DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Cynthia on August 10, 2007, 12:23:51 AM
-
Period. Powerless oil mongers, ripe from the Persian Empire...not lost in translation just a decade plus centuries ago.
Iran isn't going to play nice...wait and see..
My opinion.
sadly....but there wasn't going to be a way to escape the game even if we had not entered the Iraqi stage...Iran is dead centered on the end of the west...
Now they just have more support...
and damn it, it's not our fault.
When will it be time to say....we must stop bitching and start wanting our life the way it is.
This is what I feel...no URL. ....
CYN.
-
There are many of us who feel Iran, and Islam, is probably the greatest threat to the West. But, America just does nothing about it and so Western civilization further declines and is ripe for takeover...sigh.
-
Don't let it get you down.
It's only castles burning.
-
<<There are many of us who feel Iran, and Islam, is probably the greatest threat to the West. But, America just does nothing about it and so Western civilization further declines and is ripe for takeover...sigh.>>
And yet in the meantime, it's the Americans who invaded Afghanistan, the Americans who invaded Iraq, the Americans who are threatening to invade Iran, the Americans who overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran, the Americans who support the Israelis' 40-year occupation of the West Bank and the Americans who intervened on the Christian side in the Lebanese civil war.
If I knew a little more about psychology, Professor, I might want to say that you were engaging in a little projection there. All the aggression in the real world seems to be flowing from West to East, but in your mind you are still focused on the "threat" from the East.
-
As you know, I disagree with this Iraqi incursion.
Afghnaistan, however, is a different matter. I see that as a reaction to radical Islam, e.g. 9-11. I would invade Afghanistan again, if need be if the same set of events were to occur.
I see Islam as a disease trying to infect the West.
I know we diasgree and that is fine. That is what forums like these are good for.
-
You are not thinking critically.
Suppose some Islamic country invaded Mexico or Canada. How could the US NOT get involved?
And yet, you expect Iran to take no part in the big, whacking MESS Juniorbush has make of Iraq.
The US will leave Iraq, eventually. It will never have the same influence in Iraq as Iran has, just as Iran or Iraq cannot possibly have the same influence on Mexico that the US has had.
If the US policy considers Islam as some sort of disease, it will lose. If it backs down, the US will be seen as weak. If it kills Muslims, they will become martyrs.
This is what is happening now. There have been more suicide bombers in Iraq since 2003 than in Israel since forever.
I am glad that fanatics with no vision of the world will soon lose their control of the US. Even Juniorbush's inept regime has a better understanding of the Middle East than you seem to.
-
There are many of us who feel Iran, and Islam, is probably the greatest threat to the West. But, America just does nothing about it and so Western civilization further declines and is ripe for takeover...sigh.
"Western civilization further declines and is ripe for takeover"
Isn't that what al-Qaeda says?
By the way, al-Qaeda are Sunnis. Osama bin-Laden is a Sunni. The Taleban are Sunni. The Wahhabi are Sunni. Most of the violence in Iraq is being caused by Sunni insurgents. All of the 9/11 hijackers were Sunni.
Iran is Shi'a.
We better focus on Iran.
-
If I can use infantile language for a minute, all of these "bad" people are Sunni, and so we better focus on the Shi'a? Why?
-
There are many of us who feel Iran, and Islam, is probably the greatest threat to the West. But, America just does nothing about it and so Western civilization further declines and is ripe for takeover...sigh.
"Western civilization further declines and is ripe for takeover"
Isn't that what al-Qaeda says?
By the way, al-Qaeda are Sunnis. Osama bin-Laden is a Sunni. The Taleban are Sunni. The Wahhabi are Sunni. Most of the violence in Iraq is being caused by Sunni insurgents. All of the 9/11 hijackers were Sunni.
Iran is Shi'a.
We better focus on Iran.
I am more concerned with anyone who uses Islam as a reason to attack "The Great Satan"; regardless which sect they come from.
-
<<I am more concerned with anyone who uses Islam as a reason to attack "The Great Satan"; regardless which sect they come form.>>
Well, then rest easy, Professor. Most Muslims who attack America have a pretty concrete list of reasons, all of them rooted in one injustice or another in how America has been fucking with the Muslim world for years.
Probably the best way to look at this is simply to ask yourself the following questions:
1. How many times have the English, French and Americans intervened in Muslim lands, by setting up or overthrowing governments, invading territory and killing Muslims?
2. How many times have the Muslims intervened in American, English or French lands, by setting up or overthrowing governments, invading territory and killing Americans, British or French?
A little bit of realism, Professor, rather than instinct or emotion, and you will soon see where the aggression is coming from in the first place, as well as the best way to defuse Muslim anger and reduce attacks against the West.
-
<<I am more concerned with anyone who uses Islam as a reason to attack "The Great Satan"; regardless which sect they come form.>>
Well, then rest easy, Professor. Most Muslims who attack America have a pretty concrete list of reasons, all of them rooted in one injustice or another in how America has been fucking with the Muslim world for years.
Probably the best way to look at this is simply to ask yourself the following questions:
1. How many times have the English, French and Americans intervened in Muslim lands, by setting up or overthrowing governments, invading territory and killing Muslims?
2. How many times have the Muslims intervened in American, English or French lands, by setting up or overthrowing governments, invading territory and killing Americans, British or French?
A little bit of realism, Professor, rather than instinct or emotion, and you will soon see where the aggression is coming from in the first place, as well as the best way to defuse Muslim anger and reduce attacks against the West.
Going back to Napoleon , the invasions seem mostly to be West vs East , but if one goes back a little further it looks more even , since Spain, France, Hungary , Austria , Poland , Greece, etc, etc, have all had important periods of conflict with Islam , including invasions.
Has Islam changed since the days that all of Europe was in fear of Suleiman the Great?
-
<<Going back to Napoleon , the invasions seem mostly to be West vs East , but if one goes back a little further it looks more even , since Spain, France, Hungary , Austria , Poland , Greece, etc, etc, have all had important periods of conflict with Islam , including invasions.>>
Well, plane, in view of the relative scarcity of living survivors of Napoleonic times, my questions were actually aimed at 20th and 21st century events which people living today (or the parents and grandparents who raised and educated them) can remember. If you want to go back to the days of Suleiman the Great (the 16th century, according to Wikipedia,) I would think your God-fearing Protestant ancestors, God bless them, would have had a lot more to fear from the good Christians of the Spanish Inquisition than from Suleiman. At least that's how Good Queen Bess saw it, and who the hell are we to argue with her?
<<Has Islam changed since the days that all of Europe was in fear of Suleiman the Great?>>
I dunno. If you want to use as a yardstick the change in Christianity from the Spanish Inquisition to the Holocaust, I'd say it's probably changed about as much or as little as Christianity.
-
<<Going back to Napoleon , the invasions seem mostly to be West vs East , but if one goes back a little further it looks more even , since Spain, France, Hungary , Austria , Poland , Greece, etc, etc, have all had important periods of conflict with Islam , including invasions.>>
Well, plane, in view of the relative scarcity of living survivors of Napoleonic times, my questions were actually aimed at 20th and 21st century events which people living today (or the parents and grandparents who raised and educated them) can remember. If you want to go back to the days of Suleiman the Great (the 16th century, according to Wikipedia,) I would think your God-fearing Protestant ancestors, God bless them, would have had a lot more to fear from the good Christians of the Spanish Inquisition than from Suleiman. At least that's how Good Queen Bess saw it, and who the hell are we to argue with her?
<<Has Islam changed since the days that all of Europe was in fear of Suleiman the Great?>>
I dunno. If you want to use as a yardstick the change in Christianity from the Spanish Inquisition to the Holocaust, I'd say it's probably changed about as much or as little as Christianity.
No, the have not had a Reformation. Seeing as they are six hunded years younger, this is just about due.
-
<<No, the have not had a Reformation. Seeing as they are six hunded years younger, this is just about due.>>
Oh, yeah. The Reformation. Who's gonna write the equivalent of Martin Luther's "The Jews and Their Lies" for the their Reformation? Ahmedinejad? That's gonna be some wholesome change.
-
If I can use infantile language for a minute, all of these "bad" people are Sunni, and so we better focus on the Shi'a? Why?
Lanya. That's a damn good question.
I have no idea.
-
I almost hate to touch this one.
First of all, yes Islam is vastly different today than what it was in the 16th and even 17th centuries. That is exactly why you have traditionalist groups that wish to return their religion to what they believe it was in an earlier time period. Islam, just like Judaism and Christianity has been shaped by the intellectual and historical movements of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. I thas also been shaped by regional influences as well. If you want to discuss specifics, we likely can, but it is ludicrous to think that Islam has lived in some vacuum outside of history.
Secondly, the Reformation changed Christianity for sure, but to qualify it as being something that made Christianity better and more progressive and that something for which Islam is in need of is highly debatable. In the long-term it could be argued that the Reformation has weakened Christianity and only led to it being dominated by the state. More than that, it has led to a system of economics which has led to new idols, alienation, and a culture than no longer cares for Christian values such as Luke's affinity for the poor. All in all, I'd say the Reformation has at best achieved a mixed result.
Lastly, Islam is not Christianity and you cannot review it through the same lense. Shi'a and Sunni are not merely denominations like Baptists and Methodists. An Ayatollah is not an Archbishop and Mosques are not churches. It is a fundamentally different faith, just as Judaism is.
-
Good post, JS.
So, are the Shi'a or the Sunni a potentially more devasting force against the Great Satan? The posts here seem to imply the Shi'a in that their more disadvantaged status, socio-economically, tends to foment the type of radical that might conduct small or large scale terrrorist operations against the U.S. However, there are many references in the Quran presenting directives about killing infidels. This might imply that it applies regardless of sect. What do YOU think?
-
I think that reality has shown that the most dangerous terrorists in American history have all been Sunni. The most dangerous terrorist organization in the world is comprised of Sunni. The vast majority of deaths of both civilians and American soldiers in Iraq has been at the hands of Sunni insurgents.
I think you go with the facts unless you just have a damn good reason not to.
I mean, we could argue hypotheticals and theories all day. There's some merit in that for sure, especially if you're in the FBI, CIA, State Department, etc. Yet, why ignore the reality at the same time? That's what is perplexing to me.
Clearly the Sunni insurgents are getting arms and supplies from somewhere. Shouldn't disarming them be a part of stabilising Iraq?
-
I think that reality has shown that the most dangerous terrorists in American history have all been Sunni. The most dangerous terrorist organization in the world is comprised of Sunni. The vast majority of deaths of both civilians and American soldiers in Iraq has been at the hands of Sunni insurgents.
I think you go with the facts unless you just have a damn good reason not to.
I mean, we could argue hypotheticals and theories all day. There's some merit in that for sure, especially if you're in the FBI, CIA, State Department, etc. Yet, why ignore the reality at the same time? That's what is perplexing to me.
Clearly the Sunni insurgents are getting arms and supplies from somewhere. Shouldn't disarming them be a part of stabilising Iraq?
BTW, just for the record, I apologize for getting frustrated with you a few times lately. Sometimes I feel we are close, philiosophically, and thne other times as far as Flash was from Mongo. I should just blow it off more and will attempt to do so.
-
I get frustrated on here quite a bit as well. I figure most people on here are genuinely decent people. We probably agree on quite a bit as well. I think it is just that we all seem to drive really hard at those differences.
-
Well, I suppose ife we were not so fervent, then we won't be here, right?
In a related note, just for curiosity, I wonder how many users lurk versus those who regularly participate?
-
Clearly the Sunni insurgents are getting arms and supplies from somewhere. Shouldn't disarming them be a part of stabilising Iraq?
EARLY 2003: I was listening to a particularly interesting program on NPR one afternoon on the way home from work.... Who knew? They presented a segment, albeit brief and poignant, which was brilliantly spelled in a way that showed THEY KNEW what they were talking about. My ear was perked.
Paraphrasing: ?If we enter into this Iraqi war, there is bound to be more to the story and ------a certain segment of the story that has eluded the current administration. There will be underlying fundamental religious factions coming out of the woodwork in groves.?
The hair on the back of my neck stood up. But of course it is not enough to WANT Democracy and freedom and to declare the end in the pre game show prematurely.
BTW AND of course, I realize that you all understand this, but I am talking about ?knowing? this back in 03?..and couldn?t do a damn thing about it while watching Bush stand on that ship deck. Damn the torpedoes.
But at the time, Bush had just declared "Mission accomplished". All the while a little liberal station (where sometimes the meeting of the minds really DO have a "voice") cried out loudly and bravely. I remember listening with my intuition and gut. I also remember realizing in the pit of my stomach that they were right.
There was a member on board here back then, a gentleman named buckshot or Buddha?
I remember sharing with him that there?s more to this story and that us Americans or any one else who enters this war, are in for a long fight if we attack Iraq.
I also remember telling him, (D. was a Vietnam vet who has experienced the ins and outs of getting in and out of a war)..... That the USA had better step up to the plate to supply this war with more in terms of forces and have a clear plan of action. He agreed on both points. That was back in 2003!!!!...here on this board....It seems just like yesterday to me, somehow. Sad.
Now we read the above post? a current member?s logical statement. ?with all the thought provoking soup measured up for this debate.
OF COURSE the factions are arming, struggling, and fighting?.NPR segment discussion was right.
It?s a shame. It?s a shame indeed. Politicians are so arrogant and yet, I love this country, but where is our intelligence?
I know the Middle East in my own particular way....and of course this was not going to end the terrorism and yet it might still?.this is true?.but I am frustrated that we entered it with such arrogance that we had won when we just brushed the dust off of our shirt collars.
Debate? Coulda woulda shoulda?..done what?
Listened to NPR?
Who?s in charge?,and who will step up to the plate to make things better in 08?
Frankly, no one will ???.unless we get some intelligence in our leadership.
Maybe we like to run for debate?.run for office?..discuss amongst ourselves forever on one issue. War. Well, look forward to a world war with the Middle East now?..talk about culture shock. I am afraid. Very afraid?but perhaps it will be a matter of Iran?s own demise in the end. We will have to win that war. We will have to fight the Persian Empire and win. How many breaths of innocence will be taken, though? Why? Why do we want such power? Is it oil? Is it commerce? Is it fundamentalism?
Yes.
-
Now is the time for the violent, decisive, sustained, and comprehensive application of COMBAT POWER against Iran.
We must ensure by any means necessary that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons.
A military FIRST-STRIKE nuclear weapons policy against Iran would be entirely appropriate.
Iran represents a clear and present danger.
We are at war with Iranian proxies.
-
<<We must ensure by any means necessary that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons. >>
Uhhh . . . why?
-
Now is the time for the violent, decisive, sustained, and comprehensive application of COMBAT POWER against Iran.
We must ensure by any means necessary that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons.
A military FIRST-STRIKE nuclear weapons policy against Iran would be entirely appropriate.
Iran represents a clear and present danger.
We are at war with Iranian proxies.
Great speech, but you forgot to tell us to paint our faces blue.
-
Going back to the First Gulf War, George H.W. Bush did not come to the aid of the southern Shi'a uprising against Saddam, and stood by while Saddam wiped out the insurgents. The reason was that a Shi'a victory would play into the hands of Iran. Saddam was smart enough to see that wall posters of Iraqi clerics went up on the walls in the Shi'a strongholds, virtually guaranteeing American complicity in his slaughter of the insurgent forces.
After the bullshit excuse of "WMD" had played out, George W. Bush came up with the "democracy" charade as the new justification for an American occupation, but given the demographics, it had to result in a Shi'ite victory at the "polls." This had been foreseen, what Bush hadn't foreseen was the collapse of his puppet Shi'ite Prime Minister in waiting, Ahmad Chalabi. Now it looks like this oversight will be rectified by switching support back to the Sunni, as I had predicted would inevitably happen, as the formula that worked reasonably well the first time round with Saddam in the puppet's seat, until Saddam decided he needed to pull his own strings.
The way I see it, the Americans have a choice of two policies now - - keep both groups fighting each other for as long as they're willing, so the American "stabilizing" presence can be justified, or just fuck the Shi'ites one more time by allowing a Sunni strongman to emerge and fill the puppet role that Saddam had once filled so obligingly.
-
"We must ensure by any means necessary that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons. >>Uhhh . . . why?"
For starters because of what the former Democratic Party Vice Presidential nominee said in July 2007.
"The Iranian government, by its actions, has all but declared war on us and our allies in the Middle East."
"Iran's actions in Iraq fit a larger pattern of expansionist, extremist behavior across the Middle East today. In addition to sponsoring insurgents in Iraq, Tehran is training, funding and equipping radical Islamist groups in Lebanon, Palestine and Afghanistan -- where the Taliban now appear to be receiving Iranian help in their war against the government of President Hamid Karzai and its NATO defenders."
"The fanatical regime in Tehran has concluded that it can use proxies to strike at us and our friends in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine without fear of retaliation. It is time to restore that fear, and to inject greater doubt into the decision-making of Iranian leaders about the risks they are now running."
"The threat posed by Iran to our soldiers' lives, our security as a nation and our allies in the Middle East is a truth that cannot be wished or waved away. It must be confronted head-on."
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=278350 (http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=278350)
-
<<For starters because of what the former Democratic Party Vice Presidential nominee said in July 2007.>>
Who? Oh, the long-time Zionist activist. Right. He said:
<<"The Iranian government, by its actions, has all but declared war on us and our allies in the Middle East.">>
Really? Did they try to overthrow your duly elected government and bring in a dictator to rule over you?
<<"Iran's actions in Iraq fit a larger pattern of expansionist, extremist behavior across the Middle East today. >>
Words are cheap, Joe. What did they DO?
<<In addition to sponsoring insurgents in Iraq . . . >>
Get this. While America has the right to send 160,000 troops thousands of miles and across oceans to invade Iraq, destroy its government and dictate its new form of government, Iran does not have the right to support groups of Iraqi citizens who have their own ideas about how Iraq should be run.
<< Tehran is training, funding and equipping radical Islamist groups in Lebanon, Palestine and Afghanistan -- where the Taliban now appear to be receiving Iranian help in their war against the government of President Hamid Karzai and its NATO defenders.">>
That's just as silly as the first objection. How does America, in violation of every applicable tenet of international law by invading another country without any lawful excuse, manage to condemn Iran for supplying indigenous groups in various countries in the region? Does the U.S. itself not support various groups in the Middle East and around the world? What on earth could possibly make Lieberman think that America, and only America, has the right to intervene in the affairs of other countries?
<<"The fanatical regime in Tehran has concluded that it can use proxies to strike at us and our friends in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine without fear of retaliation.>>
Hilarious. While it's OK for America to invade and interfere in every country in the Middle East, Iran can't even help the victims of U.S. aggression strike back, even by proxy.
<<It is time to restore that fear, and to inject greater doubt into the decision-making of Iranian leaders about the risks they are now running.">>
By resisting American invasion, subversion and other forms of aggression and interference, the Iranian leaders are running great risks. I guess it's like the store-keeper who resists the Mob's attempts to extort money from him is running the same kind of risk.
<<"The threat posed by Iran to our soldiers' lives, our security as a nation and our allies in the Middle East is a truth that cannot be wished or waved away. It must be confronted head-on." >>
Let's face it, Joe. Your soldiers' lives are threatened because they invaded somebody's home, and that person, his family and his neighbours are not happy about it. Broadening the conflict by attacking now the neighbours is not going to solve your problems, it will MAGNIFY them.
For what it's worth, I hope America DOES attack Iran. Unlike Iraq, Iran is an ancient, powerful, populous and proud nation. The ass-kicking you are now receiving in Iraq will be as nothing compared to the ass-kicking you will receive from the combined efforts of the Iraqi and the Iranian peoples. In addition, if you think that the people currently ruled (precariously) by the U.S.-supported dictatorships of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are going to continue to meekly submit to their rulers as you invade one Muslim country after another, until it's their turn, I am afraid you might be in for a big surprise. The use of nukes would be the icing on the cake, signifying that the U.S. had reached some level of uncontrolled aggression such that it was now a menace to the entire world. The effect would be something like the unifying effect that Hitler's aggression had - - it would isolate the U.S. in the world and lead to world action to destroy the menace. Frankly, that last part - - U.S. use of nukes against Iran - - would never happen. Even Bush isn't that crazy.
-
"For what it's worth, I hope America DOES attack Iran. Unlike Iraq, Iran is an ancient, powerful, populous and proud nation. The ass-kicking you are now receiving in Iraq will be as nothing compared to the ass-kicking you will receive from the combined efforts of the Iraqi and the Iranian peoples. In addition, if you think that the people currently ruled (precariously) by the U.S.-supported dictatorships of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are going to continue to meekly submit to their rulers as you invade one Muslim country after another, until it's their turn, I am afraid you might be in for a big surprise. The use of nukes would be the icing on the cake, signifying that the U.S. had reached some level of uncontrolled aggression such that it was now a menace to the entire world. The effect would be something like the unifying effect that Hitler's aggression had - - it would isolate the U.S. in the world and lead to world action to destroy the menace. Frankly, that last part - - U.S. use of nukes against Iran - - would never happen. Even Bush isn't that crazy."
Actually, just as in Iraq, the initial attack would be devastating. We would rout them. The problem lies in what to do later. We would probably muck that part up. We seem to be good at that...
-
<<Actually, just as in Iraq, the initial attack would be devastating>>
Yeah, but "devastating" isn't good enough any more, Professor. Would it have "Shock and Awe" values?
<< We would rout them. >>
We'll moydah da bums. (This is starting to sound awfully familiar.)
<<The problem lies in what to do later. We would probably muck that part up. We seem to be good at that...>>
Nazi Germany was better at it, but you're learning. Just don't forget what happened to Nazi Germany.
-
Do you doubt that, militarily speaking, we would rout them in the initial attack?
-
<<Do you doubt that, militarily speaking, we would rout them in the initial attack?>>
Yes, I do. It depends on where you made the initial attack. Keep in mind, parts of the country are mountainous. Mussolini thought he'd rout the Greeks on his first attack from Albania. His armies were thrown back twice, despite their superiority in training and equipment, and he finally had to call in the Germans. An Iranian defence force would be tough, smart, motivated and unafraid to die in the defence of their country. Besides which, as we've already seen, the initial attack is not the whole story.
I'm not a big fan of Iran and its government. They're a bunch of torturers and murderers on a par with the U.S. Army itself. So I'd love to see a war between the two of them - - it's a win-win proposition. No matter which side comes out on top a whole bunch of real bad people are going to wind up dead.
-
The ass-kicking you are now receiving in Iraq will be as nothing compared to
the ass-kicking you will receive from the combined efforts of the Iraqi and the
Iranian peoples.
What a laugh.
We wouldn't invade Iran.
The United States could destroy Iran by air.
Not a single ground troop would be needed. (oh maybe some Seal/Green Beret/Ranger recons with laser pointers would be helpful)
Now will we do it?
I doubt it.
But we would if I was in charge.
Actually it would be rather easy.
First destroy from the air Iranian military airfields.
Stops any transports of troops and arms within Iran and shipments to other terrorist via air.
Done very easily.
Then ask "enough"?
Next destroy from the air Iranian military ports.
Then ask "enough"?
Stop or greatly hamper shipments of arms/troops via seaports.
Then destroy by air Iranian rail roads
Stop transport of military hardware/troops/supplies via railroad.
Then ask "enough"?
Next destroy by air major industrial facilities.
Then ask "enough"?
By asking "enough?" the Iranians would to some degree control their destiny.
Answer yes, destruction stops, answer no, destruction continues.
You do not defeat enemies bent on "Death To America", enemies that want to destroy you and Israel by being nice.
The only way to destroy this type of enemy is to destroy them.
And we have the power to do it.
And I believe we should do it before they gain more power and will be harder to destroy.
When the answer to "enough?" is "yes", then agreements are made.
If the answer is "no".
Then begin bombing additional industrial facilities including all harbors/oil facilities/manufactoring plants.
Ask again "enough"?
If the answer is "yes", then agreements are made.
Agreements that have no wiggle room.
Agreements that take Iran in a completely different direction.
Agreements like not a single dollar or arms to Hassan Nasrallah's Hizbullah ever again.
Agreements like no more military offensive capability.
Agreements like no more arm shipments anywhere.
Agreements like no more money to support terror groups or foriegn militaries.
Agreements like immediate halt to all nuclear ambitions.
Japan lives by most of the above and they have a nice quality of life.
So will Iran one day.
It is just a matter of time when we have to deal with them.
-
I gotta admit, you fight a great war on paper, Professor. Probably that's why you're a Professor and not a General.
But back to the real world: it did not work in Viet Nam. It would not work in Iran. Even though you have one big advantage that you didn't have in Viet Nam, in that it's no longer a bipolar world.
