't be any doubt. And when you say you're going to do something, you've got to do it." _Interview in Christianty Today, May 24, 2004_
***********************************************************

"He declared during the Washington National Cathedral's 9/11 memorial service, "Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil." Bush no longer sounded like a balance-of-power realist, but like an abolitionist intent on ridding the world of vice. The service ended with a powerful rendition of the abolitionist war song, "The Battle Hymn of the Republic." " _Christianity Today posted 04/25/2003_
************************************************************

"Bush told a Texan evangelist that he had had a premonition of some form of national disaster happening.

Bush said to James Robinson: 'I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.' " _The Faith of George W. Bush, by Stephen Mansfield_
************************************************************

"3.) Mr. Bush certainly sees himself as a Messiah figure. Listen to his language after 9-11: " I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people." Or, in his 2003 State of the Union speech: "I will defend the freedom and security of the American people". He has become the nation. He is its embodiment. According to Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, - Bush told him: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." This is Biblical language . it isn't political script. This is Bush's soul language. He understands himself as a man with a Divine mission. It also means that for him leadership is not "representing the people" rather leadership means transcending the will of the people. George Bush already knows the truth before the evidence is presented. He is guided by God and must blaze the trial even if the people are reluctant." _George Bush and the Rise of Christian Fascism, Rev. Rich Lang, Trinity United Methodist Church Seattle. <[email protected]>_
****************************************************************

"Bush has made numerous references to his belief that he could not be president if he did not believe in a "divine plan that supersedes all human plans." As he gained political power, Bush has increasingly seen his presidency as part of that divine plan. Richard Land, of the Southern Baptist Convention, recalls Bush once saying, "I believe God wants me to be president." After Sept. 11, Michael Duffy wrote in Time magazine, the president spoke of "being chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment."

America's foreign policy is more than pre-emptive, it is theologically presumptuous; not only unilateral, but dangerously messianic; not just arrogant, but bordering on the idolatrous and blasphemous. George Bush's personal faith has prompted a profound self-confidence in his "mission" to fight the "axis of evil," his "call" to be commander-in-chief in the war against terrorism, and his definition of America's "responsibility" to "defend theâ€¦hopes of all mankind." This is a dangerous mix of bad foreign policy and bad theology." _Dangerous Religion, 
George W. Bush's theology of empire. by Jim Wallis in SojournerMagazine, 10/2003_
*****************************************************************

â€œPeople appreciate his devotion to faith, but, in the context of war, there is a fine line, and he is starting to make people nervous,â€ says Steve Waldman, the editor and CEO of Beliefnet, a popular and authoritative Web site on religion and society. â€œThey appreciate his moral clarity and decisiveness. But they wonder if he is ignoring nuances in what sounds like a messianic mission.â€ 
_Newsweek: Bush and God
2003-03-04 22:32:30, A higher calling: It is his defining journeyâ€"from reveler to revelation. A biography of his faith, and how he wields it as he leads a nation on the brink of war By Howard Fineman (NEWSWEEK) March 10, 2003 Issue 
_

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


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

Bill, I always find it amusing when people whose party's heroes are the likes of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove figure that the way to deal with sets of fact-based opinions they don't like is not to point out any holes in what is believed to be a misleading interpretation and then offer an antithesis but instead to carelessly lapse into the politics of personal destruction. I guess it's hard for people who have lived in a bubble to realize that others may have been places and learned things from that experience that can't be gleaned from just reading the Weekly Standard or New Republic. After all, on the issue of agitating for American killing sprees in the Muslim world, there's not a ray of daylight between these publications even though one is "right" and the other "left".

But on a lighter note, were you perchance in the Brick Store Saturday night? I ask because I saw someone who was well dressed and looked much like a picture you posted on SF walk up the stairs towards the Belgian bar.

Globe, I'll make it a point not to respond to you in the future because the atrocities you readily admit to having committed make me sick beyond words, but I think it's beyond funny that you're going on one of those inane "evil liberal profs are ruining our kids" kicks right now. Especially since in the name of "seeing and learning from multiple, different views, about exploring" you seek to shut down any voice that isn't 110% heil Israel, with the armband and everything. In fact, the truly scary thing is that most American students are never exposed to any viewpoint on Israel-Palestine conflict except the dominant one that Israeli is glorious and Palestinians are subhuman. You obviously subscribe to that viewpoint - you couldn't have mangled as many teenagers' limbs as you claim to have done if not - but that does not make it any less in need of challenging than any other bankrupt viewpoint. Never mind that being anti-Apartheid is neither left nor right, because in America right now (though not much of the rest of the world) both left and right are ardently in favor of it.

That you lack the basic judgment to realize one can't draw conclusions about classroom content based on posts to a pair of internet message boards also speaks volumes, though you also seem to not realize the difference between a TA and a professor. (Did you go to college?) Lastly I'd wager that most of the students at this institution pay nothing close to $20k a year for college, given that it's a public school and that before Zell Miller shackled himself to the crazy train he did good things like instituting a statewide merit-based college scholarship, the HOPE.

But despite your unfortunate tendency to academic McCarthyism you do raise a moderately reasonable, if tangential, question regarding past acts of terrorism tied to Iran. Nobody reasonable is saying Iranian client groups haven't engaged in terrorism in the past or that they won't do it in the future. (Though it is equally fair to note that both incidents you mentioned occurred over 10 years ago and have absolutely nothing to do with the current nuclear issue.) But it's fair to say that if Washington does effect some sort of aggression against Iran that Iran's retaliation might take place in drips and drabs all over the world. American and Israeli military/government sites and civilians may be targets, as well as American expats and multinationals. Even Jewish communities all over the world even though they had nothing to do with the American aggression and in many cases will have opposed it. And then what? Are we going to invade them for responding to our aggression the only way they could given their power projection abilities? And then what? Are we going to ramp up the draft to deal with the fact that all of a sudden Iraq and Afghanistan are in full revolt as well, and the majority Shia oil-rich Eastern provinces of Saudi Arabia are ablaze as well? It is often forgotten that Iran was and remains a key powerbroker in Afghanistan, and we depended heavily on their support to bring the Shias of the Hazara ethnic group around to supporting our quisling Karzai government. The Western provinces of the country have been the most peaceful, due to Iran's influence. That could quickly change.

That is not to say that Iran will ever engage in _nuclear_ terrorism, because even if they risk going to hell - to a Shia, disobeying a public ruling from their religion's pope is a major sin, and Khatemi has publicly declared nuclear weapons un-Islamic - to develop nuclear weapons, they won't use them unless they face an existential threat. Such as an invasion by a superpower. The country's leadership does not have a death wish, and they know that the unprovoked detonation of any nuclear weapon with a Tehran return address is a plea for the entire world to unite behind America and mercilessly end the Islamic Republic. They are also far more stable as a government than anyone here has given them credit for being. Their system has remained intact over a quarter century, a vicious eight year stalemate, and multiple leadership changes, after all. Just as in America today Iran's cosmopolitan and educated classes are outnumbered by the zealots, the ignorant, and the paranoid, so their government has broad popular support despite what polls taken on elite opinion may record.

Besides anyone who's truly afraid of nuclear terrorism rather than merely interested in seeing as many Muslim dead bodies as possible should forget about Iran and start calling your congresspeople about restore full funding to Nunn-Lugar Act, thereby keeping Russia's nuclear arsenals properly protected. In their oh-so-competent manner, The Decider and his fellow-travelers have decided that the best way to fight terrorism is gut Nunn-Lugar, thereby making sure that the only people guarding Russia's fissile material are corrupt Russian generals and their occasionally-paid charges.

The bottom line is that there's no way that any military aggression against Iran has any decent purpose or ends positively for anyone, so to consider any sort of lashing out against Iran is profoundly irresponsible. At least at a time when they haven't done anything that's not fully within their rights to do - explore alternative energy sources that will allow them to increase exports and bring in more hard currency - and they've overtly forsworn weaponization of their nuclear technology.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Rip, 

I really don't want to incite you or poke you with a stick. I believe that you really think that when W said X he meant Y and you're all worried he's into armageddon. I see that *certain elements* of the religious right may be fanning those flames and they scare me too, but I don't think W is crazy or messianic about war.

On one hand, I think you're really *out there* too, but I also feel sympathy for you. If you sincerely believe that (as I think you do from the effort you took to respond to my post), it can't be any fun for you. 

Good luck to you. I hope you can hang in there until 2008.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

In this connection:
https://prairieweather.typepad.com/the_scribe/2006/03/32106npr_kevin_.html

I know there have been several articles over the last few years related to evangelical Christianity in Washington politics, none of which make me feel more comfortable. I know Harper's has included some and The Atlantic.



> quote:_Originally posted by rip_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


********************************
"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."


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Glad - lets address the issues you raised, shall we? I know that you have said that you would not discuss issues with me, and you have repeatedly sniped at me and then not responded, but why don't we try to address this civilly?

Glad -"Globe, I'll make it a point not to respond to you in the future because the atrocities you readily admit to having committed make me sick beyond words"

interesting, you have repeatedly called me a war criminal, and discussed the "atrocities" that I have commited. lets put this to bed. when I was 19, I joined the israeli army, as did most israeli men. during my growing up, israel had been under constant threat of attack from the arab states along the borders, as well as from terror attacks. most of my friends had relatives who had died in wars, or at the hands of terrorists. one of the boys at my high school was killed by a katusha rocket, while visiting family in the northern part of israel, fired from lebanon. several people I knew were maimed. as I lived in a town mostly populated by immigrants from arab lands, most people I knew had lost a great deal at the hands of arabs. at 19, avoiding the army, in the situation I was in would have been an act of cowardice, not of political correctness. 

during the years that I served in the army, I spent most of my time involved in protecting the northern border from terrorist infiltrators. during a 3 year period, there were approx. 1000 attempts by armed palestinians, lebanese, syrians and iranians to get over the northern border. less than 10 got deeper than 20 km into israel, so frankly almost no israeli civillians were killed by these infiltrators. a few years before, there had been several successful infiltrations, in each case ending with civillians, and in several cases with multiple children, being killed. while it can be argued that these infiltrators were not attempting to attack civillians, they were, in each case, heavily armed, and, when they had been succesful in getting into israel, in the past, they did attack civillians. I was involved in several firefights were these infiltrators were killed. 

in addition, I was involved in an attack on a large terrorist base, were we killed many armed terrorists. there were no civillians, women or children on the base. 

3 times I was ambushed by a mine or an explosive device, on the border, and was in a firefight to get myself and my friends out. 

a half dozen or so times I was shelled, mostly by the syrians, but also at least once by hizballah.

during my time in the army, and the in the years after, I lost a half dozen friends, several of my various leaders, and had several of my friends maimed. 

while I was in the army, the first intifadah erupted. At the time, I was a seasoned light infrantryman - and my company was called out to respond to the first activities. I was involved in two types of activities. we would patrol the arab towns and villages, where we would be attacked by stone throwing youths. we would then disperse the youths. in addition, I was involved in many instances of arresting wanted terrorists. I am guessing that when you talk about "atrocities" you are discussing these activities. 

let me address this: for some reason, many people in the west, when they heard of the "demonstrators" picture rosy faced 11 year olds, waving signs demanding justice, and the israelis attacking them. what typically happened was this - we would patrol down the street, un groups of 4-8. we would be attacked by a group of people, usually 2-8 times as many as we were. never less than twice as many, usually 4 times as many. these would be young men I do not ever remember seeing a girl or woman involved in this) from 15 to about 26. although, granted, some of these people were 3 or 4 years younger than I was, almost every one was bigger than I was - at the time, I was about 140 pounds. I would be suprised if I ever encountered anybody smaller than that. they would rush out at us, and throw rocks and bottles at us. often, they would attack with tool handles, knifes and the occasional ax. very often, they would attack us with firebombs. we would have 22 inch wooden sticks, and sometimes plexiglass shields. we would charge them, their would be a scuffle, and we would knock a half dozen per encounter down, and break an arm or a leg of each. very rarely, 2 per person. at no time did we drag kids out of their houses, or out of school, to break their limbs. they choose to attack us, and they knew what would happen to them. 

now, if you choose to call this an atrocity, feel free. it is a very bad definition, but go ahead. I find it sad and insulting, because of the lengths that Israel has gone to avoid various criminal activities. 



Glad - "I guess it's hard for people who have lived in a bubble to realize that others may have been places and learned things from that experience that can't be gleaned from just reading the Weekly Standard or New Republic."

I would have to say the same about you. you might not realize it, but you have lived in a bubble of people who believe the same way you do, for too long. 



Glad - "you seek to shut down any voice that isn't 110% heil Israel, with the armband and everything. ....the dominant one that Israeli is glorious and Palestinians are subhuman. You obviously subscribe to that viewpoint" 

I don't see where you get that. there are two distirbing possiblities - first, that you believe that simply because I am israeli, I must feel that palestinians are subhuman. or, because I do not agree with your complete doctrine as to zionism being aparthied, I must feel that the palestinians are subhuman. 

