Iran Tells Everybody to "Stick It"
 

Personally, I think this is/was/going to be one of the most dangerous issues we have to face today. I know North Korea is an issue as well, but I see them more as folly than anything else....that Kim guy is a joke and I also think he is full of shit. Plus, China doesn't want them to get any power, so I think, with China's help, North Korea isn't going to become a problem.

I see the problem as Iran.

And before any Bush bashing goes on (which I know it will), remember your history. Yes, we created a lot of problems in the middle east, specifically Iran, but don't forget who pretty much started this whole mess (as far as our involvement goes), and it wasn't anybody with the last name of Bush.

Here is a blurb from Iran released in the news today:
And then followed with:
LINKY-POO

To me, Iran is very, very dangerous and represents a threat to the entire world. As far as I am concerned, they cannot be trusted, and even if they agreed to "do what they're told", I don't think they will.

So, as I see it, any talks or negotiations are doomed to fail. Iran will use whatever excuse they can to say that progress wasn't achieved (i.e. talks with the U.S., the E.U. or the U.N.) and that Iran will continue to enrich uranium. Plus, the Security Coucil or the IAEA isn't an option, because Iran already said that won't play that game.

In the short-term, the U.S. isn't in the "danger zone" here. Even after Iran develops nuclear warheads, it would be years and years before they could create a delivery system that could reach us. Their neighbors and the EU community are the ones most at risk--because there isn't anything to stop Iran from using nukes if the feel they are threatened (regardless if the threat is real or manufactured).

I think Iran would actually decide to use a nuke as a first strike weapon.

Granted, it would be dumb, because Iran would get wiped off the face of this planet, but I don't think they care.

So....what do we do?

Nothing?

More talks? If so, by who? And what do the people conducting the talks say that will appease Iran? (that's really the issue here--appeasement of Iran--something that makes me cringe)

Or do we (we = collective) do something else? More drastic? Military (not just the U.S. here)?

Does anyone think the EU or the UN can help?

Is there anything that can persuade Iran?

Or...none of the above? Maybe you think Iran isn't a threat/concern--if so, speak up and tell me why they aren't--I would be interested to know.

Personally, I think it is all a game. The talks go on, everybody claps about progress and achievements.....meanwhile, in the underground bunkers we just heard about, the process continues, and nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles will be developed.

If it were up to me (thank God it isn't), I would restrict all flights in and out of Iran and watch all the boarders. As long as mutually assured destruction ap[ples to the Iranian governmental officials, they should refrain from attacking. If they try to leave, simple don't allow it. I realize how contradictory this idea runs to my libertarian beliefs, but bear with me.

I think that Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khamenei is scared to death right now. When Iraq and Iran went head to head back in 1980, they were evenly matched with Iraq. How long did it take for America to remove the Iraqi government? A few weeks? There is a clear danger to the government of Iran. IUn order to try and deterr America and our allies, it seems logical to try and gain better footing in the area of military power. They can't get a state of the art military or tons of troops, so they try the powerful weapons route. What's the most powerful weapon, striking fear even to America? The nuclear bomb. Don't forget that the last report from the IAEA said that although Iran had not been fully cooperative, there was no concrete proof that Iran was seeking to develope nuclear arms. Aside from respectable organizations like the IAEA, we have to rely on the same intelligence netowrks that told us that Iraq had WMD programs and ties to 9/11. They have lost what little trust they once had. So, as far as I can tell, there is no proof of Iranian nuclear programs. Because of this lack of proof, a war is completly and 100% out of the question, at least a preemptive war. America would be running the risk of not only alienating the rest of the world further, but possibly seeing our former allies take an opposing stand. I don't want to see a war, espically between super powers.

Our best bet is still the EU, who's negotiator made great progress for a time with Iran. Don't forget that on November 14, 2004, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator said that his country agreed to suspend the uranium enrichment program after pressure from the European Union on behalf of the United Kingdom, France and Germany.

Aisde from deterrance, the real threat is that Iran suppoirts terrorist groups. I believe that in 1995, the reason America suspended trade with Iran was both the support of terrorist groups and the development of nuclear weapons. I don't want to see "terrorist" and "nuclear wepons" in the same sentence, unless that sentence says that it doesn't want to see them in the same sentence. Heh. That's the wild card.

I find it hard to swallow the line that Iran is the grave threat that is claimed when the U.S. so adamantly supports Israel.

Don't want Iran to seek nukes? Force Israel to get rid of its own. You can't blame Iran for seeking nukes when their enemy neighbor has nukes pointing right at them.

Iran is not much different than Saudi Arabia - except the U.S. has strong business ties to Saudi Arabia.

Even if we were able to get Israel to get rid of their nukes, Iran would continue to try and develop a nuclear weapon. Each time you try to remove an excuse Iran uses for developing nukes, they will come up with another one.

Anyway, you could never get Israel to agree to this, so it is moot. Anyway, while I am not thrilled with Israel's weapons program, I would much rather them have nukes than Iran.


Will -

Mutually assured destruction is already a guarantee, well, at least their destruction is. If they used a nuke on anybody, the whole world would probably demand their destruction (ironic, eh?).

Yet, knowing that we could wipe them off the planet hasn't really proven to be a deterrent to anything. You would think it would have an effect, but it just doesn't seem to.

If am up against a super-power that I know I could never win against, agitating them would not be on my to-do list. Yet, Iran is throwing threats around like threats are on a blue-light special at K-mart.



On a different note: We really screwed up intelliegence wise. When we were spying on our old "enemies" and "friends", we only had to worry about making accents sound legit. Sending in white spies into an Arab country is never going to work--regardless of how good their accent is. I don't think we are set-up to handle intelligence gathering in Arab countries. I'm sure we have some capabilites, but they are nowhere near our other "spying" capabilites.

