- Audit raises questions for Episcopal Church
- Where will they stop?
- What they expect
- A DIFFERING VIEW/Why oppose reforms in ‘lower ed’?
- War with Iran
- Bush has failed our children
- Sovereignty of our nation at stake
- Vote no on all Denver bond issues
- “Ghettorize” shouldn’t have been a factor
- Bottled-water woes
No justification to attack Iran
I
President George W.Bush and his cronies just want another WAR to keep FEAR IN AMERICAN’S HEARTS AND SECURE THE WHITE HOUSE —— We have no JUSTIFICATION to attack IRAN. We have not used all of our diplomatic means to seek a SOLUTION.
If Congress doesn’t stop President George W.Bush from invading another Nation without provocation — we are on a
This letter has not been edited.
Nice CAPS to hit the highlights. I don't think we will be the only country going after Iran if they try to develop nuclear weapons, and rightfully so! Oh Cindy, with people like you around we will all be muslum soon!
Posted by on October 29, 2007 03:09 PM"It never ceases to amaze me that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney will not let Iran obtain nuclear weapons... "
ARE YOU KIDDING! This is the same country that has stated it would like to "wipe Isreal off the face of the earth." If they do get the weapons, the whole world should be on their doorstep with rifles in hand!
Posted by on October 29, 2007 03:11 PMSince when did this administration need justification to attack somebody?
Posted by Larry on October 29, 2007 03:12 PMLarry is a sheep...baaaaa
Posted by TMR on October 29, 2007 03:13 PMWow, you make such a good point TMR, your ability to rationalize makes me want to join the republican party so I won't have to bother myself with thinking anymore.
Posted by Larry on October 29, 2007 03:20 PMThe Bush Administration has stated that they will not allow Iran to acquire the nuclear bomb under any circumstances. If the past failures of this administration are an indication of its future failures, Iran will have the bomb by 20008.
Posted by Sean on October 29, 2007 03:33 PMFolks Cindy means that we have to wait until Iran lobs a nuke at us before we can kick their raghead asses. I hope its aimed at your house Cindy, you chicken little.
Posted by on October 29, 2007 03:37 PMDeja vu
Posted by jay on October 29, 2007 03:42 PMWay to speak truth to PoWeR CiNdy!
Nobudy hear cars then you can spell.
No justification whatsoever. It's those eeevil joooos and neo-cons trying to start another war for greed and evil. They just luv killin!
We should negotiate at all costs. Send in Albright or Sandy Burgler. Never mind they declared war on us when they invaded our embassy in 1979, or murdered our peace-keepers in Lebanon in1982...or murdered hundreds in Argentina in the early 80's. We are America and we can take it.
We need to deepen our understanding of their culture so as to understand how we have wronged them. Only then can we address the injustice caused by our cowboy diplomacy.
Posted by on October 29, 2007 04:07 PMJay,
Simple question!
Would you allow Iran to obtain a nuclear bomb?
Posted by jgd777 on October 29, 2007 04:08 PMCindy...
While delivering a message to the UN general assembly in September 2006 Irans leader Ahmadinejd claims..."That a spiritual light surrounded him and focused only on him, as he is devinely inspired."
Ahmadinejad is extremely devoted to the 12th Imam, also known as Imam Mahdi, who according to Muslims had suddenly disappeared and wll return at the end of time to lead an era of Islamic justice.
In the following weeks Ahmadinejad ordered his cabinet to write a pact of loyalty with the 12th Imam and throw it down a well near the holy city of Qom, where he believes the Iman is hiding.
At a conference in Tehran on October 2005 titled "The world without Zionism" Ahmadinejad called for Isreal to be "wiped of the map."
Several countries, including Great Britain, France, and Spain called for Iran to be expelled from the U.N.
Ahmadinejad Wants Isreal moved to Europe saying that"Germany and Austria should take them in" That is just the tip of the iceberg with Iran's mentally ill leader!
And you think Bush is screwed up??
Needless to say, I wouldn't trust the man with a water pistol..... let alone nukes!
Posted by A on October 29, 2007 04:29 PMSimple question!
Would you allow Iran to obtain a nuclear bomb?
Posted by jgd777 on October 29, 2007 04:08 PM
And if you had in captivity some who believed knew about a potential atomic bomb going off in one hour and only you could save the day would you torture them?
Yada yada yada. More of the same hypotheticals that are the hallmark of FEAR by Republicans.
Gee jgd777 would you allow Pakistan to acquire a nuclear bomb? Oops they already have and their politics makes Iran's look positively civilized.
Would you allow North Korea to obtain nuclear weapons? Wait they already have and guess what? The uber-cowboys in the White House negotiated a reasonable solution to the situation.
If we don't need to use weapons of mass destruction to deal with Pakistan and North Korea then why do we need to use weapons of mass destruction against Iran? Who are the real terrorists here using extreme forms of violence for political purposes? Republicans are terrorists with bigger bombs. They have no more regard for humanity than a radical Islamo-fascist-socialist with a IED. The only difference in their terrorism is in the scale of their violence. Bigger bombs inflict more violence which is exactly what revenge minded Republicans want nevermind that Iran had nothing to do with 9/11.
Posted by Wes on October 29, 2007 04:30 PMCindy is right, Bush does want a war in the Middle East, because to fundamentalist Christians, it is a requirement for the second coming.
In other words, If a major war happens in the Middle East, then the dome of the rock can be destroyed by Israel or the US and the temple of Soloman can be rebuilt....a requirement for the second coming of Christ. Fundamentalist Christians would wipe out all the heathens (Muslims) and bring their second class citizens (the Jews) along until they can convert them. That is the theory anyway, so Iran, diplomacy be damned, is a good way to start the war.
This Iran problem can be solved simply. We need to cull the herd of GOP felons. Bush is a 40+ years UCMJ-felon, AWOL, deserter and guilty of illegal separation and discharge.
USSC Affrimative Action (AA) Judge Alito is also a UCMJ-felon, AWOL, deserter and guilty of illegal separation and discharge. Alito even made Bush blush. Alito pimped and exploited taxpayers for 7 years of free college education (JD-undergrad degrees) in the US aArmy's ROTC program. AA Alito incurred a 11 year acive military duty obligation as a result of these gifts.
Somebody should empower me to jail Bush, Alito, Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP, and our black state legislative representatives in SuperMax or Ft. Leavenworth, KS.
Posted by 40acresandmymuleandNAMvetbennies on October 29, 2007 06:25 PMcindy,your disease "liberalism"can be cured with proper education.
Posted by Keith on October 29, 2007 06:48 PMcindy,your disease "liberalism"can be cured with proper education.
Posted by Keith on October 29, 2007 06:48 PMcindy,your disease "liberalism"can be cured with proper education.
Posted by Keith on October 29, 2007 06:48 PM"In 1957, Chinese Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong made headlines by saying that it would be no problem if half the world's population perished in a nuclear war in order to destroy "imperialism," but since China exploded its first atomic device in 1964, its policy has been that it will not launch a first nuclear strike."
For those interested, we did not go to war with China but allowed it to get nuclear weapons. There is also a rumor going around that China has never used its nuclear weapons.
Posted by Truth on October 29, 2007 07:22 PMAccording to Fareed Zakaria:
"The American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality. Norman Podhoretz, the neoconservative ideologist whom Bush has consulted on this topic, has written that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is "like Hitler … a revolutionary whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace it in the fullness of time with a new order dominated by Iran and ruled by the religio-political culture of Islamofascism." For this staggering proposition Podhoretz provides not a scintilla of evidence.
Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?"
Posted by Truth on October 29, 2007 07:34 PMShhhh-don't tell anyone.We haven't attacked Iran.