I believe you made a serious mistake in treating this as involving only Iran and the U.S.A. and ignoring the fact that the world is way too small for this to be regarded in isolation from the U.S. relationship to the rest of the world. Or Iran's relationship to the rest of the world.
I don't think you appreciate how many people hate the United States and how much energy it takes to keep those people suppressed - - in Egypt, in Pakistan, in Jordan, in Turkey. These people are fed a steady diet of front-page and prime-time news of various horrific acts of violence against Muslims by Israelis (who it is believed could be squashed like bugs if not for U.S. financial and military support) and by U.S. forces and by forces of governments regarded as U.S. puppets. It's like a pot that's already boiling and the heat is being steadily turned up regardless. This thing is going to reach a point where one provocation too many will set off a chain reaction of local uprisings that no amount of puppet-army force will be able to hold down. It's happened before.
The bottom line is that the U.S. can't treat Iran as if it existed in a vacuum. It doesn't. Anything the U.S. does to Iran has repercussions in the wider Muslim world. Beyond the wider Muslim world, it has repercussions everywhere - - in India, in Europe, in Russia, in China. These countries also have interests, in the Middle East and elsewhere. They may wish to establish their own relationships with certain Middle East countries, favouring one over the other as suits their advantage from time to time. How is it in their interest to find out that all the countries that they wish to do business with are controlled by the U.S. through terror and violence and intimidation? Do they really want to see the U.S. get away with bludgeoning Iran into subservience, after Iraq and after Afghanistan?
Just as the European nations believed, from the Congress of Vienna till 1939, that a balance of power had to exist on the Continent, the nations that deal in the Middle East and buy its oil do not want to see any one nation gain predominance of position over the Region. They prefer to deal with a range of independent suppliers, rather than a closed system with every shop on the street owned by Uncle Sam. In fact it's very much in their interest that Uncle Sam NOT monopolize the street. What you are advocating would be a direct threat to the national interests of Russia, China, the EU, India and possibly Japan and South Korea. Now the U.S. could obviously piece off some of them, but it couldn't piece off all of them, otherwise it'd be back where it started from. So the question is, where would this "Mad Dog" act land the U.S.? IMHO, it would at the very least be an isolating event. I don't want to go through all of the stages, step by step, but the end result could very well be similar to the end result of all of Hitler's aggressions - - a world united against him, the strangest of bedfellows forced into unnatural and unforeseen alliances by the perceived out-of-control violence and arrogance of one powerful state that others now see as a serious threat to themselves and/or to the peace of the world.
-
yeah sure, with iran laying in ashes everyone will suddenly get brave
now thats funny
-
That's how it works, Professor. People got brave when Russia was in ashes. 400 miles deep, and burned to the ground. Millions dead. And that's when the Red Army really started to fight.
What's the other side of the story? Japan gave up after being nuked only twice. Makes sense. They didn't have any allies. They didn't have any nukes. The game was over.
Today a lot of people have nukes. Russia. China. India. Pakistan. And they are not going to be intimidated when Iran gets nuked. But they will start to think, "Who's next?" The logic of the situation would be inexorable. Churchill said it best: "And each one feeds the crocodile, hoping the crocodile will eat him last." Of course, what Churchill meant was: People, that's NOT the way. KILL the fucking crocodile before he eats anyone else.
I certainly wasn't joking, Professor. The world has a way of taking care of its own evil, unlikely as it seems each time. Who would have foreseen Britain, the U.S.A., France and Russia as allies? An explosion of evil such as you are talking about is going to cause a major reaction simply because the consciences of people around the world will be shocked. They don't shock easily, or all at once, but there is a tipping point. I theorize that action such as you have suggested would reach that tipping point, but even if it doesn't, it doesn't mean my theory is wrong, only that I set the tipping point too low.
-
today a lot of people have nukes. Russia. China. India. Pakistan.
oh yeah thats feasible, like Pakistan is going to attempt to nuke the United States
because the United States brings Iran to it's knees with conventional air power.
an ally of the US is going to commit suicide over Iran being demilitarized.
yeah sure
And they are not going to be intimidated when Iran gets nuked.
Nuked?
Who said anything about nuking iran?
That would not be needed.
However I assure you India/Pakistan and the others would be intimidated if Iran lay in ashes.
None of them can match the United States in technology and would not commit suicide for Iran.
But they would not be intimidated long because they would quickly see and actually already know why Iran was targeted.
But they will start to think, "Who's next?"
No they wouldn't because they wouldn't be next.
China is a huge US trade partner and is not talking of "wiping Israel off the map"
Same with India and Russia who have astronauts on US Space shuttles.
In fact Russia & China would most likely be the biggest benefactors rebuilding Iran once the Terror Mullahs are out of power.
-
<<oh yeah thats feasible, like Pakistan is going to attempt to nuke the United States
because the United States brings Iran to it's knees with conventional air power.
an ally of the US is going to commit suicide over Iran being demilitarized.
yeah sure>>
I guess you didn't read carefully enough. My point was that a mad dog on the loose (Hitler, the USA following the course recommended by the Professor) creates defensive alliances. The key word is alliance. Using Churchill's "crocodile" metaphor, the croc is bigger than any of the people who feed it out of fear. It can eat any ONE of them. The solution is for them all together to take on the crocodile, because otherwise the crocodile eats them one at a time. Get it, Einstein?
<<Who said anything about nuking iran?>>
That's what I took from the reference to Iran being turned into ashes. My mistake.
<<However I assure you India/Pakistan and the others would be intimidated if Iran lay in ashes.>>
For sure the other nuclear powers would be alarmed. Some of them would take on the appeasers' role for a time - - feed the crocodile, or the crocodile can turn on you next. Sure. They WOULD be intimidated. But at some point, the realization would dawn on them - - any one of them could receive the same treatment if they pissed off the U.S.A. Alone, there is no protection. Together . . . This is how alliances are formed. Common needs, common fears. Common bullies, common menaces.
<<None of them can match the United States in technology . . . >>
One or two years ago, the head of China's military committed China to achieve technological parity with the U.S.A. in military technology within 15 years. My guess is that in less than 15 years they will achieve parity and then they will surpass the U.S.
<< . . . and would not commit suicide for Iran.>>
You're stating the obvious. They wouldn't commit suicide for anything. OTOH, they would seek a kind of collective security that would guarantee them that they would never have to submit to U.S. nuclear blackmail. That could guarantee that whatever the U.S. wanted from them, they would not end up as the next Iran.
<<But they would not be intimidated long because they would quickly see and actually already know why Iran was targeted.>>
What are they, stupid? They already know why Iran was targeted. Same reason Iraq was targeted. Both had something that the U.S. wanted very badly. You think this is some fucking mystery? Only in America are people so fucking dumb that they don't know why Iraq and Iran are targeted.
<<No they wouldn't [start to think "Who's next?"] because they wouldn't be next.>>
Yeah, obviously not. Didn't Hitler assure Neville Chamberlain that "after the Sudeten German question is settled, that is the end of Germany's territorial claims in Europe?" Where are the guarantees that they wouldn't be next? The word of the President of the USA? A country which cheerfully tore up the Charter of the United Nations which it was a party to in order to get at the oil of Iraq?
<<China is a huge US trade partner and is not talking of "wiping Israel off the map"
<<Same with India and Russia who have astronauts on US Space shuttles.
<<In fact Russia & China would most likely be the biggest benefactors rebuilding Iran once the Terror Mullahs are out of power.>>
If you lived in a neighbourhood where one guy violently assaulted three of your neighbours in a row, one after the other, I think you'd have to be nuts not to be a little afraid of him. I think everyone in the neighbourhood would be afraid of him. He might tell you why he assaulted each of his neighbours: this guy, he had some boarders in his house and they blew up a building on my property and killed some of my family; that guy, he was hiding weapons in his attic and I was afraid he was going to give them to bad crazy people so they could kill me; and that guy, he was trying to build a bomb in his basement. Now, you might think, hey, this guy's all right, we oughtta be friends - - why should I worry, because (a) I don't have any boarders in my home who'd blow up any of his buildings and (b) I don't have any weapons hidden in my attic and (c) I'm not building a bomb in my basement. I would think most people would have a different take on this - - that here is a guy who doesn't hesitate to resort to violence without calling in the police whenever he feels threatened. He's the biggest guy in the neighbourhood, he's got more weapons than anyone else, and yet everyone he attacks, he claims was some kind of threat to him. I think any sane normal person would be scared stiff of this guy - - it's like, Holy Shit, what if he gets the idea that I am fucking with him? What if he wants ME to do something that I don't want to do?