And....it will take years and years to develop such a system.

We are definitely in a weird situation. The best intelligence we can get, sucks. So, what do you do?

So are you saying it's a good thing that Iran has nukes?

Maybe Iran would continue to try to develop nukes - but right now they have a damn good reason for them. Take away that damn good reason and you'll find it is more likely that they will not obtain nukes, both due to a decrease in their own perception of need and an increase in international concern.

And I'm sorry - but it is not "moot" that Israel would not agree to getting rid of their nukes. That would be like saying it is moot that Iran wants nukes. The U.S. gov't just happens to be in the perfect position to force Israel to give up their nukes - stop signing the checks.
Not even close.

Israel should NOT give up their nukes - that would be suicide.

Further, the lack of Arab-American spies (Korean, Chinese too) is our own fault. I think we dropped the ball here.

Also, Iran is very much a threat, much mire than Iraq was. I still think we invaded the wrong country.

I think talk has failed, miserabley. No country with "rogue" ambitions takes talks seriously. No, it's time to take them out. Either "shock and awe" surgical strike and take out their nukes or all out invasion (if we are so inept, maybe the Israelis can help us and show us how it's really done).

Fuck the allies - we didn't wait for help in Afghanistan (and they offered too), we did it without help in Iraq. We are the worlds best military, Iran should be a snap. Like Iraq was, and Afghanistan. Just going down the check list.

The Chinese are weak and the North Koreans know it. If China can't get it done, I say we show them how. Or we unleash Japan and South Korea across the DMZ. It's obvous diplomacy has failed, it is time for action.

Or, we just don't give a shit and let everyone do what they want: We can go solar and screw them all!! LOL! Arm them all and make a killing (no pun intended) and go in after and take what's left.

Iran has NO GOOD REASON to develop nukes. Who's a threat? Kurds? Sunnis? Syria? Iraq? No, if they're threat, they can always gas them. No need for nukes.

No the nukes are for telling us that they want to flex some muscle and threaten Israel.

Nonsense.  

I have an idea-we negotiate with Iran. If they agree to not work on long-range delivery systems (something that can get across the oceans) WE give them nuclear technology. We then let the EU now worry about their nuclear powered friends in Iran.

It an abstract way, i think it's bad if Iran gets nukes. But I don't see us being at risk for a long while. The technology for developing long-range delivery systems is alot more difficult than making the atomic weapons themselves. And it's not like a nuclear weapon is something that someone can stick in their shoes.

I don't think we should count diplomacy out yet.

Someone in the Administration has had some positive influence on Bush and Rice, because they suddenly stopped disparaging the European negotiation effort. Plus they actually made some noises about the U.S. being involved in offering Iran some concessions (something about spare plane parts and the WTO).

The disadvantage of negotiation is that it seems to lend support to the clerics, who don't deserve any support whatsoever and are politically vulnerable right now. But the advantage is that it puts the ball in the clerics' court. So if they don't run with it, the U.S. is no longer an obstacle in sending them to the Security Council for sanctions.

The main wild card right now is: will the Europeans follow through and send it to the Security Council? Or will they let the negotiations drag on forever?

The possibility of peaceful disarmament sure seems dismal right now. But you never know how much of the talk is real and how much is bluffing. Maybe Iran really is waiting for a sweeter package of incentives from the U.S.? The only way to find out is to keep talking.

In my uninformed and terribly narrow opinion, if we look at the BIG picture we will see the actual reasoning behind the need for Iran to develop "Nukes". The United States is a major threat to them, and Nukes allow a form of deterent to invasion. This may be a misdirected venue for them....but desperation breeds extremists.
Something I have noticed in here, is a misunderstanding of the intent behind criticism of the Bush administration. As far as I am concerned at least, I do not point out deficiency because I "Hate" my country, Bush is not the United States of America.
By invading and occupying Iraq we have managed to send a dangerous message to the powers that be in a very fragile, and volatile region of this world we inhabit. Should we decide to continue this message with Syria....what can we possibly expect short of fearful nationalism from the borderline regimes in the Middle East.
Iran covers far more surface area, and has a vastly larger population than Iraq.....thus it would be at the very least, foolish for us to invade. Unfortunately we have a recent history of relatively foolish actions as a country in the eyes of the very nations that would feel threatened.
Personally, and logically, I do not blame Iran for attempting to gain the protection India and Pakistan now have. and were I living in Iran....would expect nothing less from my Government.

when will the non-sense end, all of this iran is a nuclear threat garbage we seem to be flooded with everyday is propaganda to persuade americans to fear iran as they did iraq, so there is some excuse to justify another war, which will be a greater failure than iraq. even if iran is in the process of producing nukes, which i doubt, i don't blame them in the least, as tecoyah said, if i were living there, i would expect nothing less. as n korea, iran has to protect itself from america and its so called allies fully aware that the war happy administration or their terrorist buddies could attack them at any given time. although i think that's impossible currently as well. america can't pull off a full scale invasion militarily or financially currently, and to do so would probably result in a draft. anyway, whatever, this is all senseless fear of 'the evil middle eastern terrorists' and it's obviously working thus far. *yawn*

This is why I mentioned the "history" in my original post. Iran's nuclear program and nuclear ambitions go back long before Bush was in office.

CLICK HERE for a really long "article" going over Iran and its nuclear program.

Note: They would have had completely functional reactors by the early 80's if Carter had acted with a little more forethought.