Posted by Jimminy on October 29, 2007 07:59 PMMany of the things being said about Iran, were the same story being told about Germany in "34" Oh! what can Hitler do, he has no military.
Iran would never opening attack any country with nuclear weapons, now days all they need is to carry a few across our border and set them off.
I expect our country to protect it's citizens, and not just talk about it like the wimpy Dems are doing. Words didn't stop Hitler and they won't stop Iran either. Action, that what is needed! Chamberlin couldn't stop World War 2 because he had no balls, just like the current Dems.
Posted by on October 29, 2007 08:20 PMJimminy, New Flash: We are debating the question of whether or not the U.S. should attack Iran.
Posted by Truth on October 29, 2007 08:22 PMTruth,
I don't believe they are actually talking about "invading" Iran. The talk I heard was about a aerial assault to destroy their nuclear capabilities. Iran declared war on the US back in "79" and have been attacking us every since, with the use of proxy fighters . Maybe it is time to give them some of their own medicine.
Posted by jgd777 on October 29, 2007 08:35 PMAnswer the question jay,
wes sure couldnt.
LIBERALS ARE IDIOTS!
Posted by on October 29, 2007 08:43 PMShould we attack Iran? Not until (or unless) something happens that'll make us square with the idea of smashing that country flat and grinding it into the ground so hard the survivors will beg to surrender unconditionally. Don't like that idea?Then let's keep talking.Let's NOT flabble around with the idea that war is an extension of diplomacy.Diplomacy is reasoned discourse whose aim is peaceable compromise and everyone can get on with their lives.War is killing people and breaking things until the enemy surrenders or all his people are dead and all his things broken.
Posted by Jimminy on October 29, 2007 09:42 PMOne sided Diplomacy is a waste of time. Diplomacy has been used as a delaying tactic by countries like Germany in WW2, North Korea's acquiring nuclear weapons, Osama' escape from Tora Bora, and the list goes on and on.
Iran will go through the motions of diplomacy right up to the point they obtain their nuclear weapons.
Posted by on October 29, 2007 10:05 PM"Nobudy hear cars..."
I hear cars - I wish they had one of those sound walls by the interstate!
Posted by on October 29, 2007 10:05 PMNo nukes in Iran? Good idea.
American troops in Iran? Stupid idea.
Why not just buy the fools off? Much less expensive than war.
I talked to George W. Bush, and here's how he explained his justification for attacking Iran.
IRAN = IRAQ
It's quite simple to understand, really.
Posted by Tree Hugger on October 29, 2007 10:21 PMWhat a bunch of panty-soaked, cowardly lions over there on the "conservative" side of politics.
Posted by Charles B. on October 29, 2007 04:47 PM
Best post of this discussion. I am always amazed at how afraid conservatives are. Their laundry rooms must smell like the zoo.
And the only solution to their fear is more violence on a grander scale. They know perfectly well that invading Iran with three times the population of Iraq is impossible with the current force levels but do you hear them calling for a draft? Nope. Their solution is to engage in terrorism on a grander scale and use weapons of mass destruction in a premeditated manner. Never mind that it will put a bullseye on every soldier in Shiite controlled Iraq. It is the cowards way to propose terrorist violence to deal with our political problems.
How about getting Israel to give up their nukes so that Iran doesn't feel compelled to get in an arms race? How about a solution to the question of Palestinian statehood? How about some diplomacy for a change? Nope the only solution the panty-soaked cowards can come up with is more violence with weapons of mass destruction believing that if they just kill enough people then there will be peace. In addition to panty-soaked, I would say that our local cowards are just as goofy as Ahmadinejad.
Posted by Wes on October 30, 2007 05:43 AMJimminy: "Should we attack Iran? Not until (or unless) something happens that'll make us square with the idea of smashing that country flat and grinding it into the ground so hard the survivors will beg to surrender unconditionally."
Oh, you mean the way we did Iraq. Is there anybody you are not angry at, Jimminy? You need counseling.
Posted by Truth on October 30, 2007 06:47 AMI think the best thing we can do is just pretend Iran has no nuclear weapon ambitions.
All that talk about destroying Israel was just a joke anyway.
My grandfather once told me, ignore a problem and it will go away. And he lived to be nearly 50!
Posted by truthy on October 30, 2007 06:57 AMZOGBY: BOMBS AWAY!
"A majority of likely voters - 52 percent - would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53 percent believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows."
----------
As congress enjoys record-low 11% approval, America is looking away from Pelosi and Reid's feckless leadership on important matters! It took America just 10 short months and we have already had it with the Dem's failed leadership.
Truth,Iraq was a love-tap. Light force lightly applied.That would probably work on the likes of you,but I do think Iran deserves more respect than that.
Poor Jimminy is all upset because we didn't kill everybody in Iraq. Boy, I'd hate to be this guy's dog.
Posted by Truth on October 30, 2007 10:51 AMWell,Truth,you would hate being my dog.Whose dog DO you like being?
Posted by Jimminy on October 30, 2007 11:32 AMApologies to dog owners.That should have read "Whose b*tch do you like being?"
Posted by Jimminy on October 30, 2007 11:53 AMWes, Didn't the Palestinians elect a Government. Hamas,a terrorist organization?
And we owe them what?And we should protect them from Israel .when they keep hurling bombs at Israel?
Let's get Jimmy Carter to start a peanut exchange. He gives Iran Peanuts and Iran gives us their nukes.
Posted by on October 30, 2007 12:23 PMAnd what would everyone's reaction be if we were told we COULDN'T have nuclear weapons? If the rest of the world said get rid of ours or they will attack us... since we are the only country to have used a nuclear device on another countyry, why do you think our leaders can be trusted but Iran or Iraq's cannot?
As for Congress's failings it is doisappoting that Congress is now held in as much contempt as Bush. The Republicans are corrupt. the Democrats are inept.
3rd Party anyone?
And what would everyone's reaction be if we were told we COULDN'T have nuclear weapons? If the rest of the world said get rid of ours or they will attack us... since we are the only country to have used a nuclear device on another countyry, why do you think our leaders can be trusted but Iran or Iraq's cannot?
As for Congress's failings it is disappointing that Congress is now held in as much contempt as Bush. The Republicans are corrupt. the Democrats are inept.
3rd Party anyone?
Paul Ronald,
For the simple reason the US and most other nations are intelligent enough to realize a nuclear attack on any nation in the world, would result in total destruction of the world as we know it.
The fanatics in Iran have no such concerns. Hell they would probably welcome it so all of them could have their 72 virgins.
You need to vote for Ron Paul so your vote will be meaningless.
Posted by jgd777 on October 30, 2007 01:25 PMjgd777,
Reading the comments here by most conservatives and Rightwingers, I find a real flaw in your comment "the US and most other nations are intelligent enough to realize a nuclear attack on any nation in the world, would result in total destruction of the world as we know it."... Considering who we have in the White House, I think you are stretching the idea of the US being 'intelligent enough not to stage a nuclear attack'.
Altho a nuclear attack destroying both political parties could be a real ples for America
Paul Ronald,
"Considering who we have in the White House, I think you are stretching the idea of the US being 'intelligent enough not to stage a nuclear attack'."
Is this how all Libertarians think? If so, you will never be taken seriously.
Egypt wants to build a nuclear power generator too, just like Iran does, but didn't Egypt already attack Israel once?
Why are we not talking about bombing Egypt?
Oh, wait, they don't have much oil, do they.
Oh well, can't have everything now can we?
I'll be voting for Dennis Kucinich myself
Posted by Paul Ronald on October 30, 2007 03:23 PM3:04
I really marvel at the extent people will go, so they will not have to confront Iran and their nuclear weapon program.
Egypt did attack Israel, but have since, recognized Israel's right to exist and has established diplomatic relations with them. Most importantly Egypt will be wiling to open up their program to the nuclear inspectors. They are also not supplying weapons to the terrorist in Iraq which are killing American soldiers. So you see there are a few differences between Egypt and Iran. Of course you will never accept this, because you feel an Iran with a nuclear weapon is no serious problem. Or do you just hate Bush that much?
Posted by jgd777 on October 30, 2007 03:41 PMPaul,
"I'll be voting for Dennis Kucinich myself"
Even better!!
Posted by jgd777 on October 30, 2007 03:44 PMjgd777
"Egypt did attack Israel, but have since, recognized Israel's right to exist and has established diplomatic relations with them."
And who led them in their effort to reconcile with Israel?
jgd777 you simply don't know anything about Iran. I would suggest you educate yourself before you start labeling whole populations as "not intelligent enough to..." You're obviously not a very good judge of who is an intelligent person, since it takes one to know one...
Posted by Charles B. on October 30, 2007 04:24 PMCharles B
Israel kicking Egypt's ass is what led Egypt to reconcile.
I do apologize for calling Ajad and his ilk unintelligent, they are smart enough to know that if the Dems win the White House and Congress in "08", then their nuclear weapon program can move forward at full force.
I believe John McClain said it best, "The only thing worse than attacking Iran, is Iran with a nuclear bomb.
Posted by jgd777 on October 30, 2007 04:44 PMjgd777
Are you saying that might makes right?
If that is the case then every third world country must seek nuclear weapons, don't you think?
observer,
I am saying that for over sixty years a few countries have had nuclear weapons and for those sixty years no one has been stupid enough to use them. The reason for that is every one of those countries understand that any nuclear weapons that are used would destroy this world as we know it.
If you are stupid enough to give everyone a nuclear weapon than go ahead, the more countries that have them the better the chance of world destruction. The more radical the country, the better chance something will happen and you can't get far more radical than Iran.
Maybe we can get with Russia and just divide all of the nuclear weapons up and give every country their own arsenal. Then we can just sit back and kiss our asses good by.
There is a reason for the world to back nuclear nonproliferation, because they understand a rouge nation with a nuclear weapon would be the world's demise. Something you obvious don't understand.
Posted by jgd777 on October 30, 2007 06:27 PMjgd777
Normally, I don't get offended by rubes like you, but not only is your english terrible, but you obviously didn't understand my point. Actually the USA was "dumb" enough to use nuclear weapons, thereby killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians.
The nuclear non-proliferation treaty requires the armed nations to eliminate their weapons as an incentive for other countries to sign on to the treaty in the first place. Since everyone (including unstable Pakistan) still has them,I see no reason for any other nation to aquiesce to the treaty if it only means buying into American and Israeli (the Orwellian Animal Farm) notions of "freedom". Iran is no more unstable than anyone else. If it was that frightening then the Arab nations would be just as vocal as Israel in condemning it.
observer,
If I indeed offend you, that is too damn bad.
You are absolutely correct, we should have invaded Japan and lost over a million allied troops. How many innocennt Japanese civilians do you think would have been killed in that invasion?
I think we should just pass out nuclear weapons for Halloween this year, that way everyone will be happy. Trick or Treat!!!
Posted by jgd777 on October 30, 2007 08:43 PMHey,this guy's good! I can't remember the last time I heard(saw in print,actually) someone called a "rube". Would that Observer's critical thinking skills matched his ability at written expression.If that were so,he'd have remembered that during a formal state of war there are no innocent civilians.That civilians are spared is a courtesy extended by the combatant powers,revocable when strategic needs dictate.In point of fact,more Japanese civilians died during the incendiary bombing campaign than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Fast forward to today- as of this moment the Iranian government has issued no retraction of nor apology for Mahmoud Ahmadinejan's statements of intent to obtain/develop nuclear weapons and destroy Israel and the USA. Prudence dictates we take those threats seriously.
I'm going to infer that Observer feels somewhat more secure than many of us and does not believe that the Iranians mean what they have repeatedly said.
I think our leadership would be well advised to take a more(dare I say it?) conservative view of the situation,and take the Iranian government at its word.Almost incidentally,that shows respect for a potential adversary's capabilities-something Islamics value and which costs us nothing.
kucinich is another idiot like carter.
Posted by Keith on October 30, 2007 09:47 PMWes, Didn't the Palestinians elect a Government. Hamas,a terrorist organization?
And we owe them what?And we should protect them from Israel .when they keep hurling bombs at Israel?
Posted by on October 30, 2007 12:13 PM
So what now Democracy on the March isn't the answer? First you say give people the freedom to vote and then you complain that they didn't vote American. Perhaps you didn't notice that the election was between a group that set up bread lines and health clinics (Hamas) and a group that was riddled with corruption (PLO). The goal was suppose to be that bringing factions into the political process would create a more positive situation. There was also the issue of the the US and Israel refusing to help the Abbas government prior to the election.
If you point anonymous is that we shouldn't help the Palestinians because they didn't vote American then you don't grasp the concept of injustice. An injustice is an injustice regardless how people react to that act. Our local Zionists want the world to focus on the evil Palestinians while the Israeli squatters steal Arab land and kill the kids if the Arabs get uppity over their treatment. The corollary to your point is why should Americans care about what happens to Israel if it is committed to Apartheid policies of occupation and refuse to comply with UN Security Council resolutions like 242? Why should one American die defending a belligerent nation engaged in ethnic cleansing and cultural genocide?
Posted by Wes on October 30, 2007 10:02 PMjimminy
"during a formal state of war there are no innocent civilians"
I assume you are therefore justifying the attacks on Israeli civilians (that the US and Israel call terrorism) because a state of war continues for the Palestinian government (now Hamas). Come on, you can't have it both ways based on your value system. By the way, I do feel more secure than you do because I understand the use of hyperbole in the Middle East. If you remember, it was used extensively in Iraq before the Bush invasion (they were going to wipe America off the map). Noone in the Arab world took them seriously. Semites just talk like that. Wiping Israel off the map is a way of saying "finding justice for the indigenous Palestinians by having an integrated state", not a two state solution. Remember, just because they are Arabs, it does not mean they don't have rights. If a two state solution is the answer, then Israel should compensate the original Palestinian families (meaning the US should,of course). Iran's threats will go away once the Palestinians experience justice. (so does "terrorism" by the way)
Keith is another idiot like An American.
I think we should play it safe and just attack every country in the world that doesnt like us and show em that nobody messes with us. I would like all my fellow rightwingers to meet me at the recruiters office to enlist in these future noble wars. Bring it on baby....
Posted by BaaaaBaaaaa Bush on October 31, 2007 07:23 AMAny non Christian nation with oil is now our enemy. They need to just give us all that oil or suffer the consequences!!!!!!
Posted by Penis Cheney ( dick sounds so vulgar) on October 31, 2007 07:26 AMAny non Christian nation with oil is now our enemy. They need to just give us all that oil or suffer the consequences!!!!!!
Posted by Penis Cheney ( dick sounds so vulgar) on October 31, 2007 07:26 AMAny non Christian nation with oil is now our enemy. They need to just give us all that oil or suffer the consequences!!!!!!
Posted by Penis Cheney ( dick sounds so vulgar) on October 31, 2007 07:26 AMobserver,
I had no idea that you had this wonderful gift of being able to read minds. I would have never guessed that "wiping Israel off the map" really meant " we just want justice". Could you tell me what Ajad's statement that Iran has no gays in the country really means?
How would you suggest Israel compensate the Palestinians? So far all I have heard is to give all of the land back to the Palestinians. Not going to happen. The Jews could live with the Arabs, but there is no way the Arabs could live with the Jews. Here is a unique idea why don't the Arab nations give all of the land and property stolen from the Jews to the Palestinians. Sounds fair to me!
