Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "There are no Homosexuals in my country.

[Jenny_Jackson]

All humor asside, in many ways I can't blame Iran for wanting the "Bomb". Their neighbors are unfriendly and they look at the western powers, The U.S., England, France, even Japan, all who have nuclear weapons and ask, "Why not us?" There is a feeling in the middle east, not just Iran, that the "Nuclear Club" holds their weapons as a vailed threat to keep the oil pumping and keep the arab world in line.

As far a Ahmadinejad goes, all I can do is sit back and shake my head. But again, looking at the radical Sunni Clergy who really run Iran, I feel a chill. Ahmadinejad is a man who can be reasoned with, at least, up to a point. The clergy are a completly different story. The clergy stays behind the scenes, taking big dollars from the Saudi Royals and disseminating it to terrorist groups and founding radical mosques in the U.S. and Europe with the obvious intent of gaining political and social power with an end goal of changing the west to conform to their will.

I have friends who are Saudis, Iraqis, Kuwatis and Iranians, all living in this country. They too are very afraid of what is going on with the Iranian Clergy. Most of them moved here to escape the madness.

 

[S-Des]

I, for one, am quite reassured by his comments that their interest in nucular power is strictly for industry and utilities energy, not weapons.

Because there's definitely no way they can power their country otherwise.

 

[rengadeirishman]

lets just kill the sumbitch.

 

[elsol]

*yawn*

We can't make one guy hiding in a cave dead.

Let's not get above ourselves and go at a guy who would hit back.

When Osama's dead then talk to me.

 

[amicus]

*yawn*

We can't make one guy hiding in a cave dead.

Let's not get above ourselves and go at a guy who would hit back.

When Osama's dead then talk to me.

~~~

If I recall, there is a $25,000,000.00 bounty on Bin Laden's head, Elsol, yawn, why don't you hire a few trained mercenaries, outfit them and lead them into the mountainous terrain of the Afghan Pakistani border in search of him?

You would come crying home to mommy after the first night in sub freezing temperatures.

Ahem....amicus....

 

[elsol]

~~~

If I recall, there is a $25,000,000.00 bounty on Bin Laden's head, Elsol, yawn, why don't you hire a few trained mercenaries, outfit them and lead them into the mountainous terrain of the Afghan Pakistani border in search of him?

You would come crying home to mommy after the first night in sub freezing temperatures.

Ahem....amicus....

Yeah... that's what Bush supporters say when we start to talk about how a man responsible for thousands of American deaths still lives and breathes.

That's Bush's legacy: Osama got to walk away.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS, JENNY JACKSON

I was raised by an itty-bitty Irish woman who packed a pistol and took ZERO shit from anyone. She was the Queen of Payback. She did whatever it took to fuck you. So this whole business with Osama and the Iranians puzzles me....unless we have some compelling reason to keep them alive.

 

[amicus]

AMICUS, JENNY JACKSON

I was raised by an itty-bitty Irish woman who packed a pistol and took ZERO shit from anyone. She was the Queen of Payback. She did whatever it took to fuck you. So this whole business with Osama and the Iranians puzzles me....unless we have some compelling reason to keep them alive.

~~~

JBJ...I am sure you as aware as I of the problems exerting military force in Pakistan or in the terrain of the area where Bin Laden is thought to be holed up.

Iran seems to be a matter of waiting, perhaps, for the dis-satisfied populace to make a move to remove or resist the current regime, or waiting until the Israeli's feel threatened enough to make a move. Then also, we really don't want a ground war in Iran but I think an aerial assault is but a push button away depending on provocation, which could come at any moment.

But then...I ain't in government or the military anymore and I sure ain't over there, to have first hand knowledge.

amicus...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

My son is career military. Intelligence now, but in the beginning he was an assassin. His job was to track terrorists and kill them. Sometimes in Panama, sometimes in Iraq. Our Diplomatic Security Service (STATE DEPARTMENT) does the same tasks. My kid went after military terrorists. He also killed prairie dogs, polar bears, and infiltrated high risk military/civilian facilities to test security.

I'm confident we could get Osama if we wanted to.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=JAMESBJOHNSON]AMICUS

My son is career military. Intelligence now, but in the beginning he was an assassin. His job was to track terrorists and kill them. Sometimes in Panama, sometimes in Iraq. Our Diplomatic Security Service (STATE DEPARTMENT) does the same tasks. My kid went after military terrorists. He also killed prairie dogs, polar bears, and infiltrated high risk military/civilian facilities to test security.

I'm confident we could get Osama if we wanted to.[/QUOTE]

I'm confident we could get Osama if we wanted to.