Iran is not that big of a threat in the conventional sense, at least not at the moment. The most dangerous course of action they could embark on would be the encitement of the Shia in Iraq. That could put a major hurt on us. As for their military assets, they are certainly more impressive than Iraq, but still laughable. They are scared shitless of us though, and the cornered animal is the most dangerous. I don't lose any sleep over them, so you shouldn't either.

It's them deterring us, not us deterring them that is driving them. If we attack them prematurely (before there is PROOF), the world will turn on us very quickly. That gives Iran time to develop nuclear weapons. When they do have weapons, and it is proven, they will already have them pointd at something. By the time we know they exist for sure, it will be too late. If we try to stike at them, we run the risk of not stopping all of their nukes from firing. Imagine Rome or Athens being wiped out because we decided to play world-police yet again. We can't hit them without running the risk of being hit back. That is what deterrance really is. That's why America and Russia aren't smoking, glowing holes. If we would have struck at Russia first, we would have been hit. Likewise if Russia would have struck, they would have been destroyed aswell. While it's clearly a delacite and fragile peace teatering on the edge of complete destruction, it is still a peace. Iran will be in the incasion-free club along with every other country that has nukes.

Who led the most succesful and shocking invasion and removal of a middle eastern regime recently? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't Kurds or Sunnis or Syria or Iraq or any other middle eastern group or nation.

Who is the single greatest theat to the theocracy in Iran? Who has shown that they have the power to destroy and invade in the name of democracy - democracy being the opposite of a theocracy, btw - and has their eye on Iran right now?

I see a pattern here... Afghanistan...Iraq...No wonder that they might be pursuing nuclear capabilities.

I don't think that the current US administration has the political capital to spend on another intelligence cock-up, let alone pushing for another war. Patience and goodwill with and towards the US Govt. over here in Europe has worn thin. Step back and let those who have been dealing with things diplomatically continue their work. It might not get the result that the US Govt. want, but now that their bolt has been shot there is no legitimate alternative. Allow the IAEA and the other nations to continue the non-antagonistic route. It's absolutely no good shouting demands from the sidelines - the ball's in the EU's court this time and any "interference" on the part of the US is going to be mightily frowned upon, unless it can somehow go through the UN or other legitimate bodies first.

i wonder if the bush administration could function at all if it was not busily fabricating threats.
it has used fear mongering as a central element in its policy making and selling since 9/11/2001--in many ways it seems that its "vision" for america is based upon the steady manufacture of things to be afraid of in the world.

iran is not a threat to the us in any coherent sense.
but it is part of the circuit of countries that you can see designated as "enemies" in some abstract sense by the project for a new american century group. so is syria.
that vision is about an imperialist america, a military hegemon, behind which an ordered, ultra-nationalist society is imagined, united behind the Person of the Leader. that vision of one of an american-style fascism.
manufacturing terror, radical nationalism, the fetishism of the military--all of a piece..

on another note:
the possibility that the bushpeople are worried about iran supporting the shi'a parties in iraq crossed my mind---it would make sense in the abstract--but in fact they hate each other.

it would be folly--even by the standards that you have to apply to this administration--were bush to attempt an invasion of iran. it would be a bloodbath.

WillRavel,

I understand what you are saying, but I guess it sort of comes down to a chicken/egg thing or catch-22: We (the US, in theory) wouldn't invade a country (i.e.- Iran) unless they have WMD or "nuclear ambition" (this is a rather loose assertion I realize, but just for argument's sake). BUT Iran, fears a US invasion (regardless of intent and decides to develop "nukes" or WMD as a "deterrent", which then invites an inavsion or action.

On the other hand, maybe Iran sees the current Middle East situation as a power vaccum and desires to step in and fill the void and maybe harbors desire as a regional hegemon. With Iraq (previous balancer) out of the way, Iran "suddenly" becomes pretty big.

Additionally, Iran's stated calls for Israel's destruction is indeed a cause for alarm. Add to that Iran's nuclear ambitions, one would definitely wonder what their true motive or intent was.

I suppose it could be a matter of what your viewpoint is also: For example, should we be more proactive in international relations or should we just mind our own business?

I totally agree that it is a chicken egg situation except for one factor: the US invaded Iraq despite the fact that they didn't ahve WMDs. If they actually did have WMDs they mgiht have actually stood a fraction of a chance against the military mgiht of America. If we invade Iran and we're [B]lying[/I] about the nuclear weapons, like we lied about the WMDs in Iraq, we will take Iran just as we took Iraq. We've already shown that we can invade a country based on lies and/or misinformation about threats, then change the story aftarwards to that of some moral reason. We could easily (after pulling out of Iraq) invade Iran and overthrow the theocracy, only to say later that we went in to bring them "freedom" and "democracy".

Why do you think America is allies with the state of Isreal? Why aren't we backing up Iran, like we did when Iraq attacked? Why aren't we disarming Isreal along with Iran?

I think we should either be friends with ALL middle eastern nations or NONE. We can't take sides in what is a Zionist vs. Islam problem. If we were real allies of Iran, we wouldn't be deamonizing them and threatening them. If we were allies with Iran, we might open up trade with them and send in humanatarian organizations. Instead of spending $200billion on a war, we could spend $12billion on peace and not have to worry about them.

The alternative to allying all of them is leaving them completly alone and trying to rely on other, more expensive source of oil.

I'm sure Iran feels the same way about the US. Which is probably the main reason they are developing nuclear capabilities to begin with.

Manufacture terrorism? :crazy: So all the terrorist attacks that al-quaeda purpotrated against the United States, up until 9/11/2001 were bogus? made up?

The threat comes from terrorist-friendly islamic nations that have access to WMD's esp. nuclear weapons. Handing those weapons off to the terrorist operatives for a detonation within our boarders, so those of you saying it doesn't matter to the US if Iran has nukes because they have no delivery system are wrong. They do have a delivery sysem and it is called islamic terrorists.

We aren't demanding Israel get rid of their nukes because we aren't worried that they are going to hand them off to terrorists to kill americans.

And we don't need to wait for Iran to have nukes before we deal with them. Thats what the whole pre-emptive policy is all about. We act before something becomes an imminent threat, because once they are, it is too late.

We are very good at saying the al-qaeda may have been involved then we leave that thought there to boil in the minds of the public. Name 3 al-qaeda attacks purpotrated against the United States before 9/11 that were proven, not just alledged.

If they hand off the hukes to terrorists, they lose their control of them. If they don't have control voer the nuclear weapons, they won't be able to deterrr the US. It would be countrproductive to their goal; keeping the US at bay. If they were to be tied to a preemptive strike against an American target, they'd be screwed. If we can go to war with Iraq without any proof, imagine what we could do to Iran with proof.

And what happens if Israel has that religious military coup everyone's been talking about since the late 80s? Then we have nuclear weapons fired at arab cities all over the middle east.

Pre-emptive policy, espically based on what will probably turn out to be poor intelligence, is a wonderful way to kill innocent people and go against the basic ideals of American jusitce. We can't trust our intelligence organizations, as we saw in Iraq, with foreign policy decisions. If we go after Iran, and they were not a danger to anyone, we are the bad guys AGAIN. I'm getting a little tired of being the bad guy.

The threat isn't immenent in Iran yet. We have no proof. Innocent until proven guilty should not just be limited to the American justice system. It would be hyprocritical to apply that philosophy only when it suits our goals.

Israel has no obligation to disarm it's nuclear programs, they never signed the proliferation treaty, so they are not bound by it. Plus as a country that has been invaded and drawn into 5+ conflicts in the last half century, I don't blame them for having them, keep those "pesky" Arabs from starting shit again.

Whether they or anyone signed a treaty or not has no bearing on whether they need nuclear weapons or not.
I'm not even going to bother with that rewrite of history.

It might not have any bearing onf whether they need them or not, but it stands on the grounds that they is nothing to deter them, no legal problems that would prevent them from having them.

That's your opinion that it's a rewrite. THe reality was that at their inception as a state they were invaded by 7 regular armies, in 56' they were drawn into conflict at the closing of the straits, in 67' they were drawn into war after 3 different enemy nations began amassing troops on their respective borders, and then 73' when Egypt invaded on the holy day of Yom Kippur, couple all of that with the destablization of Lebanon and it's base for Palestinian terrorism/Syrian military presence is a clear danger to Israel's border and sovereignity.

Every law can be changed if it is necessary to change the law.
And it's your opinion that it is not. As the Israeli state discussion has taken place countless times to no avail, there seems to be little point in starting it again at this time. And I am getting tired of the "Well that's your opinion" type of posts. Of course it is, that's why I wrote it.

The law can be changed, but there is the whole issue of Ex post facto. It is not illegal for them right now to have them. As a sovereign state they have every right to have nuclear weapons, it wouldn't even matter if someone changed the law, because guess what, international law only has authority where sovereignity is conceded. It is a lame attempt for you guys to try and use it as an excuse because Israel has no relevance to Iran having nuclear weapons, Iran being a country which did sign the proliferation treaty.

This is where you get confused with what is the law and what is a need.

That Israel has nuclear weapons is a major reason why Iran would break the law to obtain nuclear weapons.

The law has nothing to do with the purpose - the law is nothing more than an international agreement on what should or should not take place - not what needs to take place.

KMA,

re: original post.

I don't think that Iran would attack first as a country, as they know what the consequences would be and I dont think they are suicidal.

I DO however see them helping terrorism achieve the next level: nuclear terrorism.

MAD worked with the Soviets because we had definable targets. As more and more countries join the nuclear club, it becomes more and more difficult to know whom to retaliate against in the event of a nuclear bomb going off in Washington or New York.

Do we hit North Korea? China? Iran? Pakistan?

I know it is possible to trace the origin of the fissionable material in the fallout, but too many sources for it are coming online for my liking.

what interest would you imagine iran would have in doing that, lebell? seriously--what interest?

i mean apart from the catch phrases you hear from the administration, which in general are more about selling their favorite product--fear---than about a coherent view of the government in iran, its actions, etc.

so far as the core of the administration is concerned, iran has been defined as a "terrorist threat" since the hostage thing at the end of the carter administration. what made them a threat in this regard was that they embarrassed the united states. the americans paid them back in spades by arming saddam hussein to the gills over the next decade (remember? i do....) the present administration has no other agenda--iran is as symbolic a target as iraq was.

these clowns set the Agenda:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

george w. bush seems to be doing nothing but looking to implement it.

What makes them a terrorist threat Roachboy is Iran actively supports terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Sorry, no "Bushworld" twist or plot, just reality.

whether that is true or not (i am agnostic on the matter, mojo), it says nothing at all about the question i actually posed: how would it be in iran's interest to provide nuclear weapons to "terrorists"?


as for hezbollah and hamas, i assume that there is a dimension in which they are relevant to the question at hand---actually, i read through your rather smug post again, and it does not make sense to me--what exactly are you saying? say iran has supported these organization (either of which complicates the slogan of "terrorism"--but i suspect that would fall outside your purview, as you seem to support any and all imperialist actions by the united states and all the attending definitions required to justify it)--how exactly would it follow from support (what types?) that iran would pass along nuclear weapons to them?.

on the other hand, sitting and cheerleading as you do in the belly of the world's largest arms exporter--by a multiple of ten--what argument do you really have for limiting the circulation of weapons systems, conventional or otherwise?

Funnily enough, the EU does not brand Hezbollah as a terrorist group, even though Hamas may be a different story. Hezbollah is a political party that has an active paramilitary wing. Screaming "Terrorist!" and going into full- blown paranoia mode does not a terrorist make, neither is it conducive to working things out without raise blood pressure and international tensions. Of the three countries championing negotiation as a way forwards, the UK has experience of dealing with this very scenario. The IRA is (or was, depending on your view of current events) organised in exactly the same way. Tacit US support in the form of your former President Bill Clinton helped with the negotiations that paved the way to the Good Friday Agreements, however any comment from the current incumbent, who has no experience with working things through by diplomatic means, will only hamper efforts to get the situation under some kind of acceptable control.

In response to posts about the NPT, the academic community, who also on occasion fulfill roles as advisors to leaders, consider the NPT as a norm. That is to say that the level of support for that particular convention is so great that it applies to all, even though one may not have signed the original treaty.The Geneva Accords are another example of this. International pressure over US withdrawal from the NPT has led them to quietly shelve plans for tactical battlefield nuclear shells, even though they are no longer officially bound by its terms. In other words, whether or not a treaty has been signed by your country, if the level of worldwide support is great enough, the terms of that agreement are more or less forced upon you. You may still do as you wish under the terms of your own sovereignty, but funnily enough you might suddenly find that people in strategic places stop listening and political doors that were once open become inexplicably shut.

Hopefully not for argument's sake: I'm just curious where you getting this data from; and what timeline your placing on it.

Now everyone can act shocked that one of the board's liberals quoted Fox News (which, by the way, I am not fond of, but it's an AP Story so it doesn't really matter which site I got it from.)

Anyway, I don't think that they would hesitate to use a nuke against our troops in the Persian Gulf if they thought they were about to be invaded.

From the BBC:


Yeah, these guys sound like some peace-loving people.

How can anyone question whether or not Iran supports terrorists?

A couple of points:

The US may be the largest exporter of arms--but the comparison doesn't include the fact that a few other "major suppliers" of arms, do so on the black market--kinda hard to make the comparison when who knows what percentage of arms trade is unaccounted for.

Why wouldn't Iran hand off a nuke? If we can't trace it back to Iran, why would they be concerned about selling nukes? It's not like they care how many "infidels" die, they would be too busy dancing and singing in the streets.


Edit: LINK

One man's terrorist is another man's hero. Terrorism: The use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. An Arab fundamentalist blowing up an American carrier would be an act of terrorism, because it is intended to take away the feeling of safety that the men on the carrier would ahve had otherwise. Likewise, when American fighters and missles attack the capitol of a nation in a campaign called "Shock and Awe", intending to instill fear in our enemies in order for them to surrender is also an act of terrorism (reread the definition if you don't belive me). What makes the US the good guys and the Arab fundamentalists the bad guys is one thing: control of perception. The US media is here to show how our government can only do heroic and morally just acts, and how our enemies are evil and take human lives out of nothing but blind hate. Likewise, America is protraied in the Middle East (often) as a great evil empire that wants to kill them and take their resources, while the Arab fundamentalists are great heros standing up to the evil giant. The truth lies somewhere between.

We are not in a position to call anyone else a terrorist.

This is about nuclear weapons, not establishing a pattern. If Iran doesn't have nucl;ear weapons, they won't be selling nuclear weapons to anyone. If they are developing them, they still aren't completed yet, so they won't be selling them to anyone. If they have working nuclear weapons, they are a danger to nearby nations. The only reason to attack America is if we continue our unnecessary involvement in their region, disrupting the balance of power. The day Iran hands off a nuke to terrorists in order to strike at America is the day after America threatens to take action against Iran.

I stand by my original post, we should either ally all nations in the Middle Easy or leave completly. If we were allies with all of them, we would be actually working towards the best interests of ALL parties, instead of just Israel for some reason. If we worked towards the common goal of peace and prosparity in the Middle East, we might see real positive change that has the potential for peace between the Jewish and Islamic groups. We need to stop playing these dangerous games that cost lives.

nevermind.

Do you watch the news? Do you read history? While you do not practice religion, do you understand fanaticism?

The majority of people that rule Iran believe with all their heart that the Jews (supported by the US) are the enemy and if they drive them from the 3rd holiest city in Islam, they are guarenteed paradise.

That isn't from the Bush/Rove playbook, that's straight from their mouths, which you can verify by visiting a few radical Islamic websites.

So their interest is SERVING ALLAH. This goes back before the hostages (444 days I remember well) and before the shah and before the creation of Israel to when Mohammed blessed the taking of lands and killing those who opposed them. (You could live in peace under Islam only if you were Christain or Jewish, but THEN only if you paid a tax for the privilege.)

I can't spell it out any more clearly.

News flash!

Bush Announces Iraq Exit Strategy: "We'll Go Through Iran"

So don't worry. It's all taken care of - just sit back and enjoy.

and you guys said we didn't have a plan.

We showed you, now didn't we?

Please take this for an honest respectful response.

The majority of people that rule Israel believe with all their heart that the Muslims are the enemy and if they keep them them from the 3rd holiest city in Islam, they are blessed in the eyes of the Lord.

That isn't from the liberal playbook, that's straight from their mouths, which you can verify by visiting a few radical Zionist websites.

