# Iran



## noodles (Jan 16, 2007)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/14/iran.us/index.html



> But, on ABC's "This Week," Hadley would not rule out the possibility of such an attack and would not say whether he agrees with those senators who say that the Bush administration would need congressional backing for such a move.





> Vice President Dick Cheney took that message to "Fox News Sunday," saying, "It's been pretty well-known that Iran is fishing in troubled waters, if you will, inside Iraq. And the president has responded to that. ... I think it's exactly the right thing to do."



I really don't like where this is going.


----------



## Buzz762 (Jan 16, 2007)

noodles said:


> http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/14/iran.us/index.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've been expecting this ever since Iraq was looking to be a likely target. We now have troops on both sides of it, and it's been the most logical country to attack the whole time. I'm not trying to say that I think that we should, but I'm just trying to say that if we were going to go to war, Iran seemed like it would have been the first country for Bush to go after.


----------



## eaeolian (Jan 16, 2007)

This was my big fear with Bush as a total lame duck - he's got no one to answer to anymore...


----------



## Nik (Jan 16, 2007)

Wow, I never thought they might actually follow through with something like this, but all these public statements are starting to scare me.

Talk about a bad idea. Extremist as they may be, Iran actually have their shit together. Attacking them would be a _totally_ different ball-game. It would requite much more effort and resources than Iraq ever did. And with troops spread thin because of Iraq, and an idiot acting as Commander in Chief, this is a complete disaster waiting to happen...  

This is really unnerving. If they actually do this... Umm... I really am speechless.


----------



## Mr. S (Jan 16, 2007)

oh dear... i really hope they dont actually go through with this... its such a bad fuckin' idea


----------



## Drew (Jan 16, 2007)

Anyone else see how the Iranian President and Chavez are starting an "Anti-US fund" to provide funding for groups working against the States? 

Yeah, diplomacy my ass, Dubya...


----------



## ohio_eric (Jan 16, 2007)

There's a lot of speculation that sometime this spring or summer we will hit Iran. Bush is just stubborn and ignorant enough to do something this stupid. Like eaeolian said I doubt he feels any responsibility to anyone anymore other than himself and demon who talks to him every night and calls himself Jesus.


----------



## noodles (Jan 16, 2007)

Drew said:


> Anyone else see how the Iranian President and Chavez are starting an "Anti-US fund" to provide funding for groups working against the States?



http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20598


----------



## Drew (Jan 16, 2007)

Oh, maybe that's where I first saw it.


----------



## Blexican (Jan 16, 2007)

I think Bush is gonna try, but won't succeed. 'Cause otherwise, this WILL be the event that starts World War III.


----------



## metalking (Jan 16, 2007)

if he does go for it iran will just try and punch above their weight, if your a country that small against america you really have very little to lose so you can probably expect dirty bombs and chemical weapons, irans not stuck in the stone age anymore, shame that it would take the deaths of thousands of americans to teach bush a lesson


----------



## Oguz286 (Jan 16, 2007)

Bush really is a retard, what the hell does he think he's doing? Saving us all from terrorism? Yeah, like acting like this is really going to improve it. Make no mistake Bush; Iran is a whole lot stronger than Iraq, so if he really wants more dead American soldiers, Iran is the place to go (not that he should offcourse).

I always wonder, why does a country like the USA have such an idiot as president?


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jan 16, 2007)

Oguz286 said:


> I always wonder, why does a country like US have such an idiot as president?


----------



## noodles (Jan 16, 2007)

Back to the topic, though, here is a serious problem when considering any sort of conflict with Iran:






It is *three times* bigger than Iraq. You can fit Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico inside of it.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jan 16, 2007)

Wewt, e-rep. I'm on the rise motherfuckers.


----------



## Mastodon (Jan 16, 2007)

This has to be some sort of joke .

Early april fools?

Something?


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jan 16, 2007)

Actually, amusing as JJ's post was, this is the real reason why we're saddled with the 'Decider'.

1. 





2. 





3.


----------



## Drew (Jan 16, 2007)

metalking said:


> ...shame that it would take the deaths of thousands of americans to teach bush a lesson



What makes you think that? The first three thousand dead Americans clearly haven't left a mark...



TheBlexican3 said:


> I think Bush is gonna try, but won't succeed. 'Cause otherwise, this WILL be the event that starts World War III.



Again, what makes you think that? The President of the United States of America has constitutional right to wage war for 90 days without congressional support. He can start bombing Iran, knowing full well that in 90 days we'll HAVE to continue the war, as Iran will be attacking us.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jan 16, 2007)

noodles said:


>



I don't see Durka Durka-stan anywheres there.


----------



## Lozek (Jan 16, 2007)

Drew said:


> Anyone else see how the Iranian President and Chavez are starting an "Anti-US fund" to provide funding for groups working against the States?
> 
> Yeah, diplomacy my ass, Dubya...



I thought that it was a very sensationalist headline to be honest. When I read this quote:


Yahoo said:


> But Chavez also said in his state of the nation address to government officials and legislators that he had personally expressed hope to a high-ranking U.S. official for better relations between their two countries.
> 
> Chavez said he spoke with Thomas Shannon, head of the U.S. State Department's Western Hemisphere affairs bureau, on the sidelines of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega's inauguration earlier this week.
> 
> "We shook hands and I told him: 'I hope that everything improves,'" Chavez said. "I'm not anyone's enemy."



What it says to me is that they are doing this to strengthen themselves against US dominating their region economically (see my link to the new Coca Cola plant in Baghdad for an example), not to necessarily be Anti-US. I see quite a defined difference between being 'Anti-US' and looking after number one by trying new ideas.


And agreed, messing with Iran is a whole different ball game. They have powerful allies, and they've already been through U.S. regime toppling tactics (they were a sovereign state whose King was personal friends with Carter until he turned on the Shah and totally back-stabbed him, leading to the oppressive regime that they are currently enduring).


----------



## Pauly (Jan 16, 2007)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> I don't see Durka Durka-stan anywheres there.



  

The map needs to say how many miles from America it is too.


----------



## garcia3441 (Jan 16, 2007)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070117/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_surplus_stings_7


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070116/pl_afp/usiranrussiadefense_070116215933


Iran is better armed than Iraq was.


----------



## Oguz286 (Jan 17, 2007)

Why do you think Bush is sending 20000 (or was it 30000) soldiers to Iraq? It's not to 'keep the order' in Iraq, he wants more manpower to attack Iran. And the ones that are going to suffer are the American soldiers (and with that i mean that they are the ones on the battlefield, not in the whitehouse). I really hope he doesn't do it, but i'm 99% sure he will.


----------



## 999dead666 (Jan 17, 2007)

the thing is that iran and syria got defence treaties between each others and both got short,middle,far range missiles plus the comandos that are trained in fighting underground and in cities and war between hizbullah and israel in south lebanon was a demo between iran/syria and america or israel and hizbullah won the war , the american bases in iraq are known and opened so if bush start the war with iran his troops will between 2 hammers . and yes when iraq was facing 15 years of heavy sanctions and 2 gulf wars iran was rebuilding its army after the defeat infront of iraq in the 80s so now they are one big good armed power


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jan 17, 2007)

^ #1. Periods. 

#2. Sentences.

#3. Paragraphs.


----------



## HighGain510 (Jan 17, 2007)

^^^^^ Mmhmm not to mention it's spelled DEFENSE.... geez I think sports have taught people to spell it like the signs that say "D- FENCE!"


----------



## Dive-Baum (Jan 17, 2007)

BTW...Hello everyone. 
I thought this from the beginning also. We have the country flanked from the east and west. Nowhere to run to. I saw today where another aircraft carrier is deploying for the Gulf bound for the coast of Iran. That would make 2 of them for those counting. There is no doubt that Amadinijad is absolutely crazy but to start yet another front is crazy on our part. I read today that Iran shot down one of our drones. This will be a reason for escallation. russia just sold them some of their anti-aircraft missile batteries for "self defense". 
Is it just me or does anyone else see another Cold War starting up.
Iran's nuculear program must be stopped but it needs to be done diplomatically....a concept that has eluded our commander in chief. As much as I want Iran to be put in it's place (for obvious reasons for those of you who know me) it needs to be done the right way. The reason I say that is this...the majority of Iranian citizens do not, in any way agree with their leader's politics (sounds familiar huh?) He is being openly criticized and mocked by students. This is a huge move by the youth of that nation as they could be delt with harshly as a result of that. Anyway, I see this going down in 2-3 months. There will probably be a US Fighter Patrol that flies just outside Iranian airspace, and they will be fired upon by those brand spanking new Russian missiles and the dust up will ensue.



Drew said:


> What makes you think that? The first three thousand dead Americans clearly haven't left a mark...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what makes you think that? The President of the United States of America has constitutional right to wage war for 90 days without congressional support. He can start bombing Iran, knowing full well that in 90 days we'll HAVE to continue the war, as Iran will be attacking us.



Hey Drew..I'm back again...
You pretty much hit it on the head here. I honestly think it wouldn't even take 90 days to level their military. We don't seem to have a problem dealing with other forces on a traditional scale. Our military is made to kick ass..and they do like no other force on earth...it is when we have to deal with the aftermath of cleaning up and policing that we don't have a clue.


----------



## Drew (Jan 17, 2007)

Dive-Baum said:


> The reason I say that is this...the majority of Iranian citizens do not, in any way agree with their leader's politics (sounds familiar huh?) He is being openly criticized and mocked by students. This is a huge move by the youth of that nation as they could be delt with harshly as a result of that. Anyway, I see this going down in 2-3 months. There will probably be a US Fighter Patrol that flies just outside Iranian airspace, and they will be fired upon by those brand spanking new Russian missiles and the dust up will ensue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First, sup dude? 

Second, I read a fascinating Smithsonian article from maybe 8 months ago that argued that Iran actually represented the US's best shot at stable diplomatic ties in the middle east, in that their general population was really pretty moderate and pro-US. This was, naturally, before the election of Amadinijad, but if you get him out of office I think the point still stands, and this is what really scares me about Bush's policy towards Iran - it could so easily play out completely differently, with two more moderate leaders on either side. 

Third, you _totallly_ misread me on the 90 day thing.  There's no way in fucking HELL we could just roll over the Iranian army in 90 days or less - look what happened in Bagdhad, and our military wasn't spread half as thin as it is now back in '03. And let's not even talk about Syrian defense treaties with Iran - Bush can, I think, safely declare war with Iran and force Congress to approve a full scale military operation because he knows we'll be stuck in quagmire ninty days down the road. 

Fourthly, look at it from the standpoint of Israel. If the United States launches a serious attack on Iran, Amadinijad will have to realize that his country is about to get pretty seriously fucked up, win or lose, and that his military is as strong now as it's going to be for decades to come. He's an extremist who believes passionately in the eradication of Israel from the map of the Middle East, and since a lot of what's checked him thus far is fear of repercussions from the global community, the united states in particular, well, by hitting him with the stick we've been waving at him we've taken all fear of being hit by that same stick out of him, you know? He's got no reason not to launch an attack on Israel if we invade. Now, he almost certainly does not have a nuclear arsenal, but in a country that's already been as heavily battered as Israel has of late, even a few air strikes and a small ground force can do some serious damage. If Iran declared war on Israel, then the Palestinians and Hamas are almost certain to follow suit. Syria will as well, most likely.

Israel, emboldened by blank-check US support and more than likely with our blessing, would most likely launch a nuclear strike against Iran, in this scenario. Even assuming no one nukes Israel in response, I think at this point it's pretty safe to say that the nation of Israel will NOT survive a US invasion of Iran. 

So, I guess my question is twofold - for one, has Bush really thought this all the way through, or is he just cosmically stupid? For another, do we REALLY want to go down this road?


----------



## Dive-Baum (Jan 17, 2007)

First let me respond to your last 2 questions in saying....Does he ever think anything through? And No. One thing though...I saw a month or 2 ago where the US sent a pile of Patriot missile batteries to Israel as well as Israel having developed their own anti ICBM program in conjunction with the US...so as far as major missile strikes go..I think Israel will be OK. If Israel ever uses a nuke, it won't be just one. They have proven in the past that they can take out their enemies all at once, they know they would have to do so again. And they have the ability to do so. Don't take this as my condoning that course...but let's face it...you know where I stand here. 
Iran used to be a great friend to the US...it is a shame such an idiot is now their leader. Now I am afraid that the Iranian people will pay the price for their sabre-rattling windbag of a President. Iran is interfering in US affairs and has been trying to stir up trouble...they may have gotten what they asked for.

One thing though....you did say "modderate" government in the region...I just don't see that as a possibility anymore. With radical islam seemingly taking over, we have made a mess for ourselves that will not be resolved in our lifetime. An enemy who looks forward to dying is a dangerous one, and one likely not to reform and think of peace.

Also...nice to get into another one with you..not many of my friends could tell you what is going on in Washington, let alone on the world stage...although unfortunately I think we actually are coming from the same view on this one...I seem to remember that happening a few times...

The Job is going well. No one has bought my house yet, Kids are great..etc


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jan 17, 2007)

You need to look at why Iran is no longer a friend to the US, and why it in fact has become the originator of radical fundamentalist Islamic movements. People seem to have this image in their head of 'the mad Arab', some Muslim fanatic, but guess what? 100 years ago there wasn't really any 'radical Islam' to speak of.


----------



## Dive-Baum (Jan 17, 2007)

I agree with you...I just don't see a way for it to be fixed. I have really tried to look at things from other view points lately. Hard to believe I know.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jan 17, 2007)

Good for you!

I'm pretty pro-Israel myself, honestly. (Although that doesn't mean I'm fully behind the issues with the Palestinians etc.) (Why do we have to put disclaimers on stuff like that?  )


----------



## SevenatoR (Jan 17, 2007)

If Israel (or anybody else) opts to use nukes...man, that's just scary. WWIII served up on a platter, IMO.

So, is Bush the anti-Christ?


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jan 17, 2007)

SevenatoR said:


> So, is Bush the anti-Christ?



He's not nearly that cool


----------



## Leon (Jan 17, 2007)

and Iran... Iran so far away......


----------



## noodles (Jan 17, 2007)

Die, Leon.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jan 17, 2007)

noodles said:


> Die, Leon.



Leon will never die. Why?

Because dying is easy. Comedy is hard.


----------



## noodles (Jan 17, 2007)

It's just the second time I've heard that joke on a music forum in the last two years.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jan 17, 2007)

That's cause we're cool like that, Dave.


----------



## Dive-Baum (Jan 17, 2007)

Leon said:


> and Iran... Iran so far away......




That is just awesome.   +E Rep my good man

BTW...Whats Up Noodles and TDW...been a while...



The Dark Wolf said:


> Good for you!
> 
> I'm pretty pro-Israel myself, honestly. (Although that doesn't mean I'm fully behind the issues with the Palestinians etc.) (Why do we have to put disclaimers on stuff like that?  )




Because you are a PC kinda guy!!!


----------



## Drew (Jan 17, 2007)

Dive-Baum said:


> First let me respond to your last 2 questions in saying....Does he ever think anything through? And No. One thing though...I saw a month or 2 ago where the US sent a pile of Patriot missile batteries to Israel as well as Israel having developed their own anti ICBM program in conjunction with the US...so as far as major missile strikes go..I think Israel will be OK. If Israel ever uses a nuke, it won't be just one. They have proven in the past that they can take out their enemies all at once, they know they would have to do so again. And they have the ability to do so. Don't take this as my condoning that course...but let's face it...you know where I stand here.
> Iran used to be a great friend to the US...it is a shame such an idiot is now their leader. Now I am afraid that the Iranian people will pay the price for their sabre-rattling windbag of a President. Iran is interfering in US affairs and has been trying to stir up trouble...they may have gotten what they asked for.
> 
> One thing though....you did say "modderate" government in the region...I just don't see that as a possibility anymore. With radical islam seemingly taking over, we have made a mess for ourselves that will not be resolved in our lifetime. An enemy who looks forward to dying is a dangerous one, and one likely not to reform and think of peace.
> ...



The thing with Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Defense Systems is, and I'm forgetting the exact statistics, even in carefully controlled tests where the systems were programmed to know where to find the _exact trajectory_ of the missile in question, the systems only sucessfully took out the missile a fraction of the time. In a real-world scenario where you know a missile's coming from a general direction, but you don't know exactly when and where? Let's just say I wouldn't want to be trusting a missile defense system to cover my ass. 

As for your assertation that Israel can look out for itself, well, the recent conflict with Lebanon was technically an Israeli victory, but considering the relative sizes of the two countries and the sophistication of their armies, it should have been a rout. It wasn't. I'm not saying I don't think they can do it because I "don't like Israel" or "don't like Jews" or something crazy like that - I honestly don't think they could take on Lebanon, the Palistine authority, Syria, and Iran all at once, without falling back on their nuclear arsenal. And we both know that's the point at which all international support for Israel will dry up. I just think if we declare war on Iran, Israel as we know it is done for. 

You're right about radiical Islam. However, I think it's worth diiscussing WHY radical Islam is taking over - part of its growing appeal is due to heavy-handed American intervention in the region. If we would distance ourselves from local affairs, open diplomatic relations with the moderate governments and not go out of our way to antagonize the extremist ones, increase no-strings foreign aid to the region, and stop presenting ourselves as the "white devil" trying to reshape the region in our image, then I think we could win a diplomatic war that we're losing militarily. All in all, I have to believe that all else equal your average mideastern citizen prefers moderation to extremism. I may be naive in this (the US is certainly getting pretty extremist, just look at the Bible Belt), but I hope to god I'm not.

Glad the family's well... I forget, is Florida where you were going, or where you left...? :/


----------



## Dive-Baum (Jan 17, 2007)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Good for you!
> 
> I'm pretty pro-Israel myself, honestly. (Although that doesn't mean I'm fully behind the issues with the Palestinians etc.) (Why do we have to put disclaimers on stuff like that?  )




Because you are a PC kinda guy!!! 

I am too (Duh)..and to be honest I usually never see fault in their actions BUT I try if something is blatant enough...I am more apt to find fault with our own actions than Israel's...Israel's actions usually revolve around survival in a hostile environment...To this day I couldn't tell you what ours revolve around.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jan 17, 2007)

Drew said:


> However, I think it's worth diiscussing WHY radical Islam is taking over - part of its growing appeal is due to heavy-handed American intervention in the region.


From my understanding of it, that's almost the WHOLE reason for it.

From Wiki, on "Islamism" - pay attention to the 6-Day War and the Iranian Revolution in 1979.

Seriously, before recent years, and America's intervention in that area, there wasn't really any sort of cohesive 'Islamist" movement. The idea of the wild-eyed Arab is a political red herring to justify our incursions into that oil rich area. Plain and simple.


----------



## Dive-Baum (Jan 17, 2007)

Drew..stop kidding...you know you hate us all!! haha....I was reading about a system they started off in developing with the US then we pulled out and they finished it. It is mobile..something else about it was cool but I can't remember...Where's Chris...he probably programed the thing  

Remember, Israel had a problem with Hezbolah because they had 7 years to dig in...Hell, we are still rooting out the Talliban in Afghanistan for the same reason...years of making natural hiding spots. Also they hid among the civilian population...another issue in and of itself...but lets not get into that again. Israel can handle it's own...besides...you know the US will be there with support anyway. Remember 1967...talk about outnumbered..they did OK for themselves then, and will again if all the chips are down. Terrorism is hard to fight. Nations are much easier. Look at how long it took the US to dispose of the Iraqi army versus the insurgancy...same thing.

Yeah..I'm in Jacksonville now ( I always lived in Florida) working with a Fortune 15 company..I'm an AVP now!! Believe that?? I am still driving about 700 miles a week commuting. So far since September I have put a little over 12,000 miles on my car. But the money is sick so gotta do it with a smile. I work 9-10 hours a day and drive for 3. I live for the weekends.


----------



## Leon (Jan 17, 2007)

noodles said:


> It's just the second time I've heard that joke on a music forum in the last two years.



be prepared for a third. it's an easy joke to make


----------



## Drew (Jan 17, 2007)

Dive-Baum said:


> Drew..stop kidding...you know you hate us all!! haha....I was reading about a system they started off in developing with the US then we pulled out and they finished it. It is mobile..something else about it was cool but I can't remember...Where's Chris...he probably programed the thing
> 
> Remember, Israel had a problem with Hezbolah because they had 7 years to dig in...Hell, we are still rooting out the Talliban in Afghanistan for the same reason...years of making natural hiding spots. Also they hid among the civilian population...another issue in and of itself...but lets not get into that again. Israel can handle it's own...besides...you know the US will be there with support anyway. Remember 1967...talk about outnumbered..they did OK for themselves then, and will again if all the chips are down. Terrorism is hard to fight. Nations are much easier. Look at how long it took the US to dispose of the Iraqi army versus the insurgancy...same thing.
> 
> Yeah..I'm in Jacksonville now ( I always lived in Florida) working with a Fortune 15 company..I'm an AVP now!! Believe that?? I am still driving about 700 miles a week commuting. So far since September I have put a little over 12,000 miles on my car. But the money is sick so gotta do it with a smile. I work 9-10 hours a day and drive for 3. I live for the weekends.



Fuck yeah dude, well done. You gotta love that title...  700 miles a week is a long commute (mine's like 30), but think of all the opportunity to administer metal in the privacy of your own car... 

See, I don't even think the _USA_ could take on Iran, Lebannon, Syria, and the PNA (ironically, the Polish National Alliance had a dive bar/meeting hall called the PNA in my home town ) right now, as bogged down as we are in Iraq and Afghanistan. Especially in that, you declare war on that consortium, and by implication it's war on the entire middle east. Extremists in even moderate, relatively pro-US countries will be declaiming the war and painting it in terms of religious impression and war against Islam. All hell will ensue... I don't like it. 

My argument that Israel will most likely not survive a war wiith Iran was largely to bring in a subject I know you feel strongly about (though I do believe it's a likely result, that Israel will get sucked into the conflict, willingly or unwillingly, and is not positioned to survive), however I really _don't_ believe that the United States is even in a position to come out of a war with the entire Middle East in good shape.


----------



## Dive-Baum (Jan 17, 2007)

You may be right about Israel...sheer number are definately against them but they should never be underestimated...In their mind, they are fighting for the survival of the Jewish people. The Holocaust is very much in their minds. My dad always told me never to pick a fight with the little guy in the bar because that's the guy that will completely unload on you...maybe litterally. 
And DEFINATELY never underesimate the ability of the US Military to fuck some people up. If need be, we can do it...just watch that doccumentary of the "ground war" in Iraq on Discovery...it will make you a believer. If we think we have to do something, we can and will. Simple as that. We are spread thin obviously, but don't think we couldn't pull it off for a second.


----------



## Leon (Jan 17, 2007)

sounds like we're entering into the second Cold War... CWII.


----------



## noodles (Jan 17, 2007)

War with Iran = Draft


----------



## Dive-Baum (Jan 17, 2007)

noodles said:


> War with Iran = Draft




I was actually saying that exact same thing earlier to a guy in my office who graduated from West Point. 

Is it just me or should we have some sort of War Effort here. We haven't been asked to do anything except give up due process, checks and ballances and civil liberties 

Why aren't we issuing War Bonds or having aluminum and scrap metal drives?
Why aren't we saving rubber? Why are we letting our debt be bought by our enemies?

Just a little addage here...I am sitting in my corner office, looking out of my window (crap weather), employees coming in and out and I have Sepultura playing from my MP3 player on a stereo. I love capitalism!!


----------



## garcia3441 (Jan 17, 2007)

Drew said:


> As for your assertation that Israel can look out for itself, well, the recent conflict with Lebanon was technically an Israeli victory, but considering the relative sizes of the two countries and the sophistication of their armies, it should have been a rout.



The Lebanese army kept out of it. Israel was fighting Hezbollah, a terror group that the U.S. government said had only 16,000 fighters.


----------



## Leon (Jan 17, 2007)

noodles said:


> War with Iran = Draft





also...

War with Iran = Leon finally moves to Toronto


----------



## Dive-Baum (Jan 17, 2007)

garcia3441 said:


> The Lebanese army kept out of it. Israel was fighting Hezbollah, a terror group that the U.S. government said had only 16,000 fighters.



It wouldn't have mattered much...Congo has more of an army than Lebanon.



Leon said:


> also...
> 
> War with Iran = Leon finally moves to Toronto



Have fun looking at you frozen nuts roll across the floor in the winter.


----------



## Drew (Jan 17, 2007)

Still, that only drives my point home that if Israel had as tough a battle as they did with Hezbollah, they're probably in no position to take on Iran, much less everyone else who's itching to wipe them off the face of the map. 

Second time in as many days I've mentioned this novel in this forum, but have any of you read Ralph Ellison's "Invisible Man"? Towards the end of the novel, the nameless narrator is working as an orator for an equivalent to the American communist party in Harlem, and he eventually becomes so disgusted by what he's seeing and how the black race is being objectified and used by his party that he decides to take his grandfather's dying advice and "yes 'em to death." He goes along merrily, faking attendance records and telling them how well their crazy measures are working to build "brotherhood" in Harlem, until things finally get so bad in his community that they uprise, and he realizes that Harlem was being used as a sacrificial lamb by the party, and his (faked) blind support was what brought them down. In short, by not expressing criticism when criticism was warranted, he unknowingly was the impetus for the destruction of Harlem. 

Swap Israel and the US in there, and you can see why I'm VERY concerned with US policy in the region. Our blind support is leading Israel right up to the brink, and if they go over we've got a nuclear war on out hands. We need to back the fuck off from the entire region. 

I'm going a little far afield here, aren't I? :lol"


----------



## garcia3441 (Jan 17, 2007)

Dive-Baum said:


> It wouldn't have mattered much...Congo has more of an army than Lebanon.



A 15 year civil war does take its toll.


----------



## Metal Ken (Jan 17, 2007)

Leon said:


> also...
> 
> War with Iran = Leon finally moves to Toronto



Dont worry, dude. we're in college. we're exempt from the draft!


----------



## Leon (Jan 17, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> Dont worry, dude. we're in college. we're exempt from the draft!



yeah, if i can manage to stay in! i gotta find a PhD program that will motivate me. but first, i've got to get motivated to find one. maybe this could be a good source


----------



## garcia3441 (Jan 17, 2007)

Leon said:


> also...
> 
> War with Iran = Leon finally moves to Toronto



I'll be in Vancouver, it's warmer there.


----------



## Leon (Jan 17, 2007)

a little George Washington, from his Farewell Address, in 1796. an excerpt on foreign policy:

_The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities._


----------



## ohio_eric (Jan 17, 2007)

What I don't think this President has yet to comprehend is that if he starts talking about striking Iran this country is going to snap. The USA bought his shit with Iraq buit they won't be duped twice. This nation is tired of the war in Iraq and is in no hurry to get involved in another. 

On an aside while at the gym today I heard that commanders in Afghanistan are asking for more troops as well. The Taliban was dead but they got better and now we're almost back where we started there as well. 

So yeah everything is just coming up sunshine.


----------



## Dive-Baum (Jan 17, 2007)

Leon said:


> a little George Washington, from his Farewell Address, in 1796. an excerpt on foreign policy:
> 
> _The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities._




That is a tad bit isolationist. Maybe a better idea back then than now. 
At any rate, no matter what opinion you have on this..it completely sucks. More people are going to die for their government's views and actions on both sides...Drew, I actually see your point although I don't think it is manipulation on the US's part...just blind support, but point taken. However, I still think they will come out in the end. Hopefully we won't have to find out. 
I would really like to go back one day. We have a great condo overlooking the Med..10th floor, absolutely georgous. No one has been there in 11 years now. We just rent it out. OK..I gotta hit the road and go home.


----------



## Drew (Jan 17, 2007)

Yeah, I agree DB, blindness is blindness and I don't think we're looking at long-term consequences. 

If we don't, you know, blow up the world before you make it back, let me know and I just might drop by wiith a guitar and a bottle of booze. I fucking love the mediterranean.


----------



## Battle-axe (Jan 17, 2007)

My thoughts on what all has been said in this thread.

Firstly, lemme say I do not believe in violence (_there are exceptions_). I also do not hate America or Jews. Lets move on then...

Radical Islam and "terrorism" (I_ don't use that word normally, too one-sided_) started/is growing because of US foreign policy and the formation/actions of Israel. There is a lot of hate for these countries and their allies these days, specially in the Mid-East. Even in India, (_where I live_) where people are mostly pro-US with just about everything, there is a big anti-US sentiment when it comes to all this.

Regarding Iran, I have to say I support their right to a nuclear program and do agree that the formation of Israel was unjust and the land belongs to the Palestinians (_I'm not anti-Semitic nor do I condone violence against Israel to get the land back or anything to that effect_). While the students are angry with the govt 'cause of their oppressive policies, they and the other people of Iran are mostly anti-US (_when I use the term "anti-US" I mean against your govt not the people, mostly_). I say this based on what my Iranian friends tell me (I know quite a few of 'em), historical facts and the whatever news I get of that region. A lot of them, like so many people across the world today, believe that America is today's equivalent of the Nazi threat during WWII.

As for the possibility of an invasion, it'll definitely be harder on the US than Iraq was. I remember reading somewhere that they have the world's largest paramilitary, don't know if that matters much or not. It'll also increase hatred towards the country throughout the world and there is already a lot of that around. I feel Israel would attack Iran rather than the opposite happening. It'll be hard because of Iran's alliances and most of the Islamic militant groups (_what most people refer to as "terrorist" groups_) are likely to join in sooner or later. The American side is much stronger but it won't be easy. Tensions are increasing between Iran and the US from what I can tell specially with things like the raid of the Iranian consulate in Iraq. Lets hope Bush decides to settle this one through open-minded talks rather than violence, though the chances of that happening keep decreasing every single day. Ahmadinejad is a bit crazy too but he'll agree to settling this peacefully for _now_ at least. A lot of the Iranians that I know have already expressed their desire to go fight for their country if there ever is a war and it would really suck if it happens.

Sorry for my _extremely_ lengthy post, I just thought I'd post my views. I'm not looking to start an argument as that won't lead to anything really and I know that a lot of what I said goes against a lot most of you believe. Whenever I talk about this stuff with my friends specially from the west it usually ends up in them doing nothing but calling me a "terrorist" and/or a Nazi sympathizer.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jan 17, 2007)

Why would you say that? Most of us here would agree with your post, or at least see the legitimacy of it. It just pretty much restated what we've already said.


----------



## ohio_eric (Jan 17, 2007)

I see nothing to flame there. Great post.


----------



## Battle-axe (Jan 17, 2007)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Why would you say that? Most of us here would agree with your post, or at least see the legitimacy of it.



Sorry, going by past experiences on the internet and in real life I thought I'd play it safe.  I get flamed a lot when I discuss politics on the internet, which is why I usually don't now.



The Dark Wolf said:


> It just pretty much restated what we've already said.



Yeah, I re-read the thread after I posted that. Seems like I missed reading a few posts.

Btw thx for the rep ohio-eric.


----------



## Leon (Jan 17, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> The Taliban was dead but they got better...



Concorde! Brave, Concorde ... you shall not have died in vain!







I'm not quite dead, sir...


----------



## 999dead666 (Jan 18, 2007)

its just not right, ok trans jordan ( kingdome of jordan now ) palestine were under the british occupation they promised that they will give them the land back after they finnish the war with germany, after the war the palestinians were surprised of the mas jewish immegriation from europe and the training they were getting in the british camps. any arab holding a knife will get hanged and jews were comming from all over the world trained or getting trained and armed later lord belfor gave the right to the jews to have thier country on an already occupied country!! now jews got over 80% of palestine and the rest of the land is under thier occupation , south lebanon was occupied i cant believe how the hell people are calling hizbullah terrorists if they are defending thier own land in the south the same for hamas in palestine, polishs and french revolution against the nazis was considered a brave honrable action because they were defending thier lands against the germans , and after all the blind support for israel actions by america and the west people are complaining about the hostile enviroment and the jews defending them selfs and the mad arabs and so on, let the jews go back to where they came from and half of the worlds problems will vanish, no more crazy people in the middle east to use the israelian ocupation to bullshit around.


----------



## Lozek (Jan 18, 2007)

Drew said:


> I think it's worth diiscussing WHY radical Islam is taking over - part of its growing appeal is due to heavy-handed American intervention in the region. If we would distance ourselves from local affairs, open diplomatic relations with the moderate governments and not go out of our way to antagonize the extremist ones, increase no-strings foreign aid to the region, and stop presenting ourselves as the "white devil" trying to reshape the region in our image, then I think we could win a diplomatic war that we're losing militarily.



And here folks, we have the whole truth of the matter +1


----------



## Drew (Jan 18, 2007)

999dead666 said:


> its just not right, ok trans jordan ( kingdome of jordan now ) palestine were under the british occupation they promised that they will give them the land back after they finnish the war with germany, after the war the palestinians were surprised of the mas jewish immegriation from europe and the training they were getting in the british camps. any arab holding a knife will get hanged and jews were comming from all over the world trained or getting trained and armed later lord belfor gave the right to the jews to have thier country on an already occupied country!! now jews got over 80% of palestine and the rest of the land is under thier occupation , south lebanon was occupied i cant believe how the hell people are calling hizbullah terrorists if they are defending thier own land in the south the same for hamas in palestine, polishs and french revolution against the nazis was considered a brave honrable action because they were defending thier lands against the germans , and after all the blind support for israel actions by america and the west people are complaining about the hostile enviroment and the jews defending them selfs and the mad arabs and so on, let the jews go back to where they came from and half of the worlds problems will vanish, no more crazy people in the middle east to use the israelian ocupation to bullshit around.



Ok, buddy, _please_, a bit of punctuation and paragraph structure won't kill you.  

I'm trying to follow your argument. Near as I can tell, there's a few points worth commenting on-

1.) I agree, Hezbollah and Hamas are not universally held to be terrorist groups. The US, UK, and Israel all classify them as terrorists, but thus far the UN has not. Is this fair? Debatable, they undeniably use a few guerilla/terror tactics, but then again so does Israel. I wouldn't say "how the hell can people calll them terrorists" by any means, but I do think this is something where the global community could benefit from some open discussion.