~~~

I do not have blind allegiance to the United States, although it may appear that way, but I do not share your confidence that it is only the lack of will the keeps Osama at large.

From what I read Bin Laden is considered something of a 'saint' among his people, they worship him and will protect him and supply him.

The US in terms of linguistic experts is sadly lacking in trained personnel that could infiltrate into the regions he is suspected to be. I have watched many speculative programs and read many accounts of why Bin Laden continues to evade our superior technology and surveillance techniques and it all makes a sort of sense to me.

So, I have a different opinion than you, I think they are doing everything possible to capture or kill him, but they just can't find him.

Amicus...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

The DSS went after Osama a few times and were leashed because of Osama's money. These stories are pretty well documented. Osama picks shit-holes to hide in and spreads money around. The recipients, in turn, twist the President's tail.

The DSS usually get their guy if he has no money.

 

[amicus]

AMICUS

The DSS went after Osama a few times and were leashed because of Osama's money. These stories are pretty well documented. Osama picks shit-holes to hide in and spreads money around. The recipients, in turn, twist the President's tail.

The DSS usually get their guy if he has no money.

~~~

After reading a few of your posts, JBJ, I didn't think I could be more cynical than you, but perhaps I am.

I see the Muslims and their Mosques as I do the Catholics and their enclaves, hiding pedophile priests. They just shuffled them from hideout to hideout, providing fodder along the way.

But then, thas me.

Amicus...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

I had to check the definition of cynic.

I'm a socio-biologist, and the central dogma of socio-biology is: everyone is selfish. THAT defines cynic in my dictionary.

The late Herbert A.Simon, a Nobel Laureate and a very liberal guy, said "altruists are docile and rationally bounded." I believe he's right on the money.

 

[amicus]

AMICUS

I had to check the definition of cynic.

I'm a socio-biologist, and the central dogma of socio-biology is: everyone is selfish. THAT defines cynic in my dictionary.

The late Herbert A.Simon, a Nobel Laureate and a very liberal guy, said "altruists are docile and rationally bounded." I believe he's right on the money.

~~~

I had to check the definition of sociobiologist..

Sociobiology is a synthesis of scientific disciplines that explains behaviour in all species by considering the evolutionary advantages of social behaviours. It is often considered a branch of biology and sociology, and it also draws from ethology, evolution, zoology, archeology, population genetics, and other disciplines. Within the study of human societies, sociobiology is closely related to the fields of human behavioral ecology and evolutionary psychology.

Sociobiology has become one of the greatest scientific controversies of the late 20th century. Criticism, most notably made by Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould, centers on sociobiology's contention that genes play a decisive role in human behavior, suggesting there are limitations to reducing traits such as aggressiveness. In response to the controversy, anthropologist John Tooby and psychologist Leda Cosmides launched evolutionary psychology as a centrist form with less controversial focuses.

Definition

Yekaterina Pokoleva proposed DNA and genes to be the biological basis for animal social behavior. Many of its theories are contentious, and alternative paradigms have been put forward. Specifically, questions concerning the amount of determism genes presuppose, as well as the interaction between environment, protein synthesis, and human cognition have not been explained through any field or combinations thereof.

Sociobiology is based on the idea that animals will act in ways to improve their own inclusive fitness (Kin Selection), and that this will result in social processes conducive to genetic fitness. Some variants include the selfish genes hypothesis that states the individual is not as important to the population as its genes. Others such as the altruistic hypothesis state that groups with genes in common (homogenous groups) would be more likely to survive, and carry those genes if altruistic social behavior occurred, just paving the way for modern human interrelations.

Therefore, some animal and human behaviors may be explained by how they act to preserve their genes in the population. It can be used to explain why a lioness will nurse not only her own young, but the young of her close genetic relatives in the pride (nephews and nieces). It can also be used to explain why a new dominant male lion will kill cubs in the pride that do not belong to him. Killing the cubs causes the nursing females to come into heat faster, thereby giving the male lion an opportunity to get his genes into the population much faster.

History

The sociobiology discussion was started by Edward O. Wilson's landmark 1975 book, and can be traced to the work of Robert Trivers and William D. Hamilton. The book was seen as pioneering the attempt to explain the evolutionary mechanics behind social behaviours such as altruism, aggression, and nurturance, primarily in ants (Wilson's research speciality) and other animals, with only the last chapter devoted solely to humans. However, Wilson later wrote a Pulitzer Prize winning book, "On Human Nature", that addressed how human behavior can be explained with sociobiology.

Sociobiological theory

Edward O. Wilson

Sociobiologists believe that animal or human behaviour cannot be satisfactorily explained entirely by "cultural", "environmental", "ethnic", or "individualistic" factors alone. They contend that in order fully to understand behaviour, it must be analyzed with some focus on its evolutionary origins, and with deep consideration for modern paradigms of sociology, psychology, anthropology and other human sciences. If Darwin's theory of natural selection is taken as a given, then inherited behavioural mechanisms that allowed an organism a greater chance of surviving and/or reproducing would be more likely to survive in present organisms. Many biologists accept that these sorts of behaviours are present in non-human animal species. However, there is a great deal of controversy over the application of evolutionary models to human beings, both within sociology, and biology.

Sociobiologists are often interested in instinctive, or intuitive behaviour. They are interested in explaining the similarities, rather than the differences, between cultures. They are interested in how behaviours that are often taken for granted can be explained logically by examining selection pressures in the history of a species.

For example, mothers within many species of mammals – including humans – are very protective of their offspring. Sociobiologists reason that this protective behavior likely evolved over time because it helped those individuals which had the characteristic to survive and reproduce. Over time, those individuals in the species that did not exhibit such protective behaviors likely lost their offspring and ultimately died out. In this way, the social behavior is believed to have evolved in a fashion similar to other types of non-behavioral adaptations, such as (for example) fur or the sense of smell. Sociobiologists may therefore argue that the evolutionary mechanism behind the behavior is genetic.

Individual genetic advantage often fails to explain more complex social behaviours. However, genetic evolution appears to act on social groups. The mechanisms responsible for selection in groups are statistical and can be harder to grasp than those that determine individual selection (such as the above example). When explaining behavior in its social groups, the analytical processes of sociobiology use paradigms and population statistics similar to actuarial analyses of the insurance industry or game theory.

Anthropologist Colin Turnbull found another supporting example (described in The Mountain People, 1972) about an African tribe, the Ik, which he said so lacked altruism that the society lost battles with neighboring tribes. His controversial conclusions elicited responses from anthropologists and journalists.

E.O. Wilson demonstrated through logic that altruists must reproduce their own altruistic genetic traits for altruism to survive. When altruists lavish their resources on nonaltruists at the expense of their own kind, the altruists tend to die out and the others tend to grow. In other words, altruists must practice the ethic that "charity begins at home."

An important concept in sociobiology is that temperamental traits within a gene pool and between gene pools exist in an ecological balance. Just as an expansion of a sheep population might encourage the expansion of a wolf population, an expansion of altruistic traits within a gene pool may also encourage the expansion of individuals with dependent traits.

Twin studies suggest that behavioural traits such as creativity, extroversion and aggressiveness are between 45% to 75% genetic. Intelligence is said by some to be about 80% genetic after one matures (discussed at Intelligence quotient#Genetics vs environment). Others, such as R. C Lewontin, reject the idea of 'dividing' environment and heredity in such an artificial way.

Sociobiology is often confused with arguments over the "genetic" basis of intelligence. Sociobiology is predicated on the assumption that genes do affect behaviour. However the heritability of a trait is a measure that reflects the degree of genetic variation present in the population, together with the amount of influence from the environment. It is perfectly consistent to be a sociobiologist whilst arguing that measured IQ variations between individuals reflect mainly cultural or economic rather than genetic factors.

Here's how scientific sociobiology usually proceeds: A social behaviour is first explained as a sociobiological hypothesis by finding an evolutionarily stable strategy that matches the observed behaviour. Stability can be difficult to prove, but usually, a well-formed strategy will predict gene frequencies. The hypothesis can be confirmed by establishing a correlation between the gene frequencies predicted by the strategy, and those expressed in a population. Measurement of genes and gene-frequencies can also be problematic, because a simple statistical correlation can be open to charges of circularity. Circularity can occur if the measurement of gene frequency indirectly uses the same measurements that describe the strategy. Though difficult, this overall process finds favour.

As a successful example, altruism between social insects and litter-mates was first satisfactorily explained by these means, and it was correlated to the degree of genome shared by the altruists, as predicted. Another successful example was a quantitative description of infanticide by male harem-mating animals when the alpha male is displaced. Female infanticide and fetal resorption in rodents are active areas of study. In general, females with more bearing opportunities may value offspring less. Also, females may arrange bearing opportunities to maximize the food and protection from mates.

Criminality is actively under study, but extremely controversial. There are persuasive arguments that in some environments criminal behavior might be adaptive [1]. Some say that capital punishment may be the traditional way to weed criminal traits from the gene pool[citation needed]. Sociobiology has had several failures in the field of attempting to explain criminal behaviours. For example, its hypotheses for explaining the crimes of rape and, more recently, murder have failed to correspond with police observations and statistics.

~~~

And, JBJ you be one of them critters? No wonder you are all screwed up...chuckles, welcome to the funny farm...


Amicus an aberrant inmate..

 

[shereads]

It's not that we secular humanists are not in favor of "liberating the Iraqi people," or at least the ones who survive the process. It's just that we know the difference between liberating a country and blowing it to kingdom-come. Silly us, we would actually have prefered that this country's response to a terrorist attack was one designed to deter terror, not fan the flames. We're at $400 billion and counting, and for our money we have made Iraq more vulnerable than ever to a take-over by the mullahs.

You and GWB always fall back on the argument that we must win in Iraq because the consequences are so terrible if we don't. Well, duh. Those terrible consequences were made unavoidable four years ago; our remaining choices are among more than one worst-case scenario.

It's a little late for you and the prez to start thinking about consequences.

Meanwhile, your concern for human rights in Iran is so sincere, I'm sure you'll want to check up on Afghanistan. Watch CNN's "Beneath the Veil" and see how nicely GWB's half-baked vision for the Islamic world is working out for at least one segment of the population - the majority.

Too bad we didn't get that one liberation right before we took on more.

 

[amicus]

It's not that we secular humanists are not in favor of "liberating the Iraqi people," or at least the ones who survive the process. It's just that we know the difference between liberating a country and blowing it to kingdom-come. Silly us, we would actually have prefered that this country's response to a terrorist attack was one designed to deter terror, not fan the flames. We're at $400 billion and counting, and for our money we have made Iraq more vulnerable than ever to a take-over by the mullahs.

You and GWB always fall back on the argument that we must win in Iraq because the consequences are so terrible if we don't. Well, duh. Those terrible consequences were made unavoidable four years ago; our remaining choices are among more than one worst-case scenario.

It's a little late for you and the prez to start thinking about consequences.

Meanwhile, your concern for human rights in Iran is so sincere, I'm sure you'll want to check up on Afghanistan. Watch CNN's "Beneath the Veil" and see how nicely GWB's half-baked vision for the Islamic world is working out for at least one segment of the population - the majority.

Too bad we didn't get that one liberation right before we took on more.

~~~

Hi, SheReads...I am going to say this again, for whatever reason...you were one of the first I met when I arrived here on the forum about four years ago and you may have even welcomed me to the forum, although that is unlikely...smiles..

I have no way of knowing if your intellectual positions are by choice, upbringing, environment, or inhibiting blinders affixed at some unknown time and place, but you are surely limited in your viewpoint and opinions.

I am just going to pick a place and start, it could be earlier or later, but let us begin with the end of world war two, since Ken Burns is pontificating in the background.

Had the powers that be, (Harry Truman), followed the advice of his Generals, Patton among them, and of Winston Churchill, the United States would have liberated the Russian people from the scourge of a dictatorship called Communism and saved Eastern Europe and much of the world from the slavery of socialism.

We will never know what history may have been written if the Soviet Union ceased to exist in about 1947.

There would be no Communist China, no Communist Korea, Vietnam, or Asia, in general.

I cannot rationally place blame or fault; the American people were exhausted and dismayed at the loss of life and suffering during the war years and were not receptive to further losses.

But the Berlin Airlift, the Cold War, the Korean Conflict quickly arrived and we could not disengage from a position in world affairs that we assumed almost by default.

The United States did not have to support the creation of the state of Israel, but we did and entered treaty agreements with that nation in the late 1940's.

What you seem not to take into consideration is that the United States can, if it so chooses, withdraw completely from world affairs, refuse to be the 'policeman of the world'; we could do that.

We could, essentially, 'sanitize' any threat to our sovereignty, from afar with ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads and nothing or no one could prevent that.

We choose not to do that.

The reasons why we do not, will forever be debated as will the methods and degrees and extent to which we do engage.

You have so deeply ingrained anti American, anti capitalist, anti industrial beliefs and myths that I am certain you cannot comprehend the rational of what I speak; but that is your flaw, not mine, for mine is not an isolated point of view.

Amicus...

 

[shereads]

~~~

Hi, SheReads...I am going to say this again, for whatever reason...you were one of the first I met when I arrived here on the forum about four years ago and you may have even welcomed me to the forum, although that is unlikely...smiles..

I have no way of knowing if your intellectual positions are by choice, upbringing, environment, or inhibiting blinders affixed at some unknown time and place, but you are surely limited in your viewpoint and opinions.

I am just going to pick a place and start, it could be earlier or later, but let us begin with the end of world war two, since Ken Burns is pontificating in the background.

Had the powers that be, (Harry Truman), followed the advice of his Generals, Patton among them, and of Winston Churchill, the United States would have liberated the Russian people from the scourge of a dictatorship called Communism and saved Eastern Europe and much of the world from the slavery of socialism.

We will never know what history may have been written if the Soviet Union ceased to exist in about 1947.

There would be no Communist China, no Communist Korea, Vietnam, or Asia, in general.

I cannot rationally place blame or fault; the American people were exhausted and dismayed at the loss of life and suffering during the war years and were not receptive to further losses.

But the Berlin Airlift, the Cold War, the Korean Conflict quickly arrived and we could not disengage from a position in world affairs that we assumed almost by default.

The United States did not have to support the creation of the state of Israel, but we did and entered treaty agreements with that nation in the late 1940's.

What you seem not to take into consideration is that the United States can, if it so chooses, withdraw completely from world affairs, refuse to be the 'policeman of the world'; we could do that.

We could, essentially, 'sanitize' any threat to our sovereignty, from afar with ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads and nothing or no one could prevent that.

We choose not to do that.

The reasons why we do not, will forever be debated as will the methods and degrees and extent to which we do engage.

You have so deeply ingrained anti American, anti capitalist, anti industrial beliefs and myths that I am certain you cannot comprehend the rational of what I speak; but that is your flaw, not mine, for mine is not an isolated point of view.

Amicus...

I'm always struck, when watching religious extremists of any sect, by the similarity of their rhetoric - and yours, oddly enough, since you profess to be an athiest.

I too remember when you first arrived in the AH. How could I forget? In response to Bush and Rumsfeld's pretended outrage over Saddam's use of chemical weapons, I had posted a link to archived documents proving that the Reagan - Bush Iadministration, with an assist from Mr. Rumsfeld, sought to shield Saddam Hussein from "embarrassment" after he used chemical weapons against Iranians.

You surmised that I had been planted here by liberals or other enemies of the United States. (That part was true, I confess. I was assigned to undermine the morals of America's porn writers.) You even accused me of having created phony documents.

"Whoa," I thought. "This one's certifiable."

Your grasp of reality was less than impressive, but your Faith shone through.

I have come to think of you as a sort of Warren Jeffs of right-wing politics. Like Jeffs, and his equivalent in the Islamic and Christian worlds, your most dearly held beliefs are the ones that, coincidentally, put you in the most flattering light.

Are you sure you don't want to join a religious cult, or start one? I think you've missed your calling.

Edited to conclude: As much fun as it would <yawn> be to continue this futile exercise, from this point forward I am going to charge a hefty fee for my insults. I am newly unemployed - or, as we say in advertising, I am "a consultant."



This is your last freebie. The next round will cost $5 per line. No checks.

 

[amicus]

I'm always struck, when watching religious extremists of any sect, by the similarity of their rhetoric - and yours, oddly enough, since you profess to be an athiest.

I too remember when you first arrived in the AH. How could I forget? In response to Bush and Rumsfeld's pretended outrage over Saddam's use of chemical weapons, I had posted a link to archived documents proving that the Reagan - Bush Iadministration, with an assist from Mr. Rumsfeld, sought to shield Saddam Hussein from "embarrassment" after he used chemical weapons against Iranians.

You surmised that I had been planted here by liberals or other enemies of the United States (apparently as part of our effort to undermine the morals of America's porn writers!?!) You even accused me of having created phony documents.

"Whoa," I thought. "This one's certifiable."

Your grasp of reality was less than impressive, but your Faith shone through.

I have come to think of you as a sort of Warren Jeffs of right-wing politics. Like Jeffs, and his equivalent in the Islamic and Christian worlds, your most dearly held beliefs are the ones that, coincidentally, put you in the most flattering light.

Are you sure you don't want to join a religious cult, or start one? I think you've missed your calling.

~~~

Hmmm...I do not recall the specific post or posts you refer to and I may have indeed, been a bit naive concerning the level of discussion on this forum when I first arrived.

But I soon learned that you and Pure and Sweetsubsarah, and others, although you may all be the same person with an alternative nomenclature on this forum, are indeed, knowledgeable advocates of Marxist socialism, a faith all your own, and are well prepared, not to defend your faith, but attack all others.

I accept that as ROE, Rules of Engagement.

Although the post of mine that you quoted was admittedly, spontaneous, off the top of my head, thumbnail, a recapitulation of the past half century or so, with of modicum of prior history assumed, you dismiss it, as usual, to embark upon your own rant and attack mode. Nothing new here.

It was and is, a rather lucid post, spontaneous or not, concerning the evolution of the United States into a default position as policeman of the world.

Knowing you could not counter my assertions, you do, as you folks always do, divert attention to a different, and usually personal, ad hominen, level of confrontation.

Nothing changes, and I think, as time goes by, most see your ploy and recognize it for what it is.

It is clear to all who read your posts and mine, that I defend human freedom, individual rights, human life, liberty and a free market and that you attack each and every concept I offer and you...offer nothing in return...you take no stand on any issue, offer no fundamental value system, no absolutes, no truths, no self evident observable universals, but instead attack each and every assertion anyone makes contrariwise to your lack of basics.

In this tiny little coterie of adherents to hedonistic nihilism, you have found a home and I am in the bug in the rug that has upset your little universe.

Poor you.

Amicus...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

Way back when, I planned to be a medical anthropologist, but the faculty was at war over sociobiology. Anthropologists are nutty for bones, and a few heretics, Vincent Sarich et al, asserted that genetic clocks do a much better job of dating hominids than bones do. I think Sarich made some assertions that ghettos and criminality and the welfare-parasite niche are an adaptive mechanism. U of Cal officials let the shitheads disrupt his classes for that bit of sacriledge.

Interestingly, there is a woman in the paper yesterday. Her Old Man is in prison for murder. She goes to see him for conjugal visits. She's on welfare and pregnant. And she's annoyed that the conjugal visits arent frequent enough.

 

[trysail]

Had the powers that be, (Harry Truman), followed the advice of his Generals, Patton among them, and of Winston Churchill, the United States would have liberated the Russian people from the scourge of a dictatorship called Communism and saved Eastern Europe and much of the world from the slavery of socialism.

Whoaaa, momma!

While I am in substantial agreement with a lot of what you have to say, I have to report that this one took my breath away. While I am no fan of McArthur, his admonition that the U.S. should, "Never get involved in a land war in Asia" has always made sense to me. Invade Russia? Good lord, man! Anybody who's ever tried has ended up deeply regretting it.

As much as I'd like to, I can't stop the word "overstretch" from entering my mind.

I'm sitting here in a state and a country where we haven't even been able to defend our own borders, much less reshape the world's. In this state and country, there are now TWICE as many people as there were when I was born- and it ain't the result of procreation! This place has been wrecked and the country is bankrupt (though few recognize it and even fewer will publicly admit it, but it's true- the estimated liabilities for Medicare and Social Security exceed the entire country's net worth).

 

[oggbashan]

I am just going to pick a place and start, it could be earlier or later, but let us begin with the end of world war two, since Ken Burns is pontificating in the background.

Had the powers that be, (Harry Truman), followed the advice of his Generals, Patton among them, and of Winston Churchill, the United States would have liberated the Russian people from the scourge of a dictatorship called Communism and saved Eastern Europe and much of the world from the slavery of socialism.

We will never know what history may have been written if the Soviet Union ceased to exist in about 1947.

There would be no Communist China, no Communist Korea, Vietnam, or Asia, in general.

I cannot rationally place blame or fault; the American people were exhausted and dismayed at the loss of life and suffering during the war years and were not receptive to further losses.

But the Berlin Airlift, the Cold War, the Korean Conflict quickly arrived and we could not disengage from a position in world affairs that we assumed almost by default.

...Amicus...

You cannot be serious. The Red Army in Europe was far stronger than the US and its other allies in that theatre. It had been fighting continously for years and was honed to a high pitch of efficiency. If the Allies had fallen out, which is what Hitler expected to happen, the Red Army might have pushed through to the North Sea before reinforcements could arrive from other theatres.

Og

PS. We Brits fought the Communists after WWI as allies of the White Russians. We lost.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

We ALONE had the atomic bomb in 1945.

 

[oggbashan]

We ALONE had the atomic bomb in 1945.

But you didn't have enough to destroy the USSR's military as well as Hiroshima and Nagaski. If Japan hadn't surrendered it would have been months before another bomb was ready.

Og

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

What is so hard here is that there are no good options. This is not Iraq - Iran and Persians are (mostly) a single ancient and proud people, not a stew of clashing ingredients.* War could easily trigger WW IV, with tens of hundreds of millions dead. (WW III was the cold war - the good guys won). Doing nothing is equivalent to Britain and France snoozing while Hitler built up the German military 1934-1939.

Dismissing this guy as a non-entity or simple nut is equivalent to having done that with Hitler in the 1930s. Whether he is a figurehead or the real power, he's an accurate representation of the views and attitudes of the ruling regime, backed by much (though not all) of the population. Turning your frustration and fear back at western "arms merchants" or elites is just as much a form of denial - this regime will have nukes within a few short years. I'm afraid we need to be thinking in terms of managing that, not preventing it. (And not just with Iran - over the next 25 years lots of bad actors will get nukes - that technology is out of Pandora's box.)

We westerners are not used to or comfortable with situations where the absence of good options leaves us powerless. In some ways I feel like a European Jew in the late 1930s watching he world sleepwalk toward a very end - the difference is, there's nowhere to escape to. (But if I were an Israeli I would get out, now.)



*The proud Persian identity might offer some source of hope here, also - theirs is a long history filled with honor and high civilization, and the atavistic rabidness of militant Islamicism perhaps does not sit well with that tradition.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Not enough for you?

The United States provided the USSR with almost all of its war supplies, with the exception of tanks and artillery. The USSR was devastated in many ways.

The USSR had hostile groups within its borders, especially the peasants. And it wasnt exactly popular with anyone else.