Internationally, I think the U.S. would be seen - - especially if it turned Iran to ashes - - as a threat and a menace. Its excuses for Iran and Iraq are transparently phony. NOBODY would believe them. It would be inevitable that each member of the international community would recognize that the U.S. was no threat to it only for as long as it gave no offence to the U.S. One country, and only one country, could get its way in anything, anywhere, simply by the threat or use of violence. How long do you really think it would take before other countries saw the menace, the intolerability of living in a world where so much power resided in just one country, where the combined strengths of the other countries could overwhelm it?
-
That's how it works, Professor. People got brave when Russia was in ashes. 400 miles deep, and burned to the ground. Millions dead. And that's when the Red Army really started to fight.
What's the other side of the story? Japan gave up after being nuked only twice. Makes sense. They didn't have any allies. They didn't have any nukes. The game was over.
Today a lot of people have nukes. Russia. China. India. Pakistan. And they are not going to be intimidated when Iran gets nuked. But they will start to think, "Who's next?" The logic of the situation would be inexorable. Churchill said it best: "And each one feeds the crocodile, hoping the crocodile will eat him last." Of course, what Churchill meant was: People, that's NOT the way. KILL the fucking crocodile before he eats anyone else.
I certainly wasn't joking, Professor. The world has a way of taking care of its own evil, unlikely as it seems each time. Who would have foreseen Britain, the U.S.A., France and Russia as allies? An explosion of evil such as you are talking about is going to cause a major reaction simply because the consciences of people around the world will be shocked. They don't shock easily, or all at once, but there is a tipping point. I theorize that action such as you have suggested would reach that tipping point, but even if it doesn't, it doesn't mean my theory is wrong, only that I set the tipping point too low.
BTW, MT, I admtted a couple of weeks ago that I am NOT ChristiansUnited4LessGovt. BT ratted me out. :-)
-
<<BTW, MT, I admtted a couple of weeks ago that I am NOT ChristiansUnited4LessGovt. BT ratted me out. :-)>>
You know, Professor, there are definite stylistic differences between you and ChristiansUnited. For example, <<oh yeah thats feasible, like Pakistan is going to attempt to nuke the United States>> is just NOT your style. Way too juvenile for you. More like sirs' style than anyone else's here. But I was kind of confused and thought somewhere back in the thread you had said you WERE ChristiansUnited.
"BT ratted me out." BT revealed that you WERE or WERE NOT ChristiansUnited?
Bottom line, as I now understand it, Professor: You are NOT ChristiansUnited. Sorry for the mixup.
-
Not happy with my last answer to Professor or maybe it was to ChristiansUnited. Whoever it was raised some good points against my theory that the other major nuclear powers would band together in fear of America and nuke America. That's bullshit. I'm gonna go back to basics and see if I can reason this out on the fly.
Starting with the suggestion that America force Iran to do its will by an escalating series of violent acts culminating in Iran being turned into a field of ashes (which I mistook for a nuclear attack.)
My gut feeling is that this will never happen because it is something that is just so WRONG that it won't be done. And yet, if the leadership of America is as evil and ruthless as I claim it is, why wouldn't they do just that?
They're afraid. They know how much anti-American anger is boiling out there in the world and I think they believe that treating Iran in this manner just might lead to the pot boiling over. The anger of the common man and the anger of the men whose job it is normally to keep the common man in line. The police superintendents, the guy with the keys to the armory. Some day, the U.S. will do something that not only sends the mobs out into the streets but has even eaten into the soul of the men who are supposed to beat the mobs back, and so the police aren't dispatched, or if they're dispatched, they join the mob, the guns aren't locked up, the guards walk away from the Presidential Palace and millionaires' row and all of a sudden what used to be the government of the place has been beaten to pulp, dragged through the streets by their ankles, strung up upside down on lamp-posts and set ablaze with kerosene. Another U.S. puppet government falls. THAT'S what they're really afraid of - - the anger of the people.
My crocodile analogy was wrong. It applied to truly sovereign nations, whereas today you have closer interlocking international trade and other ties. One of the nuclear powers, Pakistan, has been virtually sold out to the U.S.A. anyway. Stupid analogy, bad argument. Sorry.
Also, I don't want to leave the impression that the moral factor would be completely irrelevant. Even if the decision-makers of the U.S. government were completely amoral, they would still have to take into account the moral outrage that their actions would generate in the U.S. and abroad. And some of the actors themselves may at some point just balk at the immorality of the whole idea. Or at least find reasons not to go ahead with it.
I would say that while moral considerations can't be ruled out completely, the major factor preventing the U.S. from implementing an escalating policy of violence against Iraq to make it comply with U.S. demands would be fear - - fear of the international reaction, particularly in the client or puppet states currently under the complete control of the U.S.A.
-
<<BTW, MT, I admtted a couple of weeks ago that I am NOT ChristiansUnited4LessGovt. BT ratted me out. :-)>>
You know, Professor, there are definite stylistic differences between you and ChristiansUnited. For example, <<oh yeah thats feasible, like Pakistan is going to attempt to nuke the United States>> is just NOT your style. Way too juvenile for you. More like sirs' style than anyone else's here. But I was kind of confused and thought somewhere back in the thread you had said you WERE ChristiansUnited.
"BT ratted me out." BT revealed that you WERE or WERE NOT ChristiansUnited?
Bottom line, as I now understand it, Professor: You are NOT ChristiansUnited. Sorry for the mixup.
Nope, I'm NOT. I was jus having a little fun! BT is such a party-pooper! :-)
-
One would hope that ademocratic government could be changed without resorting to mobbing the street.
Establishing Democracy is attacking the root problem.
Attacking the regio for the sake of oil is a complete fiction , but it is a fiction that a lot of people beleive so they die for it.
-
"I'm not a big fan of Iran and its government. They're a bunch of torturers and murderers on a par with the U.S. Army itself. "
Laughable, MT. Not even close. Facts please....Facts to back up this outrageous statement.
-
"I'm not a big fan of Iran and its government. They're a bunch of torturers and murderers on a par with the U.S. Army itself
btw, there was a reason I highlighted the quote in yellow......
can't read it....
must read it.....
It's still outrageous in any color.
Iran has more on the ball that you think. You just don't realize how much. An Arab can't even touch the mastermind of the Persian. Watch very closely....be very afraid. Russia, North Korea and Israel will be part of this game...wait and see.
-
<<"I'm not a big fan of Iran and its government. They're a bunch of torturers and murderers on a par with the U.S. Army itself. "
<<Laughable, MT. Not even close. Facts please....Facts to back up this outrageous statement. >>
Here's a FACT for you, Cynthia. Zahra Kazemi. Canadian journalist. Google her. Try to find the report of the doctor who examined her body.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zahra_Kazemi
"Nineteen days later, she died in Iranian custody in Baghiyyatollah al-Azam Military Hospital. It is widely believed she was beaten to death; after initial denials, Iranian government sources (including Mohammad Ali Abtahi, the Vice President of Legal Affairs and Masoud Pezeshkian, the Minister of Health and Medical Education) later admitted that she had died of a fractured skull as a result of being hit in the head. Abtahi claims that he was under a lot of pressure to take back the acknowledgement, but he resisted it.
Her death and the subsequent burial in Iran sparked a sharp diplomatic response from Canada, .........."
-
<<One would hope that ademocratic government could be changed without resorting to mobbing the street.>>
Democratic government? What government are you referring to? Does the U.S. sponsor a puppet government in the Middle East that is a democracy? Because if it does, I'm certainly not aware of it.
<<Establishing Democracy is attacking the root problem.>>
What's the root problem?
<<Attacking the regio for the sake of oil is a complete fiction . . . >>
On the contrary, it's the only reason that makes any sense at all. All the other reasons advanced by the government of the U.S.A. for invading and occupying Iraq are obvious bullshit. They are simply unbelievable, and I have demonstrated that in numerous posts which analyze the various reasons and explain clearly how and why they have to be pure BS. They are just ludicrous.
<< . . . but it is a fiction that a lot of people beleive so they die for it.>>
I think maybe what you're trying to say here is that the perception of the reason is more important than the actual reason. I'd agree with that. People live and die for their perceptions. In this case the common perception happens to be the unadulterated truth.
