Discussion in 'World Events' started by te jen, Sep 21, 2004.

  1. dixonmassey Valued Senior Member

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. te jen Registered Senior Member

    You're absolutely right. Thinking is not W's strong suit.

    The problem is that we keep coming at American foreign policy from the point of view of reasonable people who believe that peaceful coexistence and cooperation is the most desirable state of affairs. The rulers of the United States believe that domination is the way to go - their golden rule is 'do unto others what others would do unto you if they had the chance, and you damn well better do it first". BushCo is looking at the big picture - foreign policy as Risk game - and so going after Iran is not foolish but rather the next logical step. When you have put all your chips on the table, you aren't going to take your winnings and go home after just one spin of the roulette wheel. If the odds of success are long, the payoff in conquest and profit are staggering.

    What I see in the United States is a population that is bewildered and frightened. They have lost all of their old moorings and are ready to lash out at anything. And no, it didn't start on 9-11; in my mind it began in 1963 with Kennedy's death and the slide into the counterculture of the later 1960s. Forty years on, we can discuss with some detachment the wholesale scrapping of everything the United States once stood for, and a concomitant rise of a Christian fundamentalism that hasn't been seen on this continent since Salem.

    You watch - Bush wins this election, and Iran is next (before the inauguration), followed by Syria (I wonder why Syria is pulling all of its troops out of Lebanon?) and Saudi if/when the royals fall. The neo-cons can't stop now and they can't back down. They've committed us now and even if Kerry wins there's no going back.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. dixonmassey Valued Senior Member

    Christian fundamentalists are not some kind of monolithic entity. Christian fundamentalists are as diverse as any social group out there.

    Some fundies are willing to lick Israel's asshole clean
    Some fundies see foreign policy (and Israel - American relationships in particular) in much more pragmatic/sane light

    Some fundies say that Bible teaches to put Israel (as state) first, help Israel no matter what...
    Some fundies think that Bible does not mean/mention "Israel" as a state.

    Some fundies worship GW
    Some cannot stand him

    Some fundies are eager to preemptively nuke everybody in the world, build "democracy" everywhere......
    Large chunk of fundies are isolationists scared of "world government" more than all terrorists combined

    I could continue the list; but the point is that fundies are different; some are scary, some are relatively reasonable.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Norman Atta Boy Registered Senior Member

    I can't resist to comment on the "intelligence" of the so-called "Peace President" Bush.......For a so-called intelligent president, Bush doesn't seem to be displaying much intelligence when it comes to making war/peace policies in Iraq. In terms of "intelligence"? Bush probably rates at the bottom of the "Intelligent Presidents" list. It's not a question of "if" he attack Iran, if re-elected it's a question "when" he attacks Iran........Iran has made it "no secret" that they're processing uranium now. Certainly it (the uranium) will go into their nuclear weopons program! When Bush attacks Iran, America will most definetly have bit off more than it can chew this time. The war in Iraq will most certainly get worst, thousands more (including american solders) will die over the next year and if re-elected, Bush "will not hesitate" to attack Iran, no matter what the cost (in american lives or money) is to America. Wait & see!

    Yob Atta

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  8. te jen Registered Senior Member

    I'll concede that point. However, by definition a fundamentalist is not someone who subscribes to reason and rationality in their daily lives. Why a fundamentalist of any persuasion finds it necessary to give the entire Age of Enlightenment a miss and hang onto medieval dogma is the revealing question. What is it about modern life that makes a person want to retreat into a worldview that rejects the social changes of the last thousand years?

    In my opinion, the new appeal of fundamentalism is a product of the accelerating change of the last, oh, fifty years. A significant proportion of the people (way more than those identifying themselves as fundamentalist, by the way) feel adrift from the moorings that secured them and their ancestors. Most of the stories people told themselves about life have been other heavily modified or thrown out - what it means to be male and female, how children are supposed to live, the nature of humanity (as in the debate over when a fetus attains personhood, for example), weird and barely comprehensible medical advances, climate change, etc, etc, etc. Some of us revel in change, and enjoy new intellectual challenges. Most prefer to keep things the same, need to keep them the same for their own sanity.

    This is where George W. Bush comes in. He represents exactly that kind of certainty in the face of chaos that many people find appealing but that some of us find irritating or downright scary. He may win this election because people would rather tell themselves the traditional story of good vs. evil, manifest destiny, white man's burden, rugged individualism and all the rest of it, rather than focus on a whole series of very complicated and highly unpleasant realities.

    Back to Iran. With Saddam in a cell and Iraq no longer a threat to anybody except the soldiers who happen to be there, we need a bogeyman. Iran will do, and you can be sure that there will be no sober discussion of the real issues - just a pointing finger and a hysterical shout of "Them evildoers are gonna make nuke-you-lur weapons!!!!!". What can you say to that?

    Pointing out the Bush's illogic is pointless. He's going to do whatever fits his simplistic worldview, and that's that. For those who insist that Cheney is the one who has his hand up the dummy's back - all I can say is that he's also a fundamentalist - though one of political and economic ideology rather than religious ideology. It's the common theme. Kerry's "flip-flopping" and Clinton's "waffling" on issues is to me a natural result of difficult decision making in the face of a continuing stream of new information. One-dimensional decisionmaking is simply irrational.
  9. s0meguy Worship me or suffer eternally Valued Senior Member

    You truly think you can do better?? Then why don't you become the president and do it better than him!! You're just some average that's affected by other peoples opinions. Yeah right. You can do better than the president and his advisors. They're dumb and stupid. That counts for most of you people on this forum that always think they know better than Bush. Always remember that they know 1000 times more of the situation than you will ever do.

    I laugh at you. If he calls himself that then he is doing that to overcome the minds of millions of "intelligent" Americans.
  10. te jen Registered Senior Member

    I don't know Bush personally, so I can't comment on his intelligence level. All I can do is look at his policies and his actions and ask the question "Is this being done for the good of the American people?". Doesn't seem like it. Maybe for the good of a tiny percentage of the American people.

    I also wouldn't presume to have all the answers.

    Then they have 1000 times the responsibility and 1000 times the shame when they fail to do what's right.

    Please explain this to me more fully.
  11. gentle Registered Senior Member

    fighting back

    Before 911, 28 out of thirty conflicts in the world were directly involving militant extreme Islam. The world was in a world war and millions were getting killed and the press and the civilized world ignored it. We finally woke up to it only after 911.
    For those not paying attention, in 1968 Robert Kennedy, who was a shoe in the be the next president was assinated by Sirhan Sirhan a militant Muslum who was sent to kill him and succedded. We just caught on, well a few of us anyhow....
    Finally we fight back and attenpt to slowly change the middle east by attempting to show democracy and eventually improvement of life, it is hard and takes sacrifice. If we don't stand up and do something the wars will effect us more and for centuries. We are attempting to change the tides of slavery to a militant form of a religion for millions of innocent people that most people in the civilized world have turned a blind eye to including the previous posts.
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2004
  12. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    what a load of horse shit

    who killed JFK?
    wasnt it an american??????????????????????

    does that mean you should wage war ON YOUR SELVES??????????????????????
  13. gentle Registered Senior Member

    rfk not jfk- are you ignorant.
  14. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    i know who i ment

    who killed robbert kennerdy has as much impact now as who killed JFK

    apsolutly none
  15. Truenemo1889 Registered Senior Member

    Iran Will Not Be Invaded By The US!!!

    I dont think think congress is crazy enought to let any president get away with a declaration of war on Iran. The consequences would probably be too great
  16. Neildo Gone Registered Senior Member

    I doubt we'd get the help of Pakistan considering 50% of the population are radical Muslims. Their government would probably collapse and considering they're also a nuclear power, that's some scary shit. Sooner or later, with us going after this "Axis of Evil" -- basically most of the Middle East -- they're gonna join in the fray, but no longer on our side. Right now they're just doing what little they have to do to remain on good terms with us. Kinda funny since they were a theat to us before yet no longer are. And who knows, that may be when India starts screwing with them too. WW3!

    - N
  17. SKULLZ Banned Banned


    I bet you £5 iran will get invaded by the US,
    i have a paypal account so i can request money and send money,get yourself a paypal account and you can put your money where your mouth is,actually i can request and send money through paypal without you even having an account.As long as i know your email address.

    So what do you say?
    thats the equilivent of 11 canadian or 10usd
  18. Preacher_X Registered Senior Member

    like me perhaps???

    only joking

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  19. Truenemo1889 Registered Senior Member

    hmmm ....maybe. But what i ment to say was that the US government must be pretty insane if they try to take Iran by force.
  20. Insanely Elite Questions reality. Registered Senior Member

    IF Bush is elected, then events may well escalate with Iran.

    But it is obvious that Iran is no Iraq.
    US would have to institute the draft(Earliest implimentation is spring 2005). We need approximately 500,000 troops (not reservists) just to enter that theater. Not to mention the barefaced exposure of US anti-muslim policy.
    An Opec embargo, or separate peace with Opec nations and China/Russia would stop US cold and end US supremacy in short order.
    The explosiveness of an Iranian war is too complex to wrap your head around. US has been able to hold the facade of Iraq legitimacy, but this is short term, even in the administration the cracks are oozing heretical Bush doctrine.
    Iran war at the least will destroy the US supremacy. Likely will transform the globe.
    I had thought that Syria was the next target. But there are so many changes in policy, it is hard to keep up.

    It would be well for us Americans to remember also that we are not the only ones who can throw our weight around. China downed a US plane and US did nothing but appologize. Taiwan could well rebecome Formosa. Putin's Russia is hardly a bastion of democratic stability.(Despite Bushes shoulder-to-shoulder speech) I remember the day after the axis of evil speech the ambassador of North Korea saying that the US is not the only one who can declare war.
    The US of A does not operate in a vacuum. Just because private treaties were banned iirc after WWI does not mean that it is so. How many of the world powers have interest in Iran? France and Russia for sure,how many others? North Korea may well view an Iran war as just cause for a first strike. Do we know what agreements Iran has with whom? What about North Korea? The Hawks are seriously toying with the globe.
  21. Preacher_X Registered Senior Member

    hile impossible to confirm, there is a high probability that the leadership in Tehran is attempting to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. By achieving a nuclear weapons capability, Iran would be better insulated from foreign threats and would help to stabilize its regional power. While a nuclear-armed Iran would assist in securing Iranian interests, it would be a dangerous development for the interests of the United States and Israel.

    Because Washington lacks a viable military strategy in dealing with Tehran, it is essential that it continues to garner the support of the European countries of France, Germany and the United Kingdom in order to adequately threaten Tehran with United Nations repercussions; the present U.S. strategy is to threaten Iran with international economic sanctions unless Tehran dismantles its enrichment-related programs.

    Iran has many valid justifications for developing a nuclear weapons capability. This status would protect Iran from the United States which has labeled Iran an "evil" state subject to "regime change"; it would also remove the geopolitical growth restraints that Israel has placed on the countries of the Middle East.

    Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons would weaken U.S. hopes for external regime change in Tehran, thus protecting the regime, and would also give Iran the opportunity to expand its influence in the Middle East and Central Asia without certain fear of U.S. or Israeli reprisals.

    Yet, while a nuclear weapons capability favors Iran's state interests, the opposite is true for U.S. and Israeli state interests. A nuclear-armed Iran would prevent the U.S. from executing a forceful change of government in Tehran, since if faced with regime termination, the Iranian leadership could possibly exercise its nuclear weapons option in a last ditch effort for regime survival. This uncertainty would guarantee a more prudent U.S. response to Iranian policy actions.

    For Israel, which has, with the support of the United States, managed to keep the Middle Eastern states weak and disunited, a nuclear-armed Iran would hurt its ability to respond militarily to Iran's support of destabilizing forces that affect Israel, or to those actions that increase Iran's regional strength.

  22. Undecided Banned Banned

  23. lostminotaur Registered Senior Member

    what about economic costs of this so called hypothetical war with iran? how deep do the pockets run? haven't they spent enough money in the iraqi war?

Share This Page