This conflict has nothing to do with justice for the Palestinians, it has to do with land. Israel took a barren desert and developed it into a prosperous country. The Palestinian have had numerous opportunities to form their own country, Instead of working on doing exactly that they choose to continue this poor me attitude.
When you talk about innocent civilians why does the UN only condemn Israel and not Hamas? The only human rights violations being condemned by the UN is against Israel. Sounds like a double standard to me.
Israel is here to stay, the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world better get use to that fact. This war will end when the Palestinians and the Arab world love their children more than they hate Israel.
Posted by jgd777 on October 31, 2007 09:14 AMWasn't this blog about attacking Iran?
Posted by on October 31, 2007 09:19 AMjdg777
You really are a rube! I sometimes wish that you attackers weren't so linear in your thought processes. That kind of pedestrianism leads to many suprise and costly invasions of weaker countries every time they posture.
First of all, there is a myth (also espoused by this Cindy person) that the land occupied by the British and the Turks before them was totally barren, just waiting for the European Jews to inhabit. I have news for you, there were a huge number of Palestinians that owned property and land in what is now modern day Israel. So,yes, they should be properly compensated by Israel (money, education, land in the Negev to make up for the settlements (by the way did you know that half of the settlement inhabitants come from the US and are just as fundamentalist as that guy Ahmadinijad). I don't "read minds", I evaluate public expressions and know the importance of face saving gestures in the Middle East (including the Persians of Iran).
Excellent question about justifying Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians,Observer. I think the prime consideration is not whether I consider the attacks justified but whether the Palestinians do.As you note,the Palestinians DO consider themselves at war,probably in their view a war for cultural/national survival, and it does seem that any available tactic that works will be used.Certainly the Palestinians have used kamikaze tactics over and over on Israeli civilians.To me,that shows the ultimate fanatic committment to their cause.
In that connection,I should think that if Israel were prosecuting their end of the conflict with the all-out committment that the Palestinians have shown,the entire question would be moot.That the question is not moot may be due to Israeli reluctance to exterminate an entire people.JMHO,but I do think that sort of forbearance is well justified.May it continue thusly.
observer,
The reason they were "European" Jews is because their ancestors were driven from their homelands by the Arabs. Where is their compensation?
The Israelis have attempted to negotiate with the Palestinians for years and have never found a negotiating partner that didn't insist the only thing acceptable to them is for all of Israel to die. Ajad is saying the same thing.
Israel has this one little piece of land while the Arab world has huge amounts of land that sits by idly. Like I said before this has little or nothing to do with the land, it has to do with driving the Israelis into the sea. The Arab world has tried it before and got their asses kicked, and now they are trying to use people like you to drive Israel into the sea.
The Persians drove the Jews out of Persia and then the European drove them out of Europe. They have no other place to go or call home. When you back anyone into a corner and then try to take that corner away from them, it will get ugly.
Israelis understand that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, their country will have a big bulleyes painted on it. Do not expect the Israelis to sit back and wait for the fanatics in Iran to blow them off the map.
Either the US or the UN better stop Iran's nuclear weapons program or the middle east is going to get real ugly.
Posted by jgd777 on October 31, 2007 10:19 AMI'm not quite sure that compensation for the Palestinians would instantly restore peace in the Middle East,although that sort of compensation would be a win-win situation for all concerned. It'd probably be viewed as somewhat analogous to Presidents Buchanan and Lincoln proposing compensation for slaveowners as a condition of outlawing slavery.
I do think that the point about hyperbole is well taken,but again,when we are talking about the strong possibility of a nuclear war,it might be wise for the Islamic cultures to make themselves aware that we in the West have a cultural assumption that when an Islamic government says they intend to commit genocide,we will believe that statement,as we believed Saddam Hussein's bluff several years ago.He bet his life we wouldn't believe him.He lost.