So their interest is serving God and trying to protect the place currently known as Israel from the evil Arab Muslims. This goes back to the very beginnings of not only Islam, but even Christianity. The reality is that there is deeply seeded racism and religious prejudice from the Jewish community towards to Arab Muslim people. Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg, head of the Kever Yossev Yeshiva in Nablus stated, "The blood of the Jewish people is loved by the Lord; it is therefore redder and their life is preferable." The killing by a Jew of a non-Jew, i.e. a Palestinian or other Arab, is considered essentially a good deed, and Jews should therefore have no compunction about it.

I can't spell it out any more clearly.

The Federation of American Scientists has said that Israel has an estimated 100-200 nuclear weapons. Not one of them has yet hit an Arab or Muslim target. Just because a nation is run by deeply religious people who happen to belong to a religion that has fanatics does not mean that they themselves are fanatics.

will -

I agree.

You have two "old" religions that both claim rights to the same land. Both view the same spot as sacred to their belief.

In regards to Jews vs. Muslims, correct me if I am wrong, but weren't the Jews there first. If memory is serving me right, Islam came about several hundred years after Christ. And, obviously, Judaism was before Christianity.

Is there a "who was there first" ancient law running around.

Also (going back to memory again), aren't some of the signs of the apocalypse related to this area and who controls it?

Ok, time for ANOTHER war then. Let's go!

Judaism has been around for some 5000 years. Christianity, around 2000. Muslim religion, around 1400. When you actually consider the similarities between all three of them, it's nearly shocking that there has been and continues to be so much violence between them. I mean, it's not like we're talking about some belief as different as Hinduism.

Before Jews came to Palestine, it was ruled in various degrees at various times by Caananites, Philistines, Egyptians, Babylonians and probably a half dozen other groups.

If there is a "who was there first" law running around, maybe we should let the Native American's know.

From what I have read, the main point of contention between Christians and Muslims revolves around the concept of the Holy Trinity; giving divinity to Christ is heretical to them and an abomination to God.

Since Jews don't believe in the trinity, I don't really know why they don't get along.

If I were to guess, I would say it is because of the Jewish holy lands that were taken when Islam was super-powerful and spreading across the world. Maybe the Jews never forgave them for that?

That might explain it from the Jewish percepective, but it doesn't explain hundreds of years of Muslims hating Jews--no clue there.

You'll get no argument from me--my munchkins are all card carrying Cherokee.

EDIT: Will, I think I may have mistook your response for your actual beliefs. If you meant your post as a twist on the post you quoted, and what you wrote is not genuinely what you believe, then ignore what I wrote, and I apologize. If not...



I'm sorry if I find myself unable to take your post as "respectful." Perhaps I don't know who you are being respectful towards - it surely isn't Jews, or basic decency.

First of all, I will respectfully tell you that you don't know one single fucking accurate thing about Jews. For example, we don't think as one monothilic group. Secondly, there is no deep-seeded anti-Muslim racism inherent in Judaism. Jews and Muslims have had their differences, but before the mid-twentieth century, the two lived alongside each other quite well for millenia. When Spain was ruled by the Moors, they allowed an extraordinary amount of religious freedom to Jews who had been actively persecuted by Christians for centuries. In fact, before the latest intifada began a few years ago, many Arabs lived in Israel, enough that over the next few decades they were expected to outnumber Jews. Does this sound like a country dedicated to removing Arabs from within its borders?

And as dumb as I think Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg may be, I think anyone who believes that this man speaks for any group of estimable size of Jews threatens his status as moron of the moment. I've never heard of him - his quote is just one crazy guy's statement cherry picked to look as if he spoke for more than just his Yeshiva.

Then, you insinuated that Jews consider killing non-Jews a good thing is repugnant beyond belief. Jews have always sued for peace throughout our troubled history. Whatever mistakes Israeli political and/or military leadership may have made over the last 50 years, it is utterly irresponsible and downright offensive to assert that Jews consider it a good thing to kill non-Jews.

One of our most sacred stories is that of Passover - you might know it as the one in which Moses leads the Jews out of Egypt. G-d parted the Red Sea to allow the Jews to pass, and when the Egyptian army attempted to follow, the Sea closed in upon them, drowning every soldier. The Jews initially began to celebrate, until G-d became angry. He told the Jews that every living creature on Earth is one of G-d's creatures, and that the death of the Egyptian army was a tragedy.

Our most tragic moment occurred about 60 years ago, when a country decided that to kill every member of another ethnic group was a good thing.

Do you actually believe that Jews would undertake that same quest?

Of course, you base your disgusting assertions on a "radical Zionist website" that is anything but. In fact, it is a radical racist website that refers to the treasured collected collection of Jewish theological thought, the Talmud, as Jewish Supremacist Hate Literature and decries the racial desegregation of America. Zionists are those who believed that Jews should return to the Holy Land and establish a state. White motherfuckers who dedicate their websites to "the cutting edge of legitimate, studious conspiracy research" in order to wax nostalgic about the good ol' slavery days are the opposite of Zionists.

I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone on these boards that a white supremacist is not a Zionist, and correct assumptions that Jews think killing anyone at all is a good idea. I feel like I'm this close to having to explain that our noses are not all hooked, that we don't run the world's banks, and that no, I've never tasted the blood of Christian children. I'm actually writing this post in genuine anger - I've never done that before. Unfuckingbelievable.

And KMA, I assure you that Islamic-Jewish relations are a bit more complicated than Jews being unable to forgive Muslims for "taking the holy land" in some mysterious event that didn't happen. Like I explained above, Jews and Muslims haven't always had bad relations. That is a relatively new development. Trust me - we Jews have been shuttling around various countries too long to hold some sort of permanent grudge against any one group. Jews have had a much worse history with Christianity than with Islam.

Eh, just a guess....and a bad one at that.