2.) I don't think you can draw a direct correlary between resistance to the Nazis in WWII and Islamic militant groups attacking Israel today. The former was a military invasion with one country looking to assimilate/form an empire over another, while the later was the result of a diplomatic treaty where part of the middle east was set aside to create a Jewish homeland as a reparation for the atrocities of WWII. Do I think Palestine/Jordan got the shaft? Of course. Do I think attacking Israel is the answer? Not at all. In fact, half the problems here would probably blow over if Israel hadn't become an extremist Zionist state - had the more moderate elements won out in their early statehood (an eventual loss that has to on some level be attributed to the hostility in the region to the Jewish state) we could be looking at a totally different Middle East today. either way, attacking Israel isn't the answer. 

3.) Arguably, Israel IS an attempt to "send the Jews back to where they came from." and regardless of your feelings to the Israeli state, I think barring any grossly stupid move on their part leading to their military annihilation, Israel will be a fixture of the Middle East for a long time to come. However, if this is to be the case, they need to take a much less hard-line stance towards the Islamic world (and as a correlary the Islamic world needs to stop taking an increasingly hard-line stance towards them).


----------



## Dive-Baum (Jan 18, 2007)

First of all Battle-Axe..while I do not share your views, I do respect them. I do not believe that people are anti-semetic just because they hold an opposition to a position of Israel. Nor do I think someone is anti-American because they disagree with US policy (most of us do). BUT what always seems to get overlooked when people bitch about Israeli hostillity is the fact that they are completely surrounded by countries that want them dead and gone and make no bones about telling the world that. Remember Munich. What were those athletes doing except trying to become part of a world spirit? There were no walls built or real uncrossable boundaries formed in Israel (in the last 50 years) until Radical Islam forced their formation for safety reasons. It's not like there are only Jews running around Israel. Granted, there are primarily Jewish towns and Arab towns...but then again...there are Christian towns as well. Palastinian Governments (not necessarily the people) have made no efforts to try and get along. Look at the history of the peace treaties from the early 90's. Arafat got almost everything he wanted...then he said he wanted ALL of Jerusalem and the deal was off. Some have no desire for peace...only bloodshed. They must try to get along. I believe Abbas, if given a chance, would lead Palastine down that road, but he seems to have some troubles with in-fighting. Anyway...back to Iran...
Don't you think for a second that one of the most Oil Rich countries in the world is going to develop a nuculear program for peaceful reasons...even Saudi Arabia and Lebanon on with the US on this one. Amadinijad is a fucking terrorist plain and simple...just because he was elected doesn't mean his stripes have changed. He was one of the TWA hijackers in the 70's so lets not forget that little tid bit. He is evil and must be dealt with...not the Iranian people, but him-- as previosly stated, they don't like him much anymore (as their most recent local elections proved). He is using his government to fund anti Israel and US fighters without themselves getting in the fight...They have even caught a few Iranian militants in the fray. So lets be real here about the real problem.


----------



## Drew (Jan 18, 2007)

Dive-Baum said:


> Don't you think for a second that one of the most Oil Rich countries in the world is going to develop a nuculear program for peaceful reasons...even Saudi Arabia and Lebanon on with the US on this one.



I completely disagree. Look at the global market for oil over the next 50 years - we're talking about a finite resource that will not last much longer than that at current rates of consumption. Iran is a little scare on other resources outside of oil, and is currently coonsuming 1/4 of their total production of oil. If they could reduce or eliminate their own consumption, that would translate into up to an additional 25% profit off their oil sales in the next 50 or so years. 

For a country who's economy depends heavily on oil production, moving to nuclear production makes perfect sense in light of limited reserves. Not only do they ensure their ability to remain energy independant down the road, they also are talking about a massive chunk of added revinue for their government from oil sales. 

Will they eventually build a bomb? If US and Israel foreign policy continues along its current tracks, they'd be crazy not to at some point. However, I think that establishing their right to peaceful nuclear energy production is worth a LOT more to Iran in the long run.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jan 18, 2007)

Dive-Baum said:


> He is evil and must be dealt with...


I can see, understand, and even support much of your argument, but this kind of thinking really leaves me cold. It sounds like Bush all over. Evil? He may not be a great guy, but you reap what you sow. America destroys democracy in Iran, we get Ahmadinejad.

Better to say... he represents a potential threat to the west. "Dealt with"? Well, we see how well that went with Saddam. How about, 'contain him'? Don't conjure up boogeymen, or borrow trouble, where it either a) does not exist, or B)if it does exist, does not represent an immediate threat. Saying Israel should be wiped out in a bit of hyperbole-laden rthetoric isn't the same as launching a nuke-tipped Scud. Let's remember that. Hyperbole can work both ways, man.

Drew - consider who's driving US foreign policy, particlaurly in the middle east. Who benefits from constructing this chimera of a nuclear-equipped Iran? I'm not saying ignore them, but Jebus, enough with the flexing and rhetoric.



BTW, I haven't seen anything where he was involved in the TWA Hijacking. Did you mean the Iran-Hostage Crisis? That had to do with the US Embassy in Tehran. It's not conclusive if he was involved in that event or not, but it is speculated.


----------



## Dive-Baum (Jan 18, 2007)

The Dark Wolf said:


> BTW, I haven't seen anything where he was involved in the TWA Hijacking. Did you mean the Iran-Hostage Crisis? That had to do with the US Embassy in Tehran. It's not conclusive if he was involved in that event or not, but it is speculated.




Right after he was elected it came out. Some of the people who were on the planes came out and said it was him. Then they showed pictures from then and now...I'm here to tell you it was him...he was there. He was holding a machinegun to hostages, yelling, grandstanding out in the middle of the desert in the planes....hasn't changed to much huh? Instead of machine guns now it's just threats and the shaddow of Nuculear Conflict. He can not be trusted...Yeah I hear ya when you said what I said sounded like a Bushism...well.....anyway my point is this guy wants trouble. He started in on the US and Israel as soon as he took power. 
Then he hosts the whole Holocaust forum...are you kidding me??? I lost family in the fucking oven and this mother has the nerve to say it was exagerated or didn't happen at all?!?!???! He needs to be dealt with..I mean it..He is a HUGE source of problems for the US in the region. He funds our enemy and whether you agree with US foreign policy or not, we are there. Our men and women are over there and we are not. He is funding and suppling those who are trying to kill Americans. To support someone like that is treasonous. To say he has the best of intentions in mind is just foolish.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jan 18, 2007)

I couldn't find one source that stated Ahmadinejad was part of the TWA hijacking. Sorry, I think you're wrong. Show me a source. Hence, you prove my case warning about Hyperbole. I would never claim that without a source to back me up (although I'd be perfectly willing to amend this if you have decent sources. My lit background creeping up on me again.  Drew knows all about citing sources too, I bet, eh D?)

He did, however, apparently recruit someone for his government who was part of the ordeal. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22176


The whole deal with the 'Holocaust Forum' was despicable propaganda. It's in their best interests to demonize Israel. Zero argument from me on that one, bud. Doesn't mean I condone or encourage a US/Israeli attack on Iran for it, but honestly, no reputable scholar even considered that travesty worthwhile.


----------



## Dive-Baum (Jan 18, 2007)

I saw it on the news right after he was elected...but you are right...I haven't heard a thing about it since. But I swear he hasn't aged much from the pic...He didn't even put up much of a defense when he was accused of being one of them. There are few leaders that I think the world would be better without, but he is definately one of them. He is monumentally dangerous.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jan 18, 2007)

Dive-Baum said:


> He is monumentally dangerous.


I'm not sure I buy that, completely... right wing media would like us to believe that, unquestionably.

From what I know of him, he _could_ be dangerous. Similar to European appeasement of Hitler in the 1930's, maybe Ahmadinejad is a real potential terror if left unchecked. But then again, he very well may be (and I'm personally inclined to think he is) a paper tiger. After all, Iran is nowhere even NEAR the econmoic and military powerhouse Germany was in the 1930s. Honestly, it could go either way. As such, the obvious prudent course of action is vigilance. Use other resources to maintain some sort of status quo. Resorting to the big club of military action is not only precipitous, but clearly against the wishes of both Congress and the American people. I think maybe your zeal for Israel blinds you to a more reasonable course regarding Iran, DB. Understandable, but it could open you up to the same sorts of thinking as the Muslim zealots engage in. Example - I live in a high crime neighborhood (not all of us have the bank you got ), and there are dangers, but that doesn't mean I think we should go out and blow up the houses of drug dealers and gang members. Follow?

The whole deal about the Holocaust forum admittedly left me very cold.  Whatever possible benefit-of-the-doubt I could give him for being an Anti-Bush foil is pretty hard to rationalize after that bullshit. Still, prudence should rule the heart and mind for the time being, in my opinion.