-
<<One would hope that ademocratic government could be changed without resorting to mobbing the street.>>
Democratic government? What government are you referring to? Does the U.S. sponsor a puppet government in the Middle East that is a democracy? Because if it does, I'm certainly not aware of it.
[[[[[[[[[Israel?]]]]]]]]
<<Establishing Democracy is attacking the root problem.>>
What's the root problem?
[[[[[[[[[[[The dissatisfaction and frustration of the common man .]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
<<Attacking the regio for the sake of oil is a complete fiction . . . >>
On the contrary, it's the only reason that makes any sense at all. All the other reasons advanced by the government of the U.S.A. for invading and occupying Iraq are obvious bullshit. They are simply unbelievable, and I have demonstrated that in numerous posts which analyze the various reasons and explain clearly how and why they have to be pure BS. They are just ludicrous.
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[No there is no reson to beleive that aggrandisement is intended, except prejudce.]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
<< . . . but it is a fiction that a lot of people beleive so they die for it.>>
I think maybe what you're trying to say here is that the perception of the reason is more important than the actual reason. I'd agree with that. People live and die for their perceptions. In this case the common perception happens to be the unadulterated truth.
[[[[[[[[[[[[ That is an article of unsupported faith , isn't it?]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
-
<<Nineteen days later, she died in Iranian custody in Baghiyyatollah al-Azam Military Hospital. It is widely believed she was beaten to death; after initial denials, Iranian government sources (including Mohammad Ali Abtahi, the Vice President of Legal Affairs and Masoud Pezeshkian, the Minister of Health and Medical Education) later admitted that she had died of a fractured skull as a result of being hit in the head. Abtahi claims that he was under a lot of pressure to take back the acknowledgement, but he resisted it.
<<Her death and the subsequent burial in Iran sparked a sharp diplomatic response from Canada, ..........">>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Toronto Star front-paged the story of the doctor who had seen her body. It was much worse than the Iranian government has admitted. Many fingers and toes were broken and many nails removed. There were burns on her breasts. Her vagina was torn, consistent with large-object rape. There were bruises all over her body.
This was consistent with the mother's story, carried months earlier by the Star. The mother said the ends of the fingers and toes were bandaged and she wasn't allowed to remove the bandages.
I don't see any difference at all between those fucking bastards and the U.S. Army. That's why I'd like to see a U.S. invasion and may the worst man win. The more of those bastards that kill each other off, the better off this world is gonna be.
-
<<One would hope that ademocratic government could be changed without resorting to mobbing the street.>>
Democratic government? What government are you referring to? Does the U.S. sponsor a puppet government in the Middle East that is a democracy? Because if it does, I'm certainly not aware of it.
[[[[[[[[[Israel?]]]]]]]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel a puppet government of the U.S.A.? I think you've got that turned around a little. The U.S.A. is more a puppet of Israel than Israel is of the U.S.A. In any event, this is some democracy -- have you asked the three million West Bank Arabs how they are enjoying their democratic rights?
================================================
Q. What's the root problem?
A. [[[[[[[[[[The dissatisfaction and frustration of the common man .]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
Wow, what a cop-out. All right, WHAT is the common man dissatisfied and frustrated about?
=======================================================================
[<<[[[[[[[[[[[[[No there is no reson to beleive that aggrandisement is intended, except prejudce.]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]>>
History is no reason. Common sense is no reason. Past imperialist predation by the same countries in the same region and even in the same country is no reason. That the passage of a petrochemicals law is a benchmark along the road to U.S. withdrawal is no reason. That the President and Vice-President of the U.S. have been personally involved in the oil industry is no reason. That demand for oil by the U.S., the E.U., China and India is growing much faster than new supplies is no reason. I think I'm starting to see a pattern here. NOTHING that has ever been advanced in support of the proposition will ever be accepted as a reason.
IMHO, the prejudice is YOURS. It is what keeps you from seeing a truth that is painfully obvious to every intelligent, reasonable and unprejudiced observer.
================================================================================
<< . . . but it is a fiction that a lot of people beleive so they die for it.>>
I think maybe what you're trying to say here is that the perception of the reason is more important than the actual reason. I'd agree with that. People live and die for their perceptions. In this case the common perception happens to be the unadulterated truth.
[[[[[[[[[[[[ That is an article of unsupported faith , isn't it?]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
No, as a matter of fact, it is the ONLY logical conclusion that one can draw from the facts of the case. IF one is not prejudiced.
-
"That the passage of a petrochemicals law is a benchmark along the road to U.S. withdrawal is no reason."
Have you thought about this?
There needs to be an energy policy in a country that is going to depend so much on Oil revenue, but what can we do to get it done ? It is their law and they are not our puppets.
-
plane, the benchmark business is just one tiny little reason supporting all the other reasons why the U.S. invasion of Iraq is all about oil. There IS no other reason. But if you don't want to admit it, obviously I can't make you admit it. You can keep on denying the obvious truth of it till the cows come home. I'm not gonna repeat all those reasons over and over again.
-
plane, the benchmark business is just one tiny little reason supporting all the other reasons why the U.S. invasion of Iraq is all about oil. There IS no other reason. But if you don't want to admit it, obviously I can't make you admit it. You can keep on denying the obvious truth of it till the cows come home. I'm not gonna repeat all those reasons over and over again.
And you accuse me of the same thing I accuse you of , that you can't think about it.
The Iraquis mee and philibuster a very important law , struggleing to find a compromise that they can alllive with as if they had all the time in the world while we are getting tired and frustrated with them , we need them to settle and take controll butthey eem unwilling to give up dependance and act as if they have all the time in the world.
How does that demonstrate our controll of them? To me it shows just the opposite.
When Douglass McArther was in controll of Japan he had his staf write their Constitution and it was over in a week , I think (in hindsight) we might should have done it with firmer controll and had better result .
But for evidence tht we are gaining wealth from the project or that there ever was any expectation of such is lacking all evidence other than prejudice.
-
I gotta admit, you fight a great war on paper, Professor.
That's one of the best sentences I've read all day!
This "defeat Iran through air power" notion is interesting. What exactly does it achieve? I can see where it confirms every radical clerics statement about America. Every Iranian, especially civilians, that die in this aerial bombardment instantly becomes a martyr.
You thought that some of these Iranians had a long memory for what we did with SAVAK and the Shah, wait until you start blowing up their families. We haven't done a very good job with a two-bit radical Sunni sect that is still alive and well in Iraq and especially Afghanistan. Why are we looking to piss off the Shi'a world?
-
I don't think you get it, plane. The Iraqis already had a hydrocarbons law which worked very well for them. The state owned the oil and took all the revenues when it was sold. The results paid for the Iraqis' education, medical care, subsidized their food costs and generally gave them one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East.
The problem here is that they can't go back to it. The Americans gave them a Constitution that does not allow socialism in the form or state ownership of the means of production (oil wells) or of much else and also permits the oil industry to be opened to foreign exploiters. The question now is how big a piece of the pie the foreigners will be allowed to have. It's a win-win situation for the Americans (because under the old system their share would have been zero) but still they don't trust the Iraqis to make the decision after they've left.
Right now I don't owe you a cent, plane. But if you sent a bunch of thugs to occupy my home and then told me they'd only leave when I decided how much I was going to pay you every month, I'd say it was a pretty clear indication of why you'd occupied my home in the first place. Even if your original excuse had been that you were only looking for weapons that I'd hidden in my attic.
-
Why do you hide behind the "google" curtain, MT? Is this your way of saying that you don't have the strength or guts to support your outrageous statements?
Nope....Not good enough MT.
I challenge you to support your accusations right here on the board in your own words or someone elses words, if you must......but don't make me do your dirty work, please.
Cynthia
-
I only "hide behind the Google curtain" when I feel the facts are so well known and obvious that I'm very surprised the person who I am conversing with doesn't know them already. However, I can see that I probably made a mistake in this instance because the facts which were front-paged on the Toronto Star many times, were apparently of interest only to Canadians and must have been virtually ignored elsewhere. My apologies.
Zahra Kazemi was a Canadian journalist who was arrested in Teheran and tortured to death - -while I was just googling for the name of the prison, Erbin? Ervin? - - I came across this article on the torture and murder of Bahai women in Iran, which is equally barbarous and disgusting: http://www.geocities.com/richard.clark32@btinternet.com/iranfem.html
But back to Zahra Kazemi - - I just described earlier in this thread for plane's benefit the tortures that had been inflicted on her. For which NOBODY in Iran has been punished.
Sorry if I was "hiding behind a google curtain," Cynthia.
However you asked for facts to support my allegation that the Iranians were torturers and murderers just as bad if not worse than the U.S. army and security apparatus, and I think now I've given you plenty: the Canadian journalist Zahra Kazemi and the Bahai women, to which I gave you the direct link.
Now YOU can't hide behind a curtain of self-imposed ignorance any longer - - you have the facts you asked for.
-
I don't think you get it, plane. The Iraqis already had a hydrocarbons law which worked very well for them. The state owned the oil and took all the revenues when it was sold. The results paid for the Iraqis' education, medical care, subsidized their food costs and generally gave them one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East.
The problem here is that they can't go back to it. The Americans gave them a Constitution that does not allow socialism in the form or state ownership of the means of production (oil wells) or of much else and
Error in fact, I didn't bother to read further , this error is just too gross for the rest to make up for it no matter how well phrased.
-
But back to Zahra Kazemi - - I just described earlier in this thread for plane's benefit the tortures that had been inflicted on her. For which NOBODY in Iran has been punished.
However you asked for facts to support my allegation that the Iranians were torturers and murderers just as bad if not worse than the U.S. army and security apparatus, and I think now I've given you plenty: the Canadian journalist Zahra Kazemi and the Bahai women, to which I gave you the direct link.
I think that if this had happened with Americans there could have been an investigation and a trial and even possibly a conviction. I don't see the equivilence you are pointing at.
-
<<I think that if this had happened with Americans there could have been an investigation and a trial and even possibly a conviction. I don't see the equivilence you are pointing at.>>
There WAS an investigation and a trial and a conviction and an appeal and an overturned conviction and in the end some low-level schmuck went through a rigged system, somebody got a slap on the wrist. It's EXACTLY like America.
-
MT,
Google, or not to google....doesn't matter in the end. I disagree with your bold statement that the Iranian Army is on any similar par of the American Army in terms of torture etc.
I guess it's simple. Americans are not as sophisticated to hate as the fanatics of the Iranian empire.......Persian symbol.....paisley?
Clinch your fist.....take a look at the reverse side of the pinkie finger....curled up in that fist.
IT's the shape of the paisley....yep the culture pop design that drapes our hippie clothes to this day. Power is the meaning of that symbol and it comes from the Persian. Power is even in the thread of our fabric, literally.
Point?
Power is the point.
Watch very carefully. . .
we can only wish we Americans had such hate...and a need for power....we wouldn't be in this mess. ..or at least we would be hated even more....irony...nothin' but irony....at it's best.
We have not the hate that the fundies in the middle east conjure up and teach with Mickey Mouse Club senitment.
\Point?
You can compare the Americans to Middles eastern extremists all you want..but we will never measure up...
fortunately...or unfortunately.
Yea for the joy JOY that is our spirit.
We laugh....Iran....laugh? Yea...
at the suckers called Americans.
Americans....we can never understand the true militant hate that is in the Persian psychie.....Not that all Iranians are sick. God, no. Allah No....
I prayed to Allah when I was married to Amir. There is nothing sick about a people who love their God.
There is something sick about the fight that is out of ignorance and sickness.
I pray we don't find ourselves in that boat someday. ...we just can't hate our own. Surely, the Iranians do not HATE "their" own.
-
Does anyone else find it utterly laughable that some anonymous clown who wants to start a third war in Asia at God knows what cost, should to choose to call himself "Christians United4Less Government?
Who are you united to, "Christians"? How many of you are there, anyway?
Or is it just you and the wrinkly old corpse of Ronald Reagan?
-
Cynthia, I googled around and found out that Paisley prints are named for the Scottish town of Paisley where the manufacture of these Indian patterns began, inspired by soldiers of the British Empire who returned home with shawls and similar items bearing the same patterns. I think if the Persians wanted a clenched fist to be their symbol, they were talented enough to have just drawn a clenched fist, using the last phalange of the pinkie finger when viewed sideways in a fist would not have conveyed the message at all. Personally, I thought the design came from nature and would be a leaf, a flower petal or a tear-drop. Never in a million years would it occur to me to associate that design with a clenched fist.
I know lots of Iranians here. They're all kinds. Mostly refugees from the Islamic Revolution and admirers of the Shah, one of the worst torturers and murderers of recent history and a puppet of American and British interests. We argue a lot about the Shah but pretty much agree on the current regime. None of them has anything against the State of Israel, which they all seem to admire, and can't understand why I have any objections to Jewish policy on the West Bank. Some of the older ones seem to see the injustice of it, but have extremely negative opinions of the Arabs which I think they use to mitigate their objections to the injustices. A lot of the younger ones are completely apolitical or at least have no interest at all in Middle Eastern politics.
Your comments on hate are interesting. I think they're probably true, but you lost sight of one important consideration: to really hate, you have to be an underdog. You have to be somebody who is fucked over repeatedly by more powerful interests, treated with contempt and disrespect, seen relatives and friends just like you tortured and murdered, exploited and cast aside. The Iranians and the Arabs have been sucking it up for years from the Americans, British and Jews and they are naturally filled with hate. Even so there is no evidence of American, British or Jewish prisoners of the Arabs or Iranians being tortured. There is not a single instance of Americans taken prisoner in the war in Iraq being tortured. But it is Americans and British who torture THEIR prisoners. It is the Supreme Court of Israel which has legalized torture of Arab prisoners.
The torture used routinely by U.S. troops and then hidden from public view is not an expression of their hatred so much as it is a cold-blooded instrument of domination, of inducing fear among potential Resistance fighters, of racism (showing these "ragheads" or "hajis" or "sand niggers" who is the boss.) It's also, to the effect that it's used as a military tactic of dubious effectiveness, an indicator of the moral collapse of America, as obviously the moral scruples that prevented them from using this tactic in both World Wars has by now totally evaporated.
-
Well, then I have to say that my ex husband is to blame. He told me that the paisley is Persian born.
So goes the lies of the IRanian...hence.....One of many.
Trust? Perhaps Google is wrong, but I have to say probably not.
Personal experience has told me that there are many lies in the Persian Amir...meaning King".
Wonder if that's truth.King=Amir.
Anyway...I will read the rest of your reply and get back to you.
So far all I can tell you is that I disagree with your assessment that Americans are in the same playground of torture as the Persian/Iranian.
C*
-
There is not a single instance of Americans taken prisoner in the war in Iraq being tortured. But it is Americans and British who torture THEIR prisoners. It is the Supreme Court of Israel which has legalized torture of Arab prisoners.
Really?
Hell, I was tortured beyond belief by my husband....and I am not whining....He is about 60 now. Not to make a broad prejudice statement against the culture, but I would venture to guess that the American male does not consider women to be lower than low in terms of respect in the way the Iranian does. I lived it, and so did my American girlfriends at the time...1972-1975. The Savak were spying on us daily in our own city here. Past history...true...and water under the death bridge, but one has to be naive as hell to think that the middle eastern male in general terms does not have a tight fist hold on his woman. ..and the woman likes it that way. There are still many Iranian men in the world who view women as less than the dirt they walk on, MT. If you have never seen the fillm "Not without My Daughter"..albeit a Sally Field "flick"....one must. It's a true story and one that I lived myself. Ironically, my ex husband is a doctor and the treatment I endured with his own people in Europe/ not in Iran/ was no different. ....absolute shockingly abusive. Ok...so that's not my point in this debate...true, and I don't know the in's and out's of the entire culture of the current war, but I have to say there are threads of violence and deception woven within even the most Americanized" Iranian male. Moody is one example. He turned on his wife without blinking an eye.
There is a thread.....a thread of hate that is underlying in many middle easterners, MT.
I am not here to blanketly spread the blanket of hate throughout the entire Islamic world....of course not...but, there is a loyalty that will kill and kill again with no questions asked in the Mid East.....That's the bad news. I just want to reinforce here that there is more to the story. Be careful. You never know who is behind that curtain or male blinded veil, MT.
My ex husband's father was killed during the revolution because he was a Shah supporter. HE was an Admiral in the Iranian Navy.
Sad.....Amir's mother gave birth to him when she was 13. She traveled through the Turkish mountains to live in Paris and escaped the torture she too had to endure. (and all in the 50's when one didn't even get divorced in America, let alone in Iran!
