Will the US bomb Iran?

[Sir_Winston54]

<Snip> ...why do relatively young nations feel so equipped and justified in telling those who have much longer histories and experience how it should be done in their own country, not to mention trying to force the issue? That to me shows the level of intelligence being applied.

Catalina

Perhaps because those "relatively young nations" haven't spent the last millenium or so killing their neighbors because they believed in a slightly different version of the same religion, or have a different religion, as has happened in so many of those with "much longer histories and experience?"

 

[WriterDom]

Capitalism is why South Koreans are 3 inches taller than North Koreans.

 

[Chris_Xavier]

While disconcerting, I don't find it that much more so than Russia, Pakistan, India, and us right here at home having it.

Basically what we're going to have to confront, even if we do level Iran and kick and scream, is that the bargaining table is going to change. We are not going to retain sole ownership of the right to threaten and intimidate the globe with nuclear weaponry, again, kick and scream though we might. I'd like to see a future that can accept this inevitability with the least loss of life.

But, yeah, poignant to me in the article is the fact that it's true, the people making decisions have no idea what "Farsi" is, and are completely unaware that about half the population of Iran hates its government. They might figure out a way to capitalize on that before killing those people.

I think the difference between the US, Russia, Israel (they have it, even though its not official), UK, France, India, North Korea, and Pakistan having nuclear arms is that those countries aren't ruled by theocratic governments that routinely sponsor terrorism.

 

[midwestyankee]

I think the difference between the US, Russia, Israel (they have it, even though its not official), UK, France, India, North Korea, and Pakistan having nuclear arms is that those countries aren't ruled by theocratic governments that routinely sponsor terrorism.

Ever notice that it's only terrorism if we disagree with them? [/hijack]

 

[Chris_Xavier]

Ever notice that it's only terrorism if we disagree with them? [/hijack]

Wouldn't you define terrorism is attacking civilian targets w/o warning? W/o a declared state of war?

 

[BiBunny]

Wouldn't you define terrorism is attacking civilian targets w/o warning? W/o a declared state of war?

I hate political debate with a purple passion, but you can't deny that this has happened here in the U.S., too, dear.

 

[WriterDom]

I hate political debate with a purple passion, but you can't deny that this has happened here in the U.S., too, dear.

But not 50 times a day. We do get an occasional nutcase like OK City and the VA TECH creep. But no one blowing themselves up for 72 virgins in 72 rooms of 72 mansions.

 

[BiBunny]

But not 50 times a day. We do get an occasional nutcase like OK City and the VA TECH creep. But no one blowing themselves up for 72 virgins in 72 rooms of 72 mansions.

Obviously. I just don't think that "well, they do it more" is a legitimate excuse. Who defines how much is too much? *Shrug*

I just wish the government would have the balls to say, "Well, we don't like them, and they have oil we want" rather than trying to couch it in terrorist crap. Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining, you know?

Dammit, I really hate politics. Why am I talking in this thread?

 

[Sir_Winston54]

<Snip> Dammit, I really hate politics. Why am I talking in this thread?

Because you have a masochistic streak as part of your makeup. We lub ya anyhoo.

 

[BiBunny]

Because you have a masochistic streak as part of your makeup. We lub ya anyhoo.

Guilty.

And I lub y'all, too.

 

[midwestyankee]

Wouldn't you define terrorism is attacking civilian targets w/o warning? W/o a declared state of war?

Like the Irish Republican Army, for example? Or, if not having a declared state of war as the criterion, couldn't we also include a few incursions of the United States military? Seems to me that there was no declaration of war prior to our invasion of Iraq in 2003.

My point is not to get into a political argument so much as to point out that the word "terrorism" has become almost synonymous with "our enemies, whoever they might be" and I think that it's a disingenuous and intentional misuse of language to foment a national anger when other responses might be more appropriate.

 

[ThorkelGriersen]

Who Wins?

From an interview published today:


'We Are Moving Rapidly Towards an Abyss'


SPIEGEL: You have headed the IAEA for 10 years now. Has your job become easier or more difficult over the years?

ElBaradei: More difficult. We pay completely inadequate attention to the important threats, the inhuman living conditions of billions of people, climate change and the potential for nuclear holocaust. We stand at a crossroads, and we are moving rapidly toward an abyss. There are currently 27,000 nuclear warheads in the world. If we don't change our way of thinking, John F. Kennedy's prediction that there would be 20 nuclear powers will soon come true. And with each new player and each new weapon, the risk of a planned or accidental nuclear war increases.

Complete interview [worth reading]: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,503841,00.html

WHO WINS?

If two people are standing in a basement in gasoline up to their waists, and one person has 10 matches and the other 100 matches, who wins?

BTW Iran has over 500,000 well trained Shiite Farsi speaking infantry -no sectarian divisions - ready to deploy in the region. Also hundreds -possibly thousands - of medium to long range ballistic missiles at their disposal.

 

[Netzach]

Perhaps because those "relatively young nations" haven't spent the last millenium or so killing their neighbors because they believed in a slightly different version of the same religion, or have a different religion, as has happened in so many of those with "much longer histories and experience?"

Actually, Persia was one of the few places on the globe at one point to embrace pluralism to any degree while Europe was still inquisiting everyone.

 

[Netzach]

Ever notice that it's only terrorism if we disagree with them? [/hijack]

Pakistan?

Do you realize how close the Musharraf thread is to breaking?

And North Korea is ruled by Kim Jong-Il. This is supposed to inspire calm on my part?

 

[Netzach]

Yes, subkitty.. I know there are women serving in the military - if I was ignorant of that fact, Demi Moore sure as hell reminded me. The usage of "men" in my previous post was an old throw back to the days when woman didn't serve in combat arms (although they still don't really in the ground forces - the closest a woman can come to combat in the Army is either being an MP or being ADA - air defense artillery (they hide with pride). I can't speak with any authority about the Corps but I would assume something similar.

Btw.. I have nothing against women in the military or in combat - but I did get upset at the women who signed on the dotted line and then when it came time to "earn their pay" the got knocked up in order to avoid going. That was/is just WRONG.

As for Ike warning us about the evils of the industrial/military complex, it was done at the end of his second term as President. Which is in of itself surprising given the fact that Captain Eisenhower in the 1920s (maybe 1919) took a convoy from DC to California in just under three weeks which eventually led to the building of the modern day interstate system. It was started during his tenure as President with a two fold purpose - economic growth and the rapid movement of military forces and goods. Another facet of the "good" that the military industrial complex gave us was federally guaranteed student loans that we all (well most of us) used to finance those 4yrs of partying known as college.

Excuse me. The ladies are no longer just a tokenistic presence. They are being blown up, limbless, homeless on return, and single mothers killed.

Yay, parity. Are we civilized yet?

Yes. Ike was speaking with the wisdom of someone who made something and then stepped back and thought "holy shit, this thing I made has a downside." Wisdom repeated by McNamara in his way, if anyone's going to listen.

 

[Chris_Xavier]

Pakistan?

Do you realize how close the Musharraf thread is to breaking?

And North Korea is ruled by Kim Jong-Il. This is supposed to inspire calm on my part?

Here here!

If Pakistan was so stable then why can we or they go and get Bin Laden?

 

[Chris_Xavier]

From an interview published today:


'We Are Moving Rapidly Towards an Abyss'


SPIEGEL:

These were the guys who claimed to have found the missing Hitler diaries, right?

 

[Netzach]

These were the guys who claimed to have found the missing Hitler diaries, right?

Faux News and a Rupert Murdoch venture are not my first picks.

 

[Netzach]

Here here!

If Pakistan was so stable then why can we or they go and get Bin Laden?

Ok, but you miss my point. If we can stomach these guys having the bomb, what's the difference?

A shitload of oil, for one thing.

 

[ThorkelGriersen]

Hitler Diaries

These were the guys who claimed to have found the missing Hitler diaries, right?

The Hitler Diaries were published by The Times of London--Rupert-Foxy Faux News- Murdoch!

 

[Chris_Xavier]

The Hitler Diaries were published by The Times of London--Rupert-Foxy Faux News- Murdoch!

I stand corrected.. it was Stern.

 

[Chris_Xavier]

Ok, but you miss my point. If we can stomach these guys having the bomb, what's the difference?

A shitload of oil, for one thing.

Pakistan's primary exports are textile goods (garments, bed linen, cotton cloths, and yarn), rice, leather goods, sports goods, chemicals manufactures, carpets and rugs.

 

[WriterDom]

Here here!

If Pakistan was so stable then why can we or they go and get Bin Laden?

Probably because there are tribal areas of Pakistan that the government won't even enter. A virtual wild west of terrorism. The whole area is fucked. If we get out of Iraq we might as well get out of the Middle East completely. And fight them here.

 

[Chris_Xavier]

Excuse me. The ladies are no longer just a tokenistic presence. They are being blown up, limbless, homeless on return, and single mothers killed.

Yay, parity. Are we civilized yet?

As I previously stated, Netzach.. I don't have a problem with women in combat. What ground my gears was the fact that alot of women during Gulf War 1.0 and 2.0 instead of going off to war with their units allowed themselves to get pregnant once the unit received its notice to deploy.

As far as the "increased death toll" of women, lets look at the type of units they are assigned to - maintenance, medical, supply, transportation units (rear echelon) units. During the initial combat phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Iraqis knowing that they couldn't attack and win against the main combat units at the head of the columns advancing toward Baghdad but they would descend upon the the support type units previously mentioned. These types of units are not "fighters per say" and under normal peace time conditions receive only the "basic" amount of combat training. There would be higher casualty rates in these type of units in the type of combat happening in Iraq no matter what sex the soldiers were.

 

[Netzach]

As I previously stated, Netzach.. I don't have a problem with women in combat. What ground my gears was the fact that alot of women during Gulf War 1.0 and 2.0 instead of going off to war with their units allowed themselves to get pregnant once the unit received its notice to deploy.

As far as the "increased death toll" of women, lets look at the type of units they are assigned to - maintenance, medical, supply, transportation units (rear echelon) units. During the initial combat phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Iraqis knowing that they couldn't attack and win against the main combat units at the head of the columns advancing toward Baghdad but they would descend upon the the support type units previously mentioned. These types of units are not "fighters per say" and under normal peace time conditions receive only the "basic" amount of combat training. There would be higher casualty rates in these type of units in the type of combat happening in Iraq no matter what sex the soldiers were.

So a whole bunch of guys got college deferments in Vietnam. You're pissed because they used a womb to do what other people have shot off fingers and run away from for generations? "I have no problem with men in combat, but you know, a whole bunch of guys got their daddies to get them cush gigs in the national guard and ran away to Canada and whatnot..."

I find the whole question of whether you find women who are sacrificing life and limb in this endeavor "problematic or not problematic" by virtue of their being female to be objectionable, as both of us sit here warming chairs. I don't think female wounded vets need to be pronounced "non problematic as women" by anyone. The proof is proved.


(Beyond the fact that I think poor people being blown up for other people's enrichment is a problem, yeah)