----------



## Drew (Jan 18, 2007)

Dive-Baum said:


> I saw it on the news right after he was elected...but you are right...I haven't heard a thing about it since. But I swear he hasn't aged much from the pic...He didn't even put up much of a defense when he was accused of being one of them. There are few leaders that I think the world would be better without, but he is definately one of them. He is monumentally dangerous.



Wasn't Fox, by chance? 

Rather than arguing facts (which I'm too lazy to look up), I'll just mention an earlier precident - the summer after the invasion in Iraq, there were a number of front-page headlines stating that we'd found chemical weapons and chemical weapon labs in Iraq. All over the frontpages of the major news sources - Bush was finally validated. 

Shortly thereafter, it became apparent that the intelligence was flawed, and we didn't actually have chemical weapons OR labs. This story typically made the back of most (right-leaning) news sources, and garnered much less attention and very little coverage on television. As a result, most casual news observers either didn't hear that we were wrong for several weeks, or never heard. 

Even as late as last year, something like 30% of Americans thought we'd found chemical weapons in Iraq. That's fucking scary. 

I wouldn't go so far as to say he's monumentally dangerous, simply because left to his own devices he's just going to bluster a lot but not do very much on the international stage except talk. But if we invade Iran, is he a danger? You're goddamn right he is. 

Which begs the question, who's really the danger, us or them?

I too thought the Holocaust thing was, to put it gently, in poor taste. However, I also thought it was very clear for what it was - a political stunt.


----------



## noodles (Jan 18, 2007)

Dive-Baum said:


> I saw it on the news right after he was elected...but you are right...I haven't heard a thing about it since. But I swear he hasn't aged much from the pic...He didn't even put up much of a defense when he was accused of being one of them. There are few leaders that I think the world would be better without, but he is definately one of them. He is monumentally dangerous.



Meanwhile, pretend for a minute that you are a citizen of Iran, looking over at America. Some chode from Texas, who can barely spell his own name, steals an election with the help of his brother in Florida. He has deep ties to the Saudi ruling families, and his family has a history in the oil business. Shortly after assuming office, the US sustains a terrorist attack. A cursory response against Afghanistan is made. Then, ignoring military advisers, the 9/11 commission, mounds of evidence pointing at the Saudis, the UN, and half of his own country, he invades Iraq of all places. He overthrows the government, captures their head of state, and sets up a puppet "democratic" government. The country is plunged into a civil war. He backs a government with ties to the group that is responsible for a large part of the sectarian violence. He then starts threatening your country, saying you can't have nuclear weapons, although his own country is sitting on a stockpile of them, and has developed new ones for blowing out underground bunkers. He then decides to escalate the war, against the will of Congress, the advise of all his military advisers and generals, and 80% of his own countrymen, claiming that he makes the decisions. Part of this escalation is thinly veiled threats at your own country, backed by a long term refusal to discuss the situation in a diplomatic manner.

Sounds like this dude is monumentally dangerous to me.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jan 18, 2007)

Drew, I dub thee MASTER of ignoring and overlooking my posts. 

Nice point about the WMD/Media Mistakes, thing, BTW. 


Dave, _extremely_ well-said.


----------



## Drew (Jan 18, 2007)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Drew, I dub thee MASTER of ignoring and overlooking my posts.



I saw it, and read it, and posted to show my agreement with you. 



noodles said:


> Sounds like this dude is monumentally dangerous to me.



Dave, excellent post from the other side of the coin. Well said, I'd be pretty fucking defensive and ready to defend myself too in that situation.


----------



## Dive-Baum (Jan 18, 2007)

Dave, I hear you on that...really. I even said earlier that I do not think he is representing the will of his people (a problem we suffer from). BUT I think you guys are looking at this whole thing through rose colored glasses. We are only gonna get one shot to get this right with him...I know I am taking a very conservative view on it but hey...it's what I do...you have to admit I have gotten better...I feel like I should change my username to "Token" though...where the hell are my other Hebes at???


----------



## Battle-axe (Jan 18, 2007)

Drew said:


> Dave, excellent post from the other side of the coin.



+1 Great post man! Explains things really well.


----------



## ohio_eric (Jan 18, 2007)

noodles said:


> Meanwhile, pretend for a minute that you are a citizen of Iran, looking over at America. Some chode from Texas, who can barely spell his own name, steals an election with the help of his brother in Florida. He has deep ties to the Saudi ruling families, and his family has a history in the oil business. Shortly after assuming office, the US sustains a terrorist attack. A cursory response against Afghanistan is made. Then, ignoring military advisers, the 9/11 commission, mounds of evidence pointing at the Saudis, the UN, and half of his own country, he invades Iraq of all places. He overthrows the government, captures their head of state, and sets up a puppet "democratic" government. The country is plunged into a civil war. He backs a government with ties to the group that is responsible for a large part of the sectarian violence. He then starts threatening your country, saying you can't have nuclear weapons, although his own country is sitting on a stockpile of them, and has developed new ones for blowing out underground bunkers. He then decides to escalate the war, against the will of Congress, the advise of all his military advisers and generals, and 80% of his own countrymen, claiming that he makes the decisions. Part of this escalation is thinly veiled threats at your own country, backed by a long term refusal to discuss the situation in a diplomatic manner.
> 
> Sounds like this dude is monumentally dangerous to me.




Dave is right on the money. The rest of the wrold views Bush as moron who's lower than a snakes's ball bag. Remember the G8 summit a while back where he sat there chewing with his mouth open and chatting it up with his boy, Tony Blair? Then he tried to rub Angela Merkel's shoulders and she threw him off. He's viewed as a dangerous buffoon by the rest of the world.


----------



## Dive-Baum (Jan 18, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> Dave is right on the money. The rest of the wrold views Bush as moron who's lower than a snakes's ball bag. Remember the G8 summit a while back where he sat there chewing with his mouth open and chatting it up with his boy, Tony Blair? Then he tried to rub Angela Merkel's shoulders and she threw him off. He's viewed as a dangerous buffoon by the rest of the world.



I don't think anyone on this site will dispute the fact that Bush is a douche...Even me. He makes us look awful on a world stage but there is exactly bubkis we can do about it except vote wisely next time. But honestly, it sounds like you guys are OK with what happens sometimes...I know you are just very tollerant and understanding people (good for you) but Jeezus...remember where you live! We may not agree with our Nation's Leaders but we DAMN SURE can not support our enemies. Verbally or otherwise.


----------



## ohio_eric (Jan 18, 2007)

How am I supporting the emeny?


----------



## XEN (Jan 18, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> How am I supporting the emeny?



Dive-Baum, do not accuse Eric, or anyone else on this board for that matter, of supporting the enemy. Tread lightly there pal. Accusing someone of treason had better be provable, justifiable, and beyond the shadow of a doubt.

By the way, the President is NOT our nation's leader. WE are! We speak our minds because it is not only our right but our responsibility as citizens of a democracy. We elect representatives who in turn elect our president whose job is to serve the people. Defying the will of the people is mutiny.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jan 18, 2007)

^ Hear hear!

Drew... my comment about citing sources, mo'fo! That was an interogative damn sure deserving of a reply, due to its stunning brilliance and panche and ... oh, hell. 

Forget it. 



As far as Ahmadinejad (why does that fucker have to have such a damn hard name? ), I'm not sold that he IS such a terrible "enemy". Bad guy, probably. Reprehensible human being, for his stance on Israel? Yes. But imminent threat? Well... sorry. I just see that as likely more Bush propaganda. I wouldn't say ignore him, but escalate this nutty conflict even more? For what? Very dubious ends, that's what.

A better scenario is, if he gets out of line, slap him down. That's what our military is good at. So far, though, I'm not sold, personally. President Ford said it best, that we "can't go Hellfire and Damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our national security." I've yet to see a convincing argument that Iran is such a perilous threat to our security.


----------



## Dive-Baum (Jan 18, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> How am I supporting the emeny?



Never said you were...or anyone, BUT it even when we disagree with what is done by our country and agree with the actions of our enemies or those who have sworn us harm, that my friend is dangerous. 

And as far as treading lightly...are you being serious?? Read what I said. I directed it at no one. Just a statement...One that is true. 

Yes we are the leaders of our country...collectively...unfortunately most of us are bewildered easily and do not pay attention so we have a moron in the White Houes who gets to be our voice for a few years.

OK guys...I am going home...I will now stop ---one of the coolest smileys ever..


BTW...just to let you guys know....I REALLY want the UN to step up here and actually be effective..I just seriously doubt it has the clout to do so. I do not want the US in another war. Just to set the record straight here...I hate the guy, and he does need to be dealt with BUT diplomacy needs to be used here


----------



## XEN (Jan 18, 2007)

It is also dangerous to assume that America owns the monopoly on right and wrong.


----------



## Dive-Baum (Jan 18, 2007)

urklvt said:


> It is also dangerous to assume that America owns the monopoly on right and wrong.



Well we have usually been the ones to do what is right...saving the world and all that. WWI, WWII, the others are pretty debatable and I won't even start it up as I know how much you guys want to argue and I really do have to get home now.


----------



## ohio_eric (Jan 18, 2007)

Dive-Baum said:


> Never said you were...or anyone, BUT it even when we disagree with what is done by our country and agree with the actions of our enemies or those who have sworn us harm, that my friend is dangerous.
> 
> And as far as treading lightly...are you being serious?? Read what I said. I directed it at no one. Just a statement...One that is true.
> 
> ...




I don't agree with what Hussein did or Bin Laden does. What I do get pissed off about is when we have a leader violating the Constitution he is sworn to uphold and the nation in a war that it never had a good reason to fight. 

Like urklvt said the people run the government not the other way around. I'm just doing my job by letting the government know when they are doing wrong. 

"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." - Robert H. Jackson,


----------



## 999dead666 (Jan 19, 2007)

Drew said:


> Ok, buddy, _please_, a bit of punctuation and paragraph structure won't kill you.
> 
> I'm trying to follow your argument. Near as I can tell, there's a few points worth commenting on-
> 
> ...



sorry about my mistakes with the paragraphs and structure its just i type fast i dont read behind 
i didnt say they should kill israelians or eleminate jews. but man if you read the history after the arabs went back to the arabic countries after they lost thier kingdoms in spain the catholics burned all non catholics in spain and jews had no where to go only the islamic empire in the south took them , they always lived and still living in arabic/islamic countries as citizens no one denied thier rights to live in the land, but to make racist zionest country where natives are treated bellow animals its just not fair, to be the last occupation on earth ( 60 years occupation ) is just not fair. to come and say this is my land i had 2000+ years ago its not fair , even if we take it from the jewish point of view they got palestine from the ancient palestinians so palestinians are the true owners of the land. something else so why the world and palestinians have to follow the jewish way of it palestinians are muslims 90% and christians so the rest of the world sees the world in none jewish eyes if you know what i mean.and if you think the german occupation in europe is diffrent from the israelian so what is the jewish superior armed force doing in gollan of syria, south lebanon, and palestine since over 30 years? the jewish legend says the land is from the ephrates to the nile , ever heared of the new middle east plan rice and bush are preaching for since 5 years?


----------



## Lozek (Jan 19, 2007)

Dive-Baum said:


> Well we have usually been the ones to do what is right...saving the world and all that. WWI, WWII,



There's a lot of debate about motives there, it wasn't all just 'doing what's right and saving the world' 

As much as I'm sure I'm going to get totally flamed, the fact is the U.S. got involved in WWII only when it became financially unviable to not be involved anymore. Not sure if you are aware, but the UK actually made it's last payment to the U.S. for its involvement in WWII last month, that's right, December 2006.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in any way denigrating any US soldiers who lost their lives or the impact that was made in the final outcome of the war (although it was a joint victory of all allied nations, I should point out), but I'm just pointing out there was just as much political&financial maneouvering going on then as there is now.


----------



## Drew (Jan 19, 2007)

Dive-Baum said:


> Well we have usually been the ones to do what is right...saving the world and all that. WWI, WWII, the others are pretty debatable and I won't even start it up as I know how much you guys want to argue and I really do have to get home now.



Come on dude, don't fall back on that argument. America entered WWI _very_ late in the war, and only after the torpedoing of the Luthistansa. WWII we also sat on the fence, taking no strong stance until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor a few years into the war. Saying that we're the ones who "do what's right" in the world and then citing two examples where we looked the other way until American lives were lost is revisionism of the highest order. 

And I agree with urkvlt - lightly or not, accusing us of "supporting America's enemies" is a pretty tall accusation, especially when while Ahmadinejad is clearly no fine, upstanding citizen and good friend of the west, you have to mean "Israel's enemies" and not "America's enemies." I'm not saying he's a good guy by any means. I'm just saying when Bush starts demonizing him for political gain and to justify YET ANOTHER war, I think a quick look at the other side of the coin is in order. 

999 - I made it about two sentences in before my head exploded. Punctuate, if you want to take part in this discussion. About all I could take out of it, well, Israel is a "country," not an "occupation."


----------



## 999dead666 (Jan 19, 2007)

its country because the main countries with powers wanted that but logiclly stealling some ones else land and make your own country with the power of the strongest countries doesnt make it right !! but even if we take from the point of view that it is country, south lebanon is occupied golan hights are occupied and most of what left of palestinian land is occupied so what should i call it if not occupation?


----------



## Drew (Jan 19, 2007)

999dead666 said:


> its country because the main countries with powers wanted that but logiclly stealling some ones else land and make your own country with the power of the strongest countries doesnt make it right !! but even if we take from the point of view that it is country, south lebanon is occupied golan hights are occupied and most of what left of palestinian land is occupied so what should i call it if not occupation?



 

Most of the United States of America was French Territory before we invaded it and then bought the rest, save New England which was English until we stole it and fought a couple wars over it. Even then, it was arguably the Native Americans before the French and English stole it from them. Should we give the entire United States back to the French and English because we've been occupiers for the last 230-odd years? What about the Native Americans? Where do you draw the line? 

I don't like the manner in which Israel was created either, but fact of the matter is Israel is a nation, like it or not. linguistic turns of phrase like calling them an "occupation" instead only hurts the chances of eventual peace in the area.


----------



## 999dead666 (Jan 19, 2007)

Drew said:


> Most of the United States of America was French Territory before we invaded it and then bought the rest, save New England which was English until we stole it and fought a couple wars over it. Even then, it was arguably the Native Americans before the French and English stole it from them. Should we give the entire United States back to the French and English because we've been occupiers for the last 230-odd years? What about the Native Americans? Where do you draw the line?
> 
> I don't like the manner in which Israel was created either, but fact of the matter is Israel is a nation, like it or not. linguistic turns of phrase like calling them an "occupation" instead only hurts the chances of eventual peace in the area.



i really understand man, but this is the main point they keep telling that they are surrounded by evil ones who wanna burn them alive, but how many times the syrian presedent asked for direct talkings with israelian officials olmert said he is not interested to!!! they dont want , they can stay for 100 years more doing what they are doing and slowly there will be no palestine and some one will say come one we cant now kick jews back to the 1967 line because should red indians do that to the white people?!! they found out that they are getting what they want maybe slowly some times faster like in 1948 and 1967 and no one is interested to stop them or even tell them to have some shame if you say here in europe " i think the israelian bombing at civilians is bad" next day you will be accused of anti jewish or what ever they would like to call you at the media , any way its iran thread not the israelian manners in the occupied land. i think iran found out or learned from the experience of how america dumbed shah reza bahlawi even he was the american fav pet in the middle east, they learned that never to trust or to compromise , look what happened to saddam even dick chenny was visiting saddam in the 80s during the iraq-iran war more than visiting his wife!! so why iran should give up the right of technology they accuired by them selfs??


----------



## Drew (Jan 19, 2007)

999, you're making NO sense. You hit on fifteen unrelated points. 

For one, I personally believe that the reason Israel won't hold talks with the PNA, or at least won't conclude anything at the talks they do, is that the United States is giving them blank check support. Granted, the Palestinians are hardly blameless here themselves, but there's no need for Israel to make any concessions when the might of the US army is behind them and against the Palestinians. If that were ever to change and the US would take a stance of neutrality, we might see some real progress in the peace process.

You're thinking of Rumsfeld, not Cheney, visiting Saddam.

I wouldn't say Iran "learned" anything about trusting the States from Iraq - rather, I think they see no reason to expect us not to do exactly what we did to Iraq to them. We have a despotic leader who's not afraid to make rash, absolutely idiotic moves against the will of his people for his own misguided personal reasons to inflict what he believes is "right" upon the world. I think the Iranians see this, and I think it's becoming increasingly apparent that Bush is in the formative stages of preparing to build a case for war. I hope to god someone stops him.

I also figure that, since we're in violation of a number of international nuclear accords and have a massive stoockpile that we've made clear we won't hesitate to use, we lack a certain moral authority in telling Iran to stop their program...


----------



## 999dead666 (Jan 19, 2007)

but i have feeling that some one like bush in power he wont let the 2007 pass peacfully in the middle east he got nothing to lose he almost finnished his 8th year in the white house plus he got the congress and the majority in his ass he will do something thinking they will remember him as a hero in 20 years or something. and for looking like im mixing points together its just too complicated history that you can mention one and skip the other its like spider net


----------



## Drew (Jan 19, 2007)

Yeah, but it helps if you connect them a bit.  