She ended up marrying again in France and lived a happy life with her new French husband. But she was never allowed to see her child, Amir. I met her almost at the same time he met her again...after so many years....\
Yes, there are many things we all as human beings have in common...but there are many things we have to be aware of and that is that the Persian people have suffered a lot more than we.
Of course, not all Persians are going to be the same...but in those days....there was a hell of a revolution. Who's in charge in Iran now....young American Iranians? NO.
Life for women was pretty good under the Shah, even though life was hell. And life is bright now? Nope.
So, who's the lesser of those evils....
Pretty much no one is going to be a perfect segment of the global peace keeping celebratory party goers..but I can tell you right now that one should be aware of those hidden agendas and hidden historical and down right frightening paradigm shifts that bite ya in the ass!
They will.
Cindy
-
Torture of hostages. Torture in general? Who's to argue that anyone who partakes is 100% wrong, by the way. Yes, I was not a hostage.....except when I was locked up not allowed to leave the apt. But torture of soldiers...?
Perhaps the Middle Easterner is clean as Mr. Clean when it comes to not torturing. But the heads and private parts that have been cut and misguided will disagree, MT.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paisley_%28design%29
I googled it too, MT.
I hope this comes out.....Wikipedia.....soup source of evidence.
-
<<Well, then I have to say that my ex husband is to blame. He told me that the paisley is Persian born. >>
I think you misunderstood me. The design definitely came from the Middle East or Asia and might well have been Persian originally. By the time the British soldiers picked it up, it had probably found its way from the original source to many places in the British Empire. It was only the NAME that was Scottish.
-
Well, then I have to say that my ex husband is to blame. He told me that the paisley is Persian born.
So goes the lies of the IRanian...hence.....One of many.
Trust? Perhaps Google is wrong, but I have to say probably not.
Personal experience has told me that there are many lies in the Persian Amir...meaning King".
Wonder if that's truth.King=Amir.
Anyway...I will read the rest of your reply and get back to you.
So far all I can tell you is that I disagree with your assessment that Americans are in the same playground of torture as the Persian/Iranian.
C*
Ameer/Amir means Prince
-
Not to make a broad prejudice statement against the culture, but I would venture to guess that the American male does not consider women to be lower than low in terms of respect in the way the Iranian does.
A woman very close to me was abused. Not only was she physically beaten, but she was mentally and emotionally tortured as well. He had certain times that he estimated it would take her to drive to a specific place and if she was late - well, you can guess. She had weekly weight checks and much more.
This was at the hands of a good ol' Tennessee white American patriotic male. So, though I realise that Persian culture is vastly different in its view of women and their roles, I think any broad cultural generalisations are not valid.
-
That's how it works, Professor. People got brave when Russia was in ashes. 400 miles deep, and burned to the ground. Millions dead. And that's when the Red Army really started to fight.
Standard Russian military doctrine. Fall back, continue to fall back, scorched earth policy (the Russians did most of the burning). When winter starts, counterattack. The enemy will be out of food and unwilling to fight in a cold they're not used to.
They used this technique numerous times.
-
Cynthia, I googled around and found out that Paisley prints are named for the Scottish town of Paisley where the manufacture of these Indian patterns began, inspired by soldiers of the British Empire who returned home with shawls and similar items bearing the same patterns.
With all due respect, MT, You never once mentioned that the Persian's had anything to do with the paisley, let alone the clinched fist theory. God, I hate to say this, but perhpas Amir was right.
AS for Amir meaning PRince.....I was told King....Henny. Oh well...frankly...once a prince always a prince..but Amir was not a prince.
JS>.. would rather have been "hit" by a Kentuck hick than to be almost killed by a Persian...all because I was not only a woman but an American woman.
Oh well.
-
That's how it works, Professor. People got brave when Russia was in ashes. 400 miles deep, and burned to the ground. Millions dead. And that's when the Red Army really started to fight.
Standard Russian military doctrine. Fall back, continue to fall back, scorched earth policy (the Russians did most of the burning). When winter starts, counterattack. The enemy will be out of food and unwilling to fight in a cold they're not used to.
They used this technique numerous times.
I don't know if they ment to or whether this was a natural consequence of the terrain , I think that the Russian sldier deonstrated an awsome tenacity and tolerance for bad conditions , and Stalin was an idiot.
-
AS for Amir meaning PRince.....I was told King....Henny. Oh well...frankly...once a prince always a prince..but Amir was not a prince.
Cynthia, I am fluent in Arabic. Seriously, it means prince.
I haven't been following this entire thread, but it seems that you're talking about an Iranian? Although I am not fluent in Farsi, I am pretty sure the same meaning is true in both languages. It's possible, however, that there are multiple meanings of the word.
-
JS>.. would rather have been "hit" by a Kentuck hick than to be almost killed by a Persian...all because I was not only a woman but an American woman.
Oh well.
Not being a woman, I don't think I want to get into a discussion of what abuse was preferable to another.
-
<<With all due respect, MT, You never once mentioned that the Persian's had anything to do with the paisley, let alone the clinched fist theory. God, I hate to say this, but perhpas Amir was right.>>
Huh? Cynthia, YOU were the one - - I thought - - who claimed that paisley was Persian AND that it resembled a part of the pinky finger in a clenched fist.
So I looked up paisley and found it did in fact have a possible Middle East origin (although Persia was not specifically mentioned) but I had to doubt (IMHO) that the pattern had anything to do with a clenched fist.
THEN you said Amir was probably wrong, which left me thinking that because of my post mentioning the Scottish town of Paisley, you had concluded that Amir was wrong (about the origin of the Paisley.)
But since it seemed to me that you had interpreted my post as ruling out a Persian origin for paisley, I thought I had better clarify that because Amir could very well have been right.
-
Royalty as King or Prince, Ameer...or Amir.. needer/ natter....both are in the same regal vein. Perhaps my ex husband, whom I might add did not marry me to get his citizenship.....He was and still is a doctor in this country. Lives just around the mountain here. I am happy for him that he escaped the rage that was the revolution of the late 70's early 80's. Many of our friends(Iranian) died in that uprising.
As for the Paisley punchin' male mentality whether from Kentucky or Tehrannesee.....powerless male in any culture will "act out".
I do have to say that the point in all of this is that there are differences in the eastern middle and the western "American" culture. Differences so profound on varying stages, that we wouldn't be discussing this issue. The issue of "paisley" "prince" or King are a stab at semantics at best...but horrific real actions at worst.
Intent, rage, historical anger, and a sense of loss of true culture play more of a part than the black and white issue of male vs female rage.
I would love to conduct a study on rage as it occurs within certain cultures. I am sure there would be some variations and outcomes that read between the lines and offer insight, indeed.
One has to only live the experience of being held hostage in a land of "other". One has to only experince what it feels like to be hated because of one's culture. Of course....who hasn't experienced such racism.
I am here to say that I worry......worry about the anger that runs deep within a culture for reasons that go beyond being frustrated and bored.....or drunk and pissed. There is an anger in the Iranian male of the past, perhaps not the young "ones" of today.....Who among us doesn't know an "angry" old man who was once a happy young man in the late 60's before tripping the China sea fantastics? Vietnam vets.....vs.....WW2 vetw? Nah, war is war....but there is a thread of bitterness in teh VVet. that is not rampant in the WW2 vet. Who knows.....the men who fought/managed to crawl back home in shame know.
Perhaps there is still an anger that is passed on from generation to generation within the Persian male. But not every male....
That movie:? Not without my Daughter....my god, if you all ever see any movie...see that one. It's a documentary of sorts.....even though Sally Field dances the script with her over acting.....Scared? Yep....and don't think for a minute that I wasn't scard Sh**tless that I would die...not run home to mama in tears becasue my man hit me....scared and internally damaged in terms of being an American woman.
Can't explain it any other way..and yep...its was 33 odd years ago..and I can write about it to this day....sans the pain. In fact, I always have had compassion for the Iranian men and women. I just "know"...can't tell you anymore than that. I just "know".
Thus, I just "worry" about any outcome with regard to Iran vs USA.
Foreseeing? Just be careful. The fox is a trickster. Wise? maybe....but damn, damn tricky when it comes down to POWER.
So, I see that indeed that Amir Houshain was probably correct in his explanation of the "fist" idea, MT.
You might not be able to "imagine that'> ha! But, do you know that it's NOT true that the fist was part of teh ideal of the Persian Paisley?
You can make your best educated guess. I frankly don't care either way..and I can only say that there is always more to the story that Wikipedia and Google do not have diplomatic passports to unveil.