I have been very clear about my critisism of many aspects of the israeli government and history. more than that, if you actually read what I have said, I have voted, in every election that I have voted in, for the party that supports the peace process and the withdrawl from the vast majority of the territories. I have marched in several large and small peace protests. I have been active in the peace process -and active in supporting the economic development of the palestinians. while you were still in high school, I was advising the first arafat government on how to develop the economy of gaza, and teaching jordanian palestinians how to develop their export capacities (both pro bono,I should add). I feel that there are many valid reasons to critisize the israeli governments or activities. what I do not agree with is either your charactorization of israel as an apartheid state or another poster's charactorization of israel as a nazi state. israel has made mistakes, but it is far from an apartheid state. twice I have addressed this, and you have simply ignored me. if you are so convinced of your position, point out one law that meets the criteria of aparthed in israel. 

I subscribe to the viewpoint of facts. I would be the first to agree that their are millions of unhappy palestinians. I would agree that many palestinians, through no fault of their own, have been dealt bad cards. and, I would agree that israel is not lily pure in this. but look at the facts - the fact is that in 60 years of looking, no real historian has been able to prove that israel was involved in ethinic cleansing in 48. one came close to this a few years ago, but it was found that he had falsified data. the strongest proponents of the palestinian cause - edwar said and arafat, both falsified their autobiographies. it is easy to see that the facts in the whole issue are not clear. 

lets look at something else - I have lived in israel, as well as jordan, india and germany. in the army, I shared a tent with two arabs - at one point a beduin and at one point a druze. later in life, I have studied and worked with several israeli arabs. I have had many palestinian friends, jordnian friends and other arabs. one of my best friends is a muslim arab egyptian. I have broken break literally over a thousand times with arabs. many of these have had very strongly anti-zionist viewpoints. many of them have had very strong naratives about thier experiences. I have spent a good part of my life in places where the news and the newspapers held a strong anti-zionist narative. 

have you ever spent any time with an israeli who wasn't anti-zionist? have you ever looked at material that doesn't share your viewpoint? I would have a great deal more respect for you if you believed the same things you do, but if you had arrived in a way that exaimined other viewpoints. 




Glad "That you lack the basic judgment to realize one can't draw conclusions about classroom content based on posts to a pair of internet message boards also speaks volumes, though you also seem to not realize the difference between a TA and a professor. (Did you go to college?)"

I appologize for over estimating you. you are obviously bright, if a little intellectually lazy. I admit that I am fuzzy over the whole concept of proffessor in america - in israel it is always a PhD with tenure. I understood that here if you lead your own classes you are considered a professor, but I cold very well be wrong. I am not part of the academic world.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

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


Save your sympathy for yourself. You seem hopelessly naive, even deluded, concerning this form of evangelical Christianity and have totally missed the fact that not only is this Bush's base, it is his faith, and, by his own expressions, one fervently held. I leave you, and this discussion, with the following quote: _'Religion is the most dangerous energy source known to humankind. The moment a person (or government or religion or organization) is convinced that God is either ordering or sanctioning a cause or project, anything goes. The history, worldwide, of religion-fueled hate, killing, and oppression is staggering.'_ â€"Eugene Peterson (from the introduction to the book of Amos in the Bible paraphrase The Message)


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Rip,

How ironic tha you ascribe every sinister motive to the Christian right yet radical Islam gets a free pass. Remind me of how many Christian theocracies exist? Are Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson trying to develop nuclear weapons? And these fundamentalist boogeymen crashing planes into buildings? And how come Jews have been expelled from Arab countries yet Israel has an Arab member of its Supreme Court? Looks like you are chasing a phantom menace while the real one gets a pass.

Karl

P.S. - you should thank your lucky stars that men like Globetrotter exist bc they are the ones on the front line of the war against terror. How naive to think that the West wouldn't be defending Turkey or the Balkans if Israel didn't exist.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> How naive to think that the West wouldn't be defending Turkey or the Balkans if Israel didn't exist.


Call me naive but you're going to have to explain that one.

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


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Sometimes I have to read these threads to remind myself of the topic. Had Gore, or Kerry ,or my man Ralph been elected president vs Bush there would still have been 9/11 and the israeli/arab conflict along with a hostile iranian government. Sadly, I doubt if any of these vital isues will be resolved before G.W. leaves office. I could get plain melancholy and suggest his successor(s) may find themselves dragging this ball and chain well into their terms of office. I doubt seriously if I've ever presented enough cogent argument, passion of the tongue or sheer volume to convert another online poster to my worldview. I have managed to give some insights and receive same from rather suprising sources. A famous quote talks about truth being the first casualty of war. I would hope we can continue to share information and perspectives on what is obviously a vital issue to us all.There are enough casualties allready. It would be a small victory if we could put our own slings and rocks away here. Shalom, and Salaam a lechum to all.


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

No one can say they weren't warned...



> quote:_Originally posted by tiger02_
> 
> It's a trap!
> 
> ...


--------------------
Death is...whimsical...today


----------



## Jimmy G (Mar 23, 2006)

If Falwell, Robertson & Co. have their way, public school pupils of jewish persuasion would be writing essays of a why-I-love-Jesus variety every week. A proposition that majority of jewish parents simply salivates over, I'm sure.

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


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

JimmyG,

Do you just like to post outrageous statements or are you just a fool? Please cite some evidence that Falwell and Robertson want Jewish students to write "Why I love Jesus" essays. I guess the bull touched you back.

Karl


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gmac,

My point is simply this -

The Arab world focuses on Israel bc it is a convienent scapegoat. Israel is not the reason why Syria, Jordan and Egypt are corrupt, kleptocracies that offer little social mobility or dynamic economies. Is their some sympathy wfor the plight of the Palestinians? Yes, some but not much. The Lebanese for one, harbor a hostility for the Palestinians that beggars belief. The rest of the Muslim world gets sucked into this intellectual dead end under the guise of support for their oppressed co-religionists. Sorry but I call BS on the Islamic world on this. China ruthlessly suppresses its Uighur Muslim minority and instead of loud protests and calls for boycotts and jihad against the godless Chinese "infidels" the Arab world is busy buying Chinese arms and signing billion dollar oil deals. The Arab world continues to watch dramatic miniseries about the Protocls of the Elders of Zion on Chinese made television sets while their co-religionists continue to be persecuted for practicing their faith. So much for Islamic solidarity.

But lets say Israel ceased top exist tomorrow. Suppose all Israelis decided to chuck it in and head for Florida, would Arab and Islamic anger cease? Would Syria, Egypt and Saudia Arabia suddenly flourish and become the paradigm of Jefforsonian democracy? Of course not, and it would only be a matter of time before the corrupt, oppressive Islamic regimes would find another scapegoat so that they could redirect the anger and frustrations of their long suffering populations. bin Laden himself has called for a Muslim reconquest of Anadlusia and the Balkans (and funny thing is that religion was a big player in the Balkan wars during the 90's and wasn't Madrid hit by Islamic terrorists in 2004?) Islamists are gaining influence in Turkey and I fear that Turkey is one economic crisis away from a sharp move towards a theocracy. Let us not confuse the seeming cosmopolitanism of the lobby of Four Seasons in Istanbul as evidence of Turkish secularism. The Anatolian hinterland is a fairly backward place in every sense imaginable. A fight between Islamists and Kemalists (do we still use this term?) is not out of the question.

Israel bears the brunt of terrorism now. If Israel were gone tomorrow and the Palestinian Authority were allowed to run a perfectly modern and advanced country into the ground the terrorism would not stop, it would just migrate to Turkey and to Europe. Islamic terrorism will not stop until Muslim countries reform, embrace pluralism and offer opportunities for economic liberty and self expression for its people. My analogy has been attacked before by those who say that the Muslism world is not monolithic. This may be true in a cultural sense but politically there exists very little difference other than the degree of politcal repression. Turkey, where the military rigidly tries to enforce secularism, and Malaysia, led by a Holocaust denying prime minister who likes to throw the political opposition in prison on sodomy charges, are hardly evidence of mature politcal societies. Until this changes, terrorism will continue.

Answer your question Gmac?

Karl


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

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


exactly


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rip_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I hate to burst your bubble. Technically he's a Methodist. He's definitely not an evangelical. Many evangelicals debate whether Bush is actually 'born again'.

I'm not naive, I'm informed. Particularly so regarding the dangers of fanatical followers of any religion. However, religion and faith themselves aren't the problem. It's perpetual liars and those without conscience that are a danger whether they be religious or not.

I only pointed out that what you say Bush said ISN'T what he said. And that what you said Bush is and believes ISN'T what Bush is and believes. People like you that will twist the truth when it suits them that get in power are the danger. Whether they be Clinton or Bush, it's the lack of truth that is dangerous. The worst are those that respond with vile and hate when they are politely confronted with the facts.

Yes, you're right about one thing, You need more than sympathy, even though you don't deserve it - Prayer. Of course, which of us does deserve it?

You don't even know me or W yet you are quick to assume and accuse with what either of us might think and the worst motives. You just need some help!


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

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


As you so accused me, I guess you can read the man's mind, because what you say bears so little relationship to the evidenced reality of the man. Your arguments are specious as best, dangerously naive at worst, and reflects the kind of non-thinking acceptance that has led us into the embroglios which may well destroy mankind, but hey, that's OK, Jesus will reign.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Rip,

Are you daft? You don't worry about Iran but you think Bush wants to destroy the world? Stay away from discussing the affairs of state, please. I suppose calling Bush an idiot no longer will suffice, now he wants to unleash the apocalypse. Do you belive your own BS or do you do it for the benefit of your leftist cheering section? Get a grip, really man, stop embarassing yourself.