If Bush tries to start a war with Iran, he's getting impeached. No way in fucking hell are we going to agree to another war unless the nation itself (and not some random terrorist group we think might be supported by them) attacks us.


----------



## noodles (Jan 19, 2007)

Drew said:


> Come on dude, don't fall back on that argument. America entered WWI _very_ late in the war, and only after the torpedoing of the Luthistansa. WWII we also sat on the fence, taking no strong stance until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor a few years into the war. Saying that we're the ones who "do what's right" in the world and then citing two examples where we looked the other way until American lives were lost is revisionism of the highest order.



Drew, you're actually making very light of the situation leading to WWI. Britain was employing a "hunger blockade" on Germany, causing Germany to slowly eat up all it's resources. Germany's response was submarine warfare, in an attempt to knock out the blockade ships, allowing supply ships through.

President Woodrow Wilson wanted to fight this war so bad he could taste it. Enter a long list of presidential proclamations over time, each one more biased towards the British than the last. First, it was submarines are inhumane forms of waging war and should be banned (interesting to note that everyone would have subs in twenty five years). Then it was no one should fire on ships with British passengers. The British responded by transporting soldiers and weapons on supply ships.

Now, any rational government would do what Churchill did during WWII: inform their populous that voyaging on ships carrying military hardware and/or troops is at your own risk, and sticking to strictly merchant vessels is the wise move. Not Wilson, as he proclaimed that Germany was not to fire upon *any* ships carrying American citizens, since our country was "neutral". Well, how is Germany supposed to tell if American's are on said ships? The subs are supposed to surface first, and visually inspect the ship from a close distance. Any logical human being can see that this is suicide for a submarine.

Thus we came to the Luthistansa, a "merchant" ship stuffed full of weapons. Germany, rightfully viewing it as a threat, fired upon it. Even the sub commander was amazed that the ship sunk so quickly, since he had doubts that one torpedo would be able to sink it at all. He got lucky (or unlucky, really) with a one shot, quick sinking. Since Americans were on that ship, Woodrow Wilson finally was able to get Congress to declare war on Germany.

The obscene level of treatment of Germany after the surrender is directly the fault of President Wilson. A naive diplomat with a dream, France and Britain quickly realized that he would agree with damn near anything, as long as they threatened to not join his League of Nations. They dismantled the German government, seized land that was populated with German-speaking peoples, and saddled and already impoverished and starving Germany with the lion's share of the European war debt.

The stage was set for World War II, as a disgruntled Germany, deep in the throws of the Great Depression, was willing to listen to anyone who gave them hope. Hitler made an agreement with Stalin to carve up Europe, which he later went back on. We were forced to work with Russia to overthrow the massive military powerhouse that Germany had become, which lead directly to the Cold War. Woodrow Wilson has a bridge over the Potomac River named in his honor.

The United States has a history of absolutely rotten foreign relations and blundered wars, which run completely contrary to what history text books will tell you. Which is probably why we keep repeating history, because this is exactly the same sort of situation we currently have with Israel. We claim to be "neutral", yet we always side with Israel, no matter what atrocities they commit.


----------



## Drew (Jan 19, 2007)

I have nothing to add, noodles, save to say that yours is an excellent post.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jan 19, 2007)

All I know is I can't make funking heads or tails of 999's posts.

Dude! PUNCTUATION!  Periods, commas, sentences, paragraphs!



Dave, well said. I give the US the benefit of the doubt in the Revolutionary War, and WWII. The rest, very, verrrry ambiguous circumstances. (That's not saying thsoe two wars I mention are the Angel's Mission, either. Hardly. But the good to emerge generally outweighs the bad, IMO.)

Drew - you must read 'A People's History of the United States', by Howard Zinn. Turn your concept of American history on its ear. (You too, Dave. Ohio Eric, you've probably already read it. ) It's the seminal work for anyone not wanting the "official", watered down version of US history. Greatest historical work ever, IMO.

Check it out. Seriously.


----------



## Drew (Jan 19, 2007)

999, read THIS.


----------



## Drew (Jan 19, 2007)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070119/ap_on_go_co/us_iran

 

That's just going to piss Bush off...


----------



## Drew (Jan 19, 2007)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070117/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_ahmadinejad_s_woes_1

...and ahmadinejad evidently isn't exactly popular on the home front these days, either...


----------



## Leon (Jan 19, 2007)

Drew said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070119/ap_on_go_co/us_iran
> 
> 
> 
> That's just going to piss Bush off...



if anything, it's good to FINALLY see some fighting on Capital Hill. that's what our tax dollars are paying for. but, as it's been said before, where's the Semisupreme Court in all this?


----------



## noodles (Jan 19, 2007)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Dave, well said. I give the US the benefit of the doubt in the Revolutionary War, and WWII. The rest, very, verrrry ambiguous circumstances. (That's not saying thsoe two wars I mention are the Angel's Mission, either. Hardly. But the good to emerge generally outweighs the bad, IMO.)



Well, the Revolutionary War was one of those necessities, really. I'm sure I'm a product of my environment, but the idea of one guy, living across the Atlantic Ocean, born into the job, having the absolute power to create and enforce law, is just plain silly. Plus, he was slowly going crazy (good movie: "The Madness of King George"). We were simply throwing off the shackles of imperialism, which is exactly the way a populous is supposed to deal with a tyrannical government that won't listen. It's not like the Iraqi people decided to overthrow Saddam, and then turned to other nations for help in their time of need (as we turned to France). It is also interesting to note that while not everyone agreed with the revolution, the predominant state of mind of those who disagreed was indifference, rather than taking up arms in the name of Britain.

World War II arose from a huge mess that we helped create. In addition, the idea of letting a man like Hitler take over all of Europe was a bad one, because guys like him never stop. Eventually, he would have developed the atom bomb, and it would have been dropped on our cities. The follow up to "Mein Kampf", written in prison, outlined Hitler's desire to conquor the United States. To feed his growing arian race, he needed land for farming, which was in very short supply in Europe. If he hadn't been stupid enough to attack Russia, he would have bowled right over Britain before we could get there.

The Civil War happened because Lincoln tried to keep the southern states from seceding from the Union by force (a move that lost him four more states to the Confederacy). As eventual voluntarily removal was the right of every state that ratified the Constitution--a point that our founding fathers hoped would never happened, but agreed whole heartedly with--he was completely overstepping his bounds in forcing them back. It is interesting to note that many abolitionists suggested that the northern states secede to eliminate slavery. By removing themselves from the country, they no longer would have to abide by the laws of the land, rendering the Fugitive Slave Act null and void. Slaves running off to never return would have destroyed the institution. One could speculate that the country could have split, watched slavery die, and grudgingly stictched itself back together, all without a shot being fired. In the end, the north needed the south for agriculture, the south needed the north for industry, and they both needed access to the trade relationships formed with other nations.

The Mexican War and Spanish American Wars were greed, pure and simple. I don't think we even need to touch Korea of Vietnam. 

So, yeah, I agree with you. Damn, I love history. 



> Drew - you must read 'A People's History of the United States', by Howard Zinn. Turn your concept of American history on its ear. (You too, Dave. Ohio Eric, you've probably already read it. ) It's the seminal work for anyone not wanting the "official", watered down version of US history. Greatest historical work ever, IMO.



I wish you would have posted this yesterday when I was ordering some books from Amazon, because it sounds like a good read. I just finished reading "The Politically Incorrect Guide to US History", which is how I learned so much about the historical inaccuracies involving the Civil War and World War I. The author had me, until he started talking about how Regan economics were so good for the country, and Clinton didn't accomplish anything but setting the stage for 9/11.


----------



## noodles (Jan 19, 2007)

> "Do we have so little confidence in the diplomats of the United States that we're not willing to let them talk with somebody we disagree with?" Hamilton asked.


----------



## ohio_eric (Jan 19, 2007)

America's military and foreign relations history is a broken bloody mess that only seems to make the history books when it's a big old war. Our aggression in the Philippines or the thirty plus years we sent fighting pirates, the reason we founded a Navy, aren't in a lot of high school shitory texts. Not to mention all the little quick strikes like those in Grenada. Also out consistent and sickening policy of supporting people Ho Chi Minh, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden simply because it suited our purposes at that point in history. Never mind the rivers of blood that followed because of these foreign policy blunders. 

Howard Zinn is indeed a fine writer. I would also reccomend the following. It's like Oprah's reading list except my books don't suck. 

Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong by James W Loewen


Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins

The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic [The American Empire Project] by Chalmers Johnson


----------