9:19-This blog IS about attacking Iran.So far we haven't.What I've been saying is that we shouldn't ,and our leadership's actions seem to indicate they too are so persuaded. If the situation continues as it is,that's OK by me.If there's another 9/11,I'm sure millions of Americans would bid for the privilege of pressing the button.
jgd777:
Do you think Iran is more fanatical than say, North Korea? Pakistan?
Just asking...
I would suggest you talk a whole lot less and read a whole lot more. You seem to jump to simplistic conclusions too easily. These issues are more complicated and nuanced than you comprehend. I imagine that's why you're a fan of Bush's foreign policy. How has that helped our standing in the world by the way?
Posted by Charles B. on October 31, 2007 12:51 PMCharles B.
I personally think Iran is far more fanatical than Pakistan and slightly more than North Korea. Pakistan has only one real enemy, India, and Pakistan knows India will wipe them out if they ever used any nuclear weapon. North Korea developed their arsenal for resale, as long as we can keep their weapons in North Korea there are no real concerns. Syria found out a while back what happens when you buy from North
Korea.
Iran, at least the current leaders, would detonate a nuclear bomb just for the hell of it. They have opening stated they feel they could survive a nuclear retaliation. Attacking Israel would be the first thing on their plate if and when the ability to produce a nuclear weapon has been obtained.
Instead of leading a country most of the Iranian leadership should be hospitalized for the criminally insane. Not the general population but definitely the leadership
Posted by jgd777 on October 31, 2007 02:45 PMCharles B.
"These issues are more complicated and nuanced than you comprehend."
This statement has come to mean, we don't want to really do anything about this issue, so we will just keep talking about it and hope it will go away. News Flash! This is not going to just go away, either Iran is confront soon, or you should prepare for a nuclear war.
Posted by jgd777 on October 31, 2007 03:01 PMjgd777: I suggest our current leader join them. Bush is either insane or simply the most stupid man on the face of the earth...probably a combination of both. He is a man who is hellbent on destruction of the United States. He has no negotiation or diplomatic skills and lashes out at every country in the world that he feels 'could' be an enemy. His actions turn the 'could be's into real enemies.
It's time for some 'executive action'.
I do realize that Jimmy Carter's hand-wringing is the preferred presidential modus operandi for many of those grew up long after the likes of Winston Churchill and Dwight D. Eisenhower(on his good days) passed into history-verging-upon-myth.
A question comes to mind,though: If it's desirable for us to place cultural legitimacy upon the rants of numerous Islamic leaders and say"well,that's just the way they talk",why are so many of us enraged at the much more muted(but otherwise similar) rhetoric that now and again comes from Washington? And what's with the"executive action" quote? Is someone advocating assassinating the President of the United States?
You would think after the right wingnuts made such a HORRIBLE mistake in regards to Iraq that they would have learned their lesson and become educated about the threats (or lack thereof) that face our nation from abroad.
Unfortunately, ignorance is one of their more consistent characteristics.
Posted by jay on October 31, 2007 04:40 PMjgd777 and Jimmney,
First of all, I want to say that you sound more reasonable and a lot less fanatical in your support of Israel.
I do think you have your history mixed up when you say that there were so many European Jews because they were kicked out of their ancestral homeland (the old cliche) by the Arabs. Jews and Arabs always lived in perfect harmony (as opposed to the Inquisitions of Europe) until Israel was formed in 1948. They intermarried in my circle as a matter of fact. The only bad guys were the European Christians who tended to imperialize everywhere. After Israel was formed, probably as a result of guilt by the US and Britain for having done nothing while Germany was carrying out the holocaust (and to claim to not know is sort of lame, I think), all hell broke loose. I think the Arabs felt that making a homeland for Europeans in the Arab Middle East was just another example of western imperialism, and that is where we stand today. Every Arab country and Iran assert their relative dominance in the Middle East by sounding the strongest in their opposition to Israel. Noone really thinks they can come close to winning an actual war (since the US is always involved), but the rhetoric is for one another anyway.
Justification? We dont need no stinking justification.
We attack because I say so!!!!!!!