Karl


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Karl,

You have put forth some excellent arguments here. About what I would expect from an Archbishop Molloy grad.

Ken


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

KenR,

Are you a Stanner yourself?

Karl


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

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


No response Karl? I was waiting for some long screed about how the islamic fiends are at the gate and it is only our zionist heroes who are keeping our women out of burqas (for the time being anyway).

I'm a bit disappointed.

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


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rip_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I accused you of exactly what you did, no more no less. You accused W and then you can't back it up. HUGE DIFFERENCE. I haven't made an argument. I asked you to back up your claims about W and Armageddon. You can't. Somehow that makes MY ARGUMENT SPECIOUS AT BEST? What argument? That you accused the President of a bunch of wacko conspiracy theories? That you totally misrepresented what he said? And quoted what other people said HE MEANS or HE WANTS TO DO as if he said it himself and it was true? Those are facts, not arguments. An argument would require you to have a sustainable and defendable position.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gmac,

I did respond. Perhaps you didn't look closely enough. Scroll up. And forgive me if I take religious fundamentalists who wish to take us back to the 11th century seriously and that I don't harbor the animosity you do towards Israel. I would love to see a peaceful, independent Palestinian state but when it was offered to Arafat and the PA in 2000 (I give Clinton and Barak, how Israel could use him again, a lot of credit) but they said no. I wonder how much better the lives of honest, hard working Palestinians would be if Arafat had said yes to the future. Imagine a Palestine where mothers could dream of their children becoming doctors,engineers and even lawyers! rather than suicide bombers. I hope that this hope is realized all across the Arab countries but unless there is change the situation will only grow worse. Israel and the US don't stand in the way of this change. Ask yourself who does.

Karl


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

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


Please cease the mythmaking about the "peace" Gen. Barak offered the Palestinians. What was offered to the Palestinians was a patchwork of Bantustans, along the model that Apartheid South Africa attempted to get the world to recognize. (Luckily, the rest of you were not so stupid as to do so. Except for maybe Dick Cheney, who thought Nelson Mandela a terrorist.) No water rights of any significance, no East Jerusalem, none of the most productive West Bank farmland, no end to the illegal settlements.

Was Arafat a pathetic, corrupt schmuck whose main achievement was getting kicked out of 2-and-a-half countries (if you could the Ramallah siege) under fire? Absolutely. But he was not wrong to reject the terms of the deal offered him at Camp David in 2000. Even the unilateral withdrawals that will presumably continue go on behind that fence are a better deal for the Palestinians than that farce Barak-Clinton offer.


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> Glad - lets address the issues you raised, shall we?


Actually, you rather deftly avoided discussing the "issues" I raised, inasmuch as most of them weren't about your past. Last I checked, the topic at hand was Iran, not whiny justifications for committing atrocities in the name of an illegal war (the Israeli invasion of Lebanon) and an illegal occupation (West Bank/East Jerusalem/Gaza, as well as much of Lebanon from 1982 that despite a general withdrawal about six years ago still extends to some regions of that country today). Go figure.



> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_I would have to say the same about you. you might not realize it, but you have lived in a bubble of people who believe the same way you do, for too long.


Wow, now you know my associates and past, too. I hope that's not Shin Bet's doing, because if so that's some really bad staff work. Being an academic who was trained in elite universities, it is very rare to have spent much time around like-minded people. In my time outside of the US, there has been more diversity of opinion, obviously. But civilized people can disagree passionately about even this topic and then go out for a beer later.



> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_I don't see where you get that. there are two distirbing possiblities


Actually, let's try Possibility 3. I've read your own words on this forum and SF and based my opinion on what you have written. Including your inane blather on this thread about us being at war with Islam. If I recall, even j over at SF concurred with me that you were rather hysterical about Israel-Palestine question.



> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_ if you are so convinced of your position, point out one law that meets the criteria of aparthed in israel.


Buy my book in 4-6 months, and you will find several beyond what has already been discussed.



> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_have you ever spent any time with an israeli who wasn't anti-zionist? have you ever looked at material that doesn't share your viewpoint? I would have a great deal more respect for you if you believed the same things you do, but if you had arrived in a way that exaimined other viewpoints.


You have no idea what I've examined or to whom I've spoken. I'll just say that as a lifelong holder of minority opinions it's impossible with the work I do to not be surrounded with those whose beliefs are diametrically opposed to mine. Consider the massive retribution currently going on against Dean (for the next few months) Walt and Dr. Mearsheimer, that will only intensify in the coming years. For what? For writing an article that systematically explodes the conventional wisdom on this topic. Also, consider that most of the scholars working in this field have beliefs shaped by the tribe they were born into, rather than coming at it with no bias inbred (being neither Jewish nor Arab) as I have.



> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_ I understood that here if you lead your own classes you are considered a professor, but I cold very well be wrong.


In the United States, a the most pared-down definition of professor is someone who holds a Ph.D. and lectures at the college level. It's not like in some parts of Europe, where a tenured professor holds a different title. A TA is typically a graduate student.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by SGladwell_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Glad - in all seriousness, what have the palestinians achieved by rejecting this? when israel was offered a similar structure of state in 48, israel agreed. if the palestinians had agree to this offer, they would have saved thousands of lives, mostly their own, and their economy.

I do not raise this to be argumentative, but you know what one of the many, many differences between this and a bantustan would have been - at the time of this offer, the palestinains had complete freedom of movement. this is part of the basic idea - a situation where to get from israeli neighborhodds you have to go through palestine, and to get from palestinian neighborhoods you need to go through israel. with basically integrated economies. the best assurance of long term peace and prosperity for everyone.

also, you have to agree that either the palestinians were going to have a country that wasn't in one peace, or israel. the geogrphy is such that somebody had to have a country in 2 pieces. and, frankly, the logical thing is for israel to not want to do that to itself.


----------



## Jimmy G (Mar 23, 2006)

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


Were you not too busy soaking up all that Rupert Murdoch/Norman Pattiz/Conrad Black - sponsored neocon drivel, you might have had an opportunity to actually attempt and extract your head out of your tuchus where it's been so firmly planted. 
Jerry " Gimmie Armageddon " Falwell, Pat " Diamonds Are Us " Robertson and their loony toon fellow travellers become practically moist @ the mere thought of the MidEast going up in flames. It's all part of their play in which jews don't make it past Act 4. Israel is going to be - hang on to your seat - wiped out, and that handful of jews who may survive are going to finally embrace JC. 
Though Likudnik dreamers - for the sake of a tactical alliance with the christian right - pretend not to be bothered by what the latter has in store for them, in the eyes of the jews I know this stuff makes Henry Ford look like Dr.Ruth. Then again, not everyone was blessed with the ability to see beyond the tip of his schnozzle.

P.S. For examples of specific cases/dates on when jewish students were expected to participate in christian prayer and/or compose a christian-themed essay contact your neighborhood friendly ACLU office.

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


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

JimmyG,

You make an outrageous claim and when asked to back it up you offer only more outrageous propaganda. I am no fan of Pat Robertson but unlike you your beloved Joe Sobran he doesn't deny the Holocaust. 

So lets get this straight - the Christian Right wants the Middle East in flames and the Jews don't realize they are being duped by the likes of Robertson and Falwell. JimmyG do you really believe this nonsense or are you off your meds? 

Lets make a deal, you worry about Pat Roberton and Jerry Falwell trying to destroy the world and the responsible adults will worry about bin Laden and the Iranian theocracy trying to end the world.

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

There's a double, yellow line between being "blessed with the ability to see beyond the tip of his schnozzle" and hallucinations.

[}]


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

The final word:

_We may have to bomb Iran
Rod Liddle

Natanz seems an agreeable little town, perched nearly 5,000ft up in the majestic mountains of central Iran, full of dusty relics of Alexander the Great and black-clad peasants scurrying hither and thither. It is a shame, then, that we may soon be obliged to bomb it to smithereens. An even bigger shame, though, if we donâ€™t. 
Natanz is where the Iranians are carrying out their hectic uranium enrichment programme â€" something they were politely requested to stop doing by the International Atomic Energy Agency one month ago. The deadline for them to pack up their thousands of centrifuges passed on Friday â€" but they are still beavering away and have expressed a marked reluctance to take the slightest notice of the international community.

There doesnâ€™t seem to be much doubt that their intention is to produce nuclear weapons; a handful every year, perhaps. The Natanz facility is partially underground, a fact that provoked the IAEA inspectors to note, rather drily, that this was â€œinconsistentâ€ with the Iranian claims that the plant was solely for the purpose of manufacturing mildly enriched uranium for benignly commercial purposes.

Equally anomalous to this defence is the fact that those same inspectors found particles of extremely enriched uranium at Natanz, the sort of stuff you need to make atomic bombs. Presented with this evidence, the Iranians shuffled their feet a little, looked at the ground and then announced that maybe they hadnâ€™t washed the equipment thoroughly when they bought it from the Pakistanis and consequently there was still the odd bit of weapons-grade material kicking around, sorry about that, you know how it is, canâ€™t get the help, etc.

You can believe them if you wish. It would be a kinder, happier world if we were all able to trust one another. But my suspicion is that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iranâ€™s president, who has expressed a desire to see Israel wiped from the face of the world, may soon have the wherewithal. A suspicion supported with physical evidence and a statement of malevolent intent. What more evidence do you need? An awful lot more, as far as the international community is concerned. Paralysis has descended since the invasion of Iraq and it afflicts not just the United Nations and the European Union but western public opinion, too. So ill-judged and catastrophic was the Anglo-US adventure against Saddam Hussein that it has warped our ability to think rationally about what to do with Iran. Opposition to pre-emptive military action against Iran will be deafening.

The war against Iraq was predicated upon two misconceptions â€" first of all that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. He did not. His hopeless army possessed scarcely any weapons at all. But even allowing for hindsight, the term â€œweapons of mass destructionâ€ in Saddamâ€™s case referred only to chemical and biological weapons â€" which, although thoroughly nasty, are a politically inspired misnomer. It is nukes that inflict genuine mass destruction and there was never a suggestion that Saddam had any of those.

The difference with any action against Iran is stark: hard evidence of genuine WMD in preparation; hard, stated evidence of intent. And a clearly defined, containable and comparatively attainable military objective â€" knocking out that enrichment site at Natanz.

I have debated this issue with numerous British politicians, from Tony Benn on the left to Steven Norris on the right, and the result is always the same. â€œWe must negotiate with the Iranians,â€ they all say, a mantra, a form of whistling in the dark.

Well, of course we must first negotiate. Of course we must, later, bring whatever pressure we can to bear from supra-national organisations such as the UN. We should beg, bully, plead and cajole the medieval Ahmadinejad. We should offer economic incentives. When these do not work, we should impose sanctions. We should bar the Iranian team from the World Cup and refuse them entry to the Eurovision song contest â€" thatâ€™ll teach â€™em. But what on earth do we do when all that fails, as it looks as though it will? Faced with that probability, there is just silence from the politicians: the question is never answered.

Never mind such niceties as verifying Iranâ€™s nuclear aims: there is still a large tranche of the western world that believes with bovine obduracy that because we and the Americans and the French and the Israelis have nukes, why shouldnâ€™t poor old Third World Iran? Fair play to the burka boys, donâ€™t you think? The answer is simple and yet â€" in some quarters â€" quite unsayable: because it is Iran.

There is a final irony: the war against Iraq may have been at least partially responsible for the election next door of a primitive fundamentalist from the Dark Ages. So, too, the commitment within the country to continue enriching uranium, regardless of how unhappy it might make the imperialistic western powers.

One way or another we will need to get to grips with Natanz quite soon. I may not want to live in a world with nuclear weapons â€" but I really donâ€™t want to live in a world where Iran has nuclear weapons.

_


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> The final word:


You don't seriously expect "the final word" to come from a Rupert Murdoch-owned press organ, do you? After all, we're talking about a man who allows himself precisely one publication that does not now and never will make money, the endlessly bloodthirsty Weekly Standard. It is clear that the sympathies of News Corp lie in seeing the Arab/Muslim world broken, bleeding, and charred.

Nor, to a reasonable person, would the "final word" contain the telling sentence "Never mind such niceties as verifying Iranâ€™s nuclear aims."

Moreover, now that Osama bin Laden himself has put his stamp of approval on genocide against Muslims in Darfur for the crime of not being Arab - odd for a man who made his name funneling CIA money to non-Arab Muslims in Afghanistan, but that aside - might it not be a better time to liberate Khartoum's oil wells than to murder Iranians for what the above author freely admits is a whim?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

SGladwell,

I realize its May Day and it must be tough for you bc Communism was your god that failed but get a grip. You never engage the argument just attack the source. Rod Liddle is hardly a neo-con. The Muslim world is broken and breeding bc it refuses to adopt pluralism, engage modernity and give its people a measure of cultural and economic freedom. 

I wonder if you, like your Columbia colleague, wish a 1,000 Mogadishus on the US. Academia never seems to wont for apologists of tyranny.

Karl


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

So if one demands "niceties" like evidence before presiding over the murder of tens of thousands at a minimum one is now a Communist? You are truly deranged, sir. And with that, good day.


----------