Out of curiousity, please explain "G-d"?

Sure thing, KMA. Jews believe that you should not write out the true name of G-d, though most people utilize this tradition only when writing in hebrew. I don't follow this convention in English, except in this post as it felt appropriate.

So Jews call G-d all sorts of names, like Elohim and Adonai and several other names rather than actually write out his true name.

By the way, I've edited my post you are responding to - I think I totally misunderstood what willravel was doing, and if so then obviously my riteous indignation for the night was misplaced.

This is a good website to explain it.

guy44 -

willravel seemed to be taking Lebell's post and simply turning it around.

Does willravel know less about Jews than Lebell about Muslims? Who knows. But lebell (apparently) posted his true opinion.

A telling sign is the last portion of willravel's post, where he states that a deeply religious government (Israel) has had nukes in their possession for quite awhile and yet none have been used.

Personally, I found willravel's post to be spot on.

So....the next obvious question.....that has already been asked:

Why are there big whoop-dee-doos in Iran with banners proclaiming "Death to Israel"?

You can't really say it is a radical wing of Islam, since the Iranian gov't is sponsoring the event--that is, unless you consider the Iranian gov't itself just a radical wing.

It doesn't seem to me that you have big parades in the streets of Israel with banners saying "Death to Islam" or "Death to Arabs".

So what is driving this from the Muslim side?

I would also like to note, that while typing this, I have the news on in the background and there was just a story on about Israel giving up some land or something today.

So....Israel makes concessions to Palestine, to further the chance for peace in the area.

Besides "Kill Jews" conventions, what is the Arab community doing to promote peace?

And yes, before you say anything, I know the tone I used. I'm not blowing smoke up anybody's ass by trying to make you think I don't have a bias here.

I do have a bias and I will admit to that, but I would still like to know what started this "war"?

/Totally off topic: there was just a porn commercial on Fox News, no joke.

That is THE most stupid and immature comment I heard this week. Good thing that people like you are not in charge. Wait... they are...

guy44, I think the criticisms you have of willravel's post are the exact reason willravel made that post to begin with - to point out the futility of such thinking.

You took it out of context. But however, after reading my post again I can see where it could be misconstued. Some of my wording was not ideal.

Thank you very much for saving me a lot of time typing this out. And for sparing me some anger, because I was becoming agitated while reading KMA's post. But it had more to do with the fact that I've already typed responses like yours out to posts like his elsewhere on this board.

In any case, I've quoted the thing because it probably needs to be reiterated. Maybe a few people will actually believe the sentiment contained within.


Oh, and no, lebell does not accurately portray the views of any of my muslim friends. My goodness, yes, I have muslim friends! There is a bit of agitation, some of it escalating into violence between us (well, not me in particular) on my campus, but that is between the people who get wrapped up in the political rhetoric. The religious wars belief is a very simple, seems to be mainly christian belief, way of making sense of a complex situation. It doesn't square with historical relations, however.

When you evaluated the relative timelines between the religions you made an error, now that I think of it attributed to the mistaken belief that any issues are predominantly religious, in linking ethnic heritage to a large number of muslim's religiousity. I mean to say that if you look deeper into the split between the two groups you'll find something very interesting. Lack of historic perspective on where the two derive their lineage could be overcome if christians would stop using the foundation of their religion as a convenient backstory when it suits them. By this I mean, read a bit more of what christians call the "old" testament and you'd find that even religious perspective on this isn't what it's purported to be (regardless of how you feel about the historical accuracy of the events depicted, at least that is what a number of religious groups are working from).

People,

It would be better for everyone on "Politics" if we ALL read everything posters write and not take them out of context.

I specifically wrote "The majority of people ruling Iran..." for a reason. Other than having a few of you say in effect that I don't know what I'm talking about, no one has yet shown me how that is so.

I think willravel did an excellent job of demonstrating how that is so. His post, as the near mirror image of your own, did not claim all Jews, but only the government of Israel and some radical groups - exactly as yours did. But it is rather clear that taking willravel's post on face value would be met with much resistance. The same holds true for your own.

Will was talking about feelings that may or may not be held by members of a secular government, as opposed to doctrine preached and policy practiced by a theocracy. Big difference.

caveat lector:

this post refers to no. 40, above (it took quite a while to write and much has occurred in the meantime it seems)

i have been sitting in front of what follow, reading through it, for a quite a while trying to decide if i should post it or not.
this is not written as a personal attack on you, lebel.
but i find that it can be read as one.
for that i apologize up front.
but i couldnt say what i felt i needed to say about this without going here to some extent.

==========

so let me see if i follow you:

first you assume that you can answer a direct question about the interests of the state of iran--that is its government--by not talking in any detail about the state of iran.

you seem to assume it is logical to treat iran as the expression of "radical isalm" in general--you even treat this equation as a given--which i suppose it is if you do not look at the facts of the matter at all---who the known fundamentalist organizations are, where they come from socially, their relation to the existing power structures within the communities they come out of, whether they oppose the existing power structure before anything else--whether the regime in iran is part of the existing power structure or not---whether these groups are sunni or shi'a--how that division plays out across the sociological situations that shape these groups. none of this is taken into account in your post, lebel--and not a bit of this is obvious without quite a bit of research. so your most basic claim does not hold water.

but let's pass over this preliminary issue:

you really think that iran--the government of which (like any other) has an interest in staying in power--would pass nuclear weapons to a --well what---you dont actually say anything specific, you seem to have no idea who iran might be passing these weapons to, these weapons they do not yet have but might soon have maybe...
to hezbollah?
we already discussed them in this thread---they are not really a "terrorist" outfit in the special senses given the term these days.
hamas?
that would not seem imaginable within any scenario given what is unfolding on the ground between israel and palestine at the moment.

so obviously the problem must be Someone Else, someone we dont know about, who does not now exist, but could exist one day and it is that Potential Enemy who is the Real Threat--well, no wonder there is nothing specific about who iran might pass these weapons they do not yet have to.

but it seems necessary to be able to say SOMETHING about the Potential Enemy, the one that does not yet exist, that we do not know about, but could at any moment, any place, Pop into Being--so what do we know about them? that they are evil muslims who want to destroy israel. voila. there you have it. presto, a kind of sea-monkey enemy: just add water and watch it twitch about in the tumbler of your choice--Instant Enemy: they make fine pets and they help justify massive, out of control defense spending. they keep people glued to their tv sets and help structure paranoia. Instant Enemies are available everywhere, all the time. you dont need to know anything about them--you just need to know that they are evil muslims who want to destroy x....here you can say israel--there you can say the american way of life or our freedoms--it really does not matter what you fill in, it is always something Terribly Important: your own Instant Enemy is always really jealous or really angry or really something and as a result they just want to blow shit up. bad bad muslims.


you dont provide a real indication of how this passing of nuclear weapons could possibly be understood as rational by a government that presides over a nation-state and therefore has an interest in remaining in power and do to that needs to also have an interest in keeping a nation-state around and not getting it blown to smithereens by either the israelis--who are a real nuclear power--or the united states--or both.

[[aside: well, you *do* have the glorious history of american and soviet nuclear weapons thinking during the cold war from around the period around the cuban missle crisis, the mutual assured destruction thing. and because this was an american "strategy" and this is american dammit, it must have been rational.]]

but outside MAD--which was both rational contextually and completely insane contextually at once---even from the most low-level type of self-interest, it would seem to me nuts, your scenario. seeing as your understanding is rooted on no specific information about iran, no specific information about these "terrorists" or "fundamentalists" or other boogeypersons that keep you awake at night and by extension conservatives in power---no specific information about islam for that matter, just a sequence of rickety assertions tied together by the kind of startling fact that you seem to believe what you say.

what is really startling is that you let yourself drop into a very old, very unpleasant set of tropes: They are fanatics--They are not reasonable--They do not act from self-interest--They are inferior--They are deluded: all quite unlike you or Us--all requiring no information--only good old fashioned racism.....but i understand (i think) how this game works these days lebel, and do not blame you personally for it at all--you just follow the logic your particular position leans on--it is perfectly acceptable these days for conservative types to be racist without limits when it comes to arabs, to muslims--because it is wrapped tight in nationalist fervor, in projection, in fear, this particular racism goes unnoticed, unnamed. it is part of the nationalist game. and that nationalist game is an unquestioned good.

Oh boy. My post did not put all jewish people into one group. It would be foolish to claim that the people of any religion are best represented by their radical fundamentalists. Also, please realize that a lot of what I said was to point out how Lebell sounded speaking about the Islamic community.

Rabbi Yizhak’s comment was racist and uncommon in the jewish church. I was pointing to the extremists in the jewish community, just as lebell pointed to the extremists in the muslim community.

Don’t worry, I know. Just as in Islam, i’m sure that 99.999999999% of those who follow Judaism are kind and intelligent people who understand that the Torah teaches peace and understanding. I was trying to make the point that we should not consider all of Islam to be accurately represented by the very few radicals, just as Judaism is not represented by the very, very few radicals.

We Christians believe in Passover as well.

Nope. Actually, I think that if a religion were to initiate some evil quest the Jewish religion would be the religion I’d least expect it from, next to Buddhists.

I hope I have explained why I was being a bit sarcastic in my post. To clarify, I wanted to point out that if what was said about the Islamic faith was said about another faith, it would be considered truly ignorant and hate-filled. My post does not reflect my beliefs. I hope I still have any respect I might have had from you before you read my post. Know that I have a deep respect for those who follow Judaism, or any religion. Next to my copies of the NIV, NKJ, and Hebrew Christian Bible I have copies of the Jewish Study Bible (Tanakh Translation, Torah, Nevi'Im, Kethuvim), the Tao-te-ching, the Veda, and the Qur'an (just to give you an idea of where I’m coming from). My father was a pastor and my grandfather was a philosopher. My best friend follows Judaism and I’ve gone with him to temple many times.

and then there are problems of assessing iran's nuclear capabilities at all.
this from todays ny times
link:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/09/in...rtner=homepage

lebell...fascinating that you skip right past the shah. That era of government makes the selling of fanaticism to the people possible. Islam has both existed as a empire, and as a diaspora...oppressor and oppressed. frankly, your reading of the situation is rather misleadingly simple.

"only if you paid a tax" Duh. What do you think Christendom did to the Jewish diaspora?

violence is a *human* problem, not just an islamic/christian/jewish/whatever one.

possible threadjack...Guy44, where are you getting that reading of exodus 15? I *like* that reading, but it's not pshat...is that a commentator, or what?

as a Christian, that story is important to me too, but i feel that it's better to acknowledge the violence in it, and not whitewash it away.

Willravel - yeah, I realized after I posted my long ass rant that you were just making a point about stereotyping all members of a religion, and edited my post at the top to indicate so.

Sorry about the invective - I misread what you wrote. I'm an idiot.

martinguerre - I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure that story is commentary, not actually in the Torah.

Not to worry. You illustrated well what religious ignorance and stereotypes can do to people. If anything, you supported my point bette than I ever could. Also, I just learned a new word: invective. n. Denunciatory or abusive language; vituperation.

You're no idiot.