View Full Version : The End Game: War with Iran
Business_Casual
08-09-15, 06:52
I propose that the administration's goal is war with Iran.
Here is why:
During the Facebook Revolution, we stood by and did nothing, because removing the hardliners would not allow us to start a war with Iran.
Despite decades of sanctions turning their economy into ruins, we propose a deal that lifts the sanctions, giving the hardliners a new lease on life.
The deal proposed has to be voted on by a Republican congress, that we can assume will not approve. Leaving only the dear leader's favorite alternative: war.
The path to war is clear.
Agree or disagree?
Eurodriver
08-09-15, 07:44
I can't tell if you're serious. This is about as ridiculous as anything I've ever read anywhere.
I'll refrain from giving serious consideration until I know you're not pulling our legs.
Voodoochild
08-09-15, 07:57
I doubt Obama is going to war with Iran. He is too busy running out the clock and playing golf. If we had wanted change in Iran we are going about it the wrong way. If we would have kept the sanctions in place and started to really hammer them with a way to allow free Internet that would have gotten the ball rolling.
As it was the sanctions alone hurt them badly and if we had kept the pressure up there was a good likely hood of an internal change of authority (coup). But that is all gone now and the hardliners are free and in the clear. They won and we along with our allies (Israel) and to a lesser extent Saudis lost.
Think of it like the cold war except instead of Russia it was Iran. If we didn't have such giant limp wristed skirts in DC we might actually be able to a complies great things.
Eurodriver
08-09-15, 09:17
I doubt Obama is going to war with Iran. He is too busy running out the clock and playing golf.
Exactly. How could anyone think Obama wants war? Our dear leaders favorite alternative is war? Since when, OP? Sure he loves bombing American citizens with drones and fighting off former U.S. Allies in Syria, but he's no George W. Bush.
You know, the dear leader we had that got us into two actual wars.
I think for sure he has war on his mind but for the next one in office maybe ! so setting things up to become so bad we have very few options for the next leader in case its a republican so they can come back for the final kill and show how bad republicans are he kept us out they got us in
also I think he does want Israel gone
his idea of war is not to hurt the other side though IMHO his idea of war is to hurt OUR country and weaken it more and more
pretty easy game you play to loose by enough its a loss but trying to look like you are winning basically he is throwing the fight
Business_Casual
08-09-15, 10:37
I think for sure he has war on his mind but for the next one in office maybe ! so setting things up to become so bad we have very few options for the next leader in case its a republican so they can come back for the final kill and show how bad republicans are he kept us out they got us in
Yep, pretty much it in a nutshell.
Business_Casual
08-09-15, 10:55
I can't tell if you're serious. This is about as ridiculous as anything I've ever read anywhere.
I'll refrain from giving serious consideration until I know you're not pulling our legs.
LOL. OK
Averageman
08-09-15, 10:58
It is going to an illogical extreme to assume these clowns have a foreign policy that can see more than two moves ahead of the other guy.
It isn't Machiavellian planning at hand, it is just sheer incompetence.
SomeOtherGuy
08-09-15, 11:02
Israel wants war with Iran, because they want to be the one and only, unchallenged power in the middle east. (To be precise, the current ruling government in Israel wants war with Iran - many ordinary Israelis don't.)
Many US politicians are happy to do whatever Israel wants, for a variety of bad reasons.
Obama doesn't want war with Iran, or much of anything to do with them. He has agendas greater than golf, but the current mideast "Great Game" isn't high on his personal list. And it's lower still because the UK is a player on our side and he despises the UK.
We might blunder into a war with Iran, but it won't be because Obama wants it - it would be because Israel wants it and many US politicians put Israeli interests ahead of US interests.
Eurodriver
08-09-15, 11:35
Business Casual, what war has Obama gotten us into since he came into office? We've left Iraq and Afghanistan. (Save for some SF folks. One of whom was killed yesterday, RIP) We're not putting a quarter million men in Iraq to deal with ISIS, just a few bombing sorties every week. Same for Libya and Pakistan and Yemen.
I'd just like to know where you get off saying:
only the dear leader's favorite alternative: war.
Maybe you know things that I don't?
We might blunder into a war with Iran, but it won't be because Obama wants it - it would be because Israel wants it and many US politicians put Israeli interests ahead of US interests.
I've yet to figure out why this is so. While we do many, many things for Israel...what do they do for us? I don't mean militarily. I know that can be quite impractical (think 1991 Gulf War) but why are we so quick to get on our knees and put Israel in our mouths?
Averageman
08-09-15, 11:43
I've yet to figure out why this is so. While we do many, many things for Israel...what do they do for us? I don't mean militarily. I know that can be quite impractical (think 1991 Gulf War) but why are we so quick to get on our knees and put Israel in our mouths?
I've heard a lot of fairly religious people use the Bible to explain it
Right after WWII, I have no doubt that there was a bit of guilt by us for not helping more during WWII with strategic bombing to take out the support for the Death Camps.
I would say the pol's might have used it at one time to garner votes from the Jewish voters here in the US.
During the Cold War I feel it was used to counter the Soviet support of various Arab Nations.
I do think much of the above is a bunch of hooey for the most part and although I wouldn't throw them away, I would sit down and rethink our support and negotiate a bit better with them. Blind support for those who do not act in our best interest at times is foolish.
Veto of override. Deal goes forward. Rabid hawks find something else to fearmonger about.
The sanctions were gone in any case. Our actual allies, ie., not Egypt, Saudi, and Israel, are done with the brinksmanship.
The best chance for war just went out the window. Complex deals that keep both parties engaged are the opposite of that, you know. The endgame here is ten years of GOP bitching about how Iran isn't cooperating, no violations that would justify the re-imposition of sanctions and no development of an Iranian weapon.
Wow, I can't believe how many here are anti-Israel.
Is anyone here pro-Israel, besides me?
he's no George W. Bush.
You know, the dear leader we had that got us into two actual wars.
Oh, eff me running. You mean the draft dodger, who along with his cabal of likeminded draft dodgers started something, with no end plan in sight, and then didn't have the guts to call on the Nation to do what it needed to do to actually win? You mean that guy?
Averageman
08-09-15, 13:10
Wow, I can't believe how many here are anti-Israel.
Is anyone here pro-Israel, besides me?
Negotiations in the best interests of our Nation does not make one anti Israel.
Wow, I can't believe how many here are anti-Israel.
Is anyone here pro-Israel, besides me?
I'm pro-Israel, just not much use for the Israeli Government.
As a Christian, understanding who Jesus is and what His life and death on the Cross meant, I have no reason to support Israel because of Old Testament interpretations.
I do support a Jewish state simply because the Jews have been hounded and persecuted everyplace they have settled. Not a big supporter of militant Zionism, though.
In terms of our post-war foreign policy, we pretty much chose an unstable Middle-East in order to curtail Soviet influence in the area.
My problem with Israel is that they continually fail to acknowledge, even in the smallest way, that they owe their continued existence to us. In every major conflict they've been in since 1954, America has been their supply train. When they were in danger of going Winchester during the Six-Day War, it was a non-stop sky train of C-141's, depleting our European war stocks, that kept them in business.
I don't expect them to suck our dicks, but I would like to see a little cooperation.
Go to the library like I did, check out both pro-Israel and anti-Israel histories of the Middle-East, read histories of United States foreign policy, make your mind up from that, not dogma.
JM .02
I often think the same thing
I think some are here to try to stir the pot and are just progressives just like the 9/11 hijackers going to strip clubs and stuff the left does seem to like to ACT like a conservative but then show another side ?
sadly the current young generation has fallen to the progressives teachings in schools also ?
so very few even here no any real history of our country and it often shows big time when they talk about things !
Wow, I can't believe how many here are anti-Israel.
Is anyone here pro-Israel, besides me?
26 Inf,
Here's what I posted: "Wow, I can't believe how many here are anti-Israel.
Is anyone here pro-Israel, besides me?"
Your reply:
"Go to the library like I did, check out both pro-Israel and anti-Israel histories of the Middle-East, read histories of United States foreign policy, make your mind up from that, not dogma."
You're a bit hasty with presumption that I posted what I posted because I'm under the sway of dogma.
I'm not.
My knowledge comes from almost 70 years of knowing Israel.
Yours comes from reading.
For reasons beyond me, other than some sort of liberal guilt/angst (even among liberal Jews) many progressives hate Israel.
I find it baffling that liberals prefer terrorists over Jews.
MountainRaven
08-09-15, 14:58
Endgame is this: UN lifts sanctions (IIRC, the UN has already voted to do so), GOP-controlled Congress refuses to sign off on the treaty, Russia, China, and Europe get to make bank working with Iran and we lose Iran as a potential regional ally for another thirty or forty years (French companies are already getting ready to set up shop in Iran - it's probable that Russia and China are doing likewise).
Chuck Schumer has come out against the Iran treaty and has said that he wouldn't have done so if he didn't believe that Obama had the votes to pass it.
So given this, the more likely endgame is that the US gains a useful regional ally to oppose ISIS and greatly reduce Russian and Chinese influence in the region - both important considerations in our strategic shift to the Pacific and the current Putinist Cold War. And, perhaps, by acting as war daddy to both Iran and Saudi, can bring stability to the middle eastern cold war between those two.
I've yet to figure out why this is so. While we do many, many things for Israel...what do they do for us? I don't mean militarily. I know that can be quite impractical (think 1991 Gulf War) but why are we so quick to get on our knees and put Israel in our mouths?
Kosher sausage is obviously delicious. And sex isn't gay when it's done by two straight men whose religions forbid homosexual relations.
I don't think of myself as being pro-Israel, but I do think of myself as being a zionist. I support Israel's right to exist and their existence as a secular, liberal democratic republic. I do not give them full, unquestioning, unwavering support in their every endeavor, particularly not when it comes to violating treaties and international law and responding to rocket attacks that hit open desert by blowing up a UN-chartered school filled with teachers and students.
26 Inf,
Here's what I posted: "Wow, I can't believe how many here are anti-Israel.
Is anyone here pro-Israel, besides me?"
Your reply:
"Go to the library like I did, check out both pro-Israel and anti-Israel histories of the Middle-East, read histories of United States foreign policy, make your mind up from that, not dogma."
You're a bit hasty with presumption that I posted what I posted because I'm under the sway of dogma.
I'm not.
My knowledge comes from almost 70 years of knowing Israel.
Yours comes from reading.
My observation is that most folks, not saying you, haven't really vetted their stances on a lot of issues, the issue of Israel being one of them.
I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box, but I am sharp enough to know that you ought to look at both sides of an issue. Research, AKA reading, is one way to do that. Although I do fully intend to visit Israel to walk where Jesus walked before I die, I haven't the inclination to move there.
There is a difference between hating Israel and not liking the things the very young Israeli government has done. I imagine their government is nearly as dysfunctional as ours.
And, on the other hand, after calling me out about dogma, you go on to label anyone who does not agree with your views as a progressive/liberal/supporter of terrorism.
In a nutshell, I support Israel's right to exist as a Nation, and the Nation I pledge allegiance to also supports that right.
Maybe after 70 years of knowing Israel as you have, it's time to try to take a look at Israel from other folks point of view. You'll still love Israel, but could maybe see ways to make the U.S. and Israel alliance more a two-way street.
Wow, I can't believe how many here are anti-Israel.
Is anyone here pro-Israel, besides me?
I'm neutral on Israel. For me, the interests of the United States and its citizens are paramount.
Can't think of a single reason Obama wants to go to war with Muslims.
Make them a nuclear power? Sure. Start a war, never.
If ISIS wasn't such a blatantly vicious terrorist group he'd probably be trying to support their new "arab state" as it struggles for freedom from the tyranny of Assad.
Veto of override. Deal goes forward. Rabid hawks find something else to fearmonger about.
The sanctions were gone in any case. Our actual allies, ie., not Egypt, Saudi, and Israel, are done with the brinksmanship.
The best chance for war just went out the window. Complex deals that keep both parties engaged are the opposite of that, you know. The endgame here is ten years of GOP bitching about how Iran isn't cooperating, no violations that would justify the re-imposition of sanctions and no development of an Iranian weapon.
Yep, all those complex negotiations with Nomura and Kurusu managed to save the day.
KalashniKEV
08-10-15, 09:39
The opposite.
Everything we have done in the region for the last TEN YEARS has been to increase the power of Iran.
Transnational Jihad is fueled by Wahabbist ideology. The terror threat we face as Americans comes from Saudi Arabia and the monarchies.
As for Israel, it's critical for their position that we not open dialogue with Iran, because doing so takes away their control of the narrative.
The balance of power is shifting. Only the national interest counts.
Eurodriver
08-10-15, 09:54
The opposite.
Everything we have done in the region for the last TEN YEARS has been to increase the power of Iran.
Transnational Jihad is fueled by Wahabbist ideology. The terror threat we face as Americans comes from Saudi Arabia and the monarchies.
As for Israel, it's critical for their position that we not open dialogue with Iran, because doing so takes away their control of the narrative.
The balance of power is shifting. Only the national interest counts.
Were you banned earlier? Lol welcome to the club!
I agree with your post entirely.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-10-15, 10:12
So are people saying that Israel needs an Iranian threat for some reason?
As to GW and the Middle East. He screwed up. Just not the way that some of you seem to think. He actually thought that freed from despots that the people there would run normal countries. Instead they entered into what makes the aftermath of the French Revolution look like a tea party. GW operated on a 20th century model of free people and they will operate in a civilized manner. It isn't his fault that they are either bat shit crazy or seem to accept bat shit crazy regimes. In that way, Obama is correct in letting them fix their own problems. Have your Thirty Years War, get the religious wars out of your system and we hope it doesn't cost you 1/4 of your population like it did in central Europe.
KalashniKEV
08-10-15, 10:27
As to GW and the Middle East. He screwed up. Just not the way that some of you seem to think. He actually thought that freed from despots that the people there would run normal countries.
LOLOLOLOL!!1!
Is that really what you think?
We "freed" the Iraqi people from the Secular, Pan-Arab Nationalism that was threatening to topple the House of Saud and their satellite regimes in 2003. This was because the Bush family is beholden to Saudi interests above the national interest.
It was, in fact, marginally effective... as 7 years later we had an "Arab Spring" instead of a trial and execution of the Head of State, everywhere, kind of spring.
Plus the GCC troops crushed the uprising early in the Gulf countries and they were able to keep it out of the mainstream press.
KalashniKEV
08-10-15, 10:37
So are people saying that Israel needs an Iranian threat for some reason?
Israel needs an external threat to justify their crimes.
Nobody is fooled- Netanyahu has his hand firmly on the stove in Palestine and simply turns up the heat whenever he needs a political victory.
In the aftermath of each little episode, you see a land grab, expansion of the settlements, more slaves for the SodaStream factory, etc...
It's boringly predicable kabuki theater.
Doc Safari
08-10-15, 11:00
Wow, I can't believe how many here are anti-Israel.
Is anyone here pro-Israel, besides me?
I am.
A person cannot be anti-Israel and a true Christian at the same time. This is not to say that everyone who calls himself a Jew or an Israeli is necessarily a virtuous person, either. People are people and Israel can have corrupt people just like any other country. To be against Israel's existence, though, is evidence of being against God's plan.
I believe Obama's purpose in life is to punish any nation he considers "colonial." That includes the US and Israel. The fact that he sent the bust of Winston Churchill back to England proves he is a raving bundle of hatred toward colonialist countries.
The deal with Iran is meant to diminish the power of Israel and the US, plain and simple.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-10-15, 12:07
We "freed" the Iraqi people from the Secular, Pan-Arab Nationalism that was threatening to topple the House of Saud and their satellite regimes in 2003. This was because the Bush family is beholden to Saudi interests above the national interest.
If George Bush threw a bucket of water on someone that was on fire, you'd scream about W trying to drown them.
Business_Casual
08-10-15, 13:38
Try to stick to the geopolitical strategy discussion, please. To wit, provide a rational explanation for our decisions.
Yep, all those complex negotiations with Nomura and Kurusu managed to save the day.
I've got nothing for that. Had forgotten how incredibly similar modern day Iran is to imperial Japan. My bad!
Let's try another comparison- one that makes a bit more sense.
Have we recently tried a major military intervention to prevent the spread of WMD's based on alarmism and threat inflation? How did that one turn out in cost, lives, advancement of U.S. interests and stability in the region?
I've got nothing for that. Had forgotten how incredibly similar modern day Iran is to imperial Japan. My bad!
Let's try another comparison- one that makes a bit more sense.
Have we recently tried a major military intervention to prevent the spread of WMD's based on alarmism and threat inflation? How did that one turn out in cost, lives, advancement of U.S. interests and stability in the region?
Let me help you with the really, really easy part.
With respect to Imperial Japan in 1940 and Iran today, neither country is actually negotiating in good faith and regardless of "friendship medals" or "nuclear treaties" both have ulterior motives that are not in our best interest.
I would have thought that point would be completely obvious, but you missed the easy ones last time around as well.
As for your last WMD comparison, relying on the UN to conduct successful inspections in Iran "per the deal", is exactly the same situation that resulted in problems with Iraq when Saddam proved to be less than forthcoming. For some reason you seem to expect greater cooperation and transparency from Iran when the time comes.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-11-15, 01:18
The only reason countries enter into arms control agreements is because they think they will be better off with them than without them. The Iranians knew that BHOs position was that he would not fight a war at any cost and didn't trust the Israelis to out source an attack. They negotiated like they had nothing to lose, because unless the pissed off BHO as much as the GOP does, they knew they were OK.
So Iran gets to work on their bomb on the margins waiting for the magical "North Korean" moment when they are untouchable and able to exert nuclear influence over the gulf region at a minimum. We got no war. Which is not the same thing as peace. All while the Sunnis will work on their own bomb and we end up with a nuke in the House of Saud which is a step closer to bat-crap crazy than Pakistan ever was.
History teaches us that the US will delude itself and punt when it comes to conflicts and cut and run when it comes to long wars. So our adversaries promise peace and do low-intensity/non-decisive wars. The 10 years in the aftermath of WWII is the only exception and it will take as large a hit for us to modify our strategy.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-11-15, 01:43
I've got nothing for that. Had forgotten how incredibly similar modern day Iran is to imperial Japan. My bad!
Let's try another comparison- one that makes a bit more sense.
Have we recently tried a major military intervention to prevent the spread of WMD's based on alarmism and threat inflation? How did that one turn out in cost, lives, advancement of U.S. interests and stability in the region?
You do realize that Iran is much further down the path than even we thought the Iraqis were? That is an objective fact.
Since even Kev states that Saddam was nothing more than a Pan-Arab nationalist, you have to agree that Iran is a much more ideologically driven and dangerous entity if given nuclear weapons?
So, while gas is cheap and plentiful, we'll wait 10 years until oil rises again, Iran is closer to or has a nuke, and then we think this problem will be easier to deal with. That is an interesting theory and strategy.
Hey, I'd love to be wrong. I hope and pray that I am. The ME is a complete mess and they will be lucky if the sand can soak up all the blood. Some here think that the ME was this great place until W started breaking things. Or since Israel. Or since the Colonial days. Or since the Crusades. Frankly, since the Rameses III the place has been pretty messed up, but I guess that gets us back to the theory that only strong dictators can run the middle east.
Business_Casual
08-11-15, 06:24
Question: Does anyone here speak Farsi fluently?
Do we really know what the "mullahs" and "hardliners" are saying or are we relying on what Fox and CNN tell us they are saying...
...but he's no George W. Bush.
You know, the dear leader we had that got us into two actual wars.
We need him back or someone similar, for Iran. Iran has needed its ass kicked since 1979, we're long overdue. Where is the Shah's next of kin?
KalashniKEV
08-11-15, 08:44
Question: Does anyone here speak Farsi fluently?
Do we really know what the "mullahs" and "hardliners" are saying or are we relying on what Fox and CNN tell us they are saying...
Only "the crazy" makes the news, and it usually doesn't get much air time... despite the best efforts of the propagandists.
This is why the sheep are led to believe that Iran is a martyr state frothing at the mouth... this is also why Iranians are lead to believe that America is an evil imperialist entity.
The wall is high right now. Once open communications begin, and more importantly commerce, we'll all have a laugh at how we were being played by minority interests.
We need him back or someone similar, for Iran. Iran has needed its ass kicked since 1979, we're long overdue. Where is the Shah's next of kin?
LOL!
Eurodriver
08-11-15, 09:49
Only "the crazy" makes the news, and it usually doesn't get much air time... despite the best efforts of the propagandists.
This is why the sheep are led to believe that Iran is a martyr state frothing at the mouth... this is also why Iranians are lead to believe that America is an evil imperialist entity.
The wall is high right now. Once open communications begin, and more importantly commerce, we'll all have a laugh at how we were being played by minority interests.
LOL!
This echoes my thoughts.
Iranians as a majority are pretty secular and don't want a war with the U.S. The atmosphere in 1979 no way represents their current political climate. Even still, one couldn't blame them for not liking us considering we supported their enemy during a 10 year long war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives only to invade our "ally" a few years later because the Kuwaitis were laterally drilling into Iraqi oil fields. Then, a decade later when attacked at home by Saudi terrorists our answer is to invade Iraq again?
I mean. Holy ****. Do people not see that US foreign policy is absolutely ridiculous? Everyone here who is anti Iran has been fooled by Israeli (and Saudi, unbelievably) $$$ that permeates our politicians and media.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-11-15, 09:56
Only "the crazy" makes the news, and it usually doesn't get much air time... despite the best efforts of the propagandists.
This is why the sheep are led to believe that Iran is a martyr state frothing at the mouth... this is also why Iranians are lead to believe that America is an evil imperialist entity.
The wall is high right now. Once open communications begin, and more importantly commerce, we'll all have a laugh at how we were being played by minority interests.
But according to you, America is an imperialist empire?
Are you saying that the middle east isn't filled with crazies? Saddam was just a Pan-Arab leader and Iran is run my misunderstood choir boys.
Cool theory bro.
Whatever it seems to take to lay blame at W.
I agree that open communication helps to bring down corrupt govt. I'm not sure how this deal will accomplish this.
KalashniKEV
08-11-15, 10:22
I mean. Holy ****. Do people not see that US foreign policy is absolutely ridiculous? Everyone here who is anti Iran has been fooled by Israeli (and Saudi, unbelievably) $$$ that permeates our politicians and media.
Exactamundo.
The legacy power structure that enriches itself at the expense of our national security and prosperity is operating in full blown panic mode right now.
But according to you, America is an imperialist empire?
What?
Are you saying that the middle east isn't filled with crazies?
I'm gonna go way out on a limb and say you aint got much sand in your boots, do you, Piedmont?
"Filled with crazies?"
I would go with... "filled with" soccer fans first, if I were inclined to make so bold a declaration...
Look, I don't blame you for being fed a world view composed mostly of bullshit, but you don't have to believe it. I'm not saying buy a plane ticket, but at least work the Google and educate yourself a bit...
Whatever it seems to take to lay blame at W.
The Bush administration was absolutely tragic. I don't lay "blame" to him for anything other than what he did while in office.
I actually find it quite humorous when someone says, "Oh sure, BLAME BUSH!" and it's like... well yeah... who else would be responsible?
This echoes my thoughts.
Iranians as a majority are pretty secular and don't want a war with the U.S. The atmosphere in 1979 no way represents their current political climate. Even still, one couldn't blame them for not liking us considering we supported their enemy during a 10 year long war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives only to invade our "ally" a few years later because the Kuwaitis were laterally drilling into Iraqi oil fields. Then, a decade later when attacked at home by Saudi terrorists our answer is to invade Iraq again?
I mean. Holy ****. Do people not see that US foreign policy is absolutely ridiculous? Everyone here who is anti Iran has been fooled by Israeli (and Saudi, unbelievably) $$$ that permeates our politicians and media.
Fooled by Israelis? If I wasnt American already Id be Israeli.
Fooled by Israelis? If I wasnt American already Id be Israeli.
Here you go:
https://www.google.com/flights/#search;f=STL;t=TLV;q=flights+to+Tel+Aviv+From+Saint+Louis;d=2015-08-27;r=2015-08-31
This is why the sheep are led to believe that Iran is a martyr state frothing at the mouth... this is also why Iranians are lead to believe that America is an evil imperialist entity.
It isn't Fox News or Israel that leads me to conclude Iran is a martyr state. It's the fact that they sent children in human wave attacks against fortified Iraqi positions during the Iran / Iraq war that leads me to conclude they are a martyr state.
http://i.imgur.com/2sWBunV.jpg
This wasn't really that long ago, it was the same government that we are currently negotiating with. This is the same government who claimed the holocaust never actually happened, and the same government that is actually led be a religious supreme leader who has authority over the President of Iran, currently Hassan Rouhani who is posing as a moderate and everyone seems to think he is the final word.
The current Supreme Leader (actual title by the way) is Ali Khamenei and he isn't anything close to a moderate.
It also isn't the some mullahs on the fringe who are keeping the "death to America" fires going in Iran. It is Ali Khamenei himself as recently as July 18, 2015.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/irans-ayatollah-ali-khamenei-says-nuclear-deal-wont-change-u-s-ties-1437202111
TEHRAN—Iran will uphold its anti-American policies and continue to support regional allies inimical to Western interests, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Saturday, days after Tehran and six world powers struck a landmark nuclear deal that renewed hopes of improved ties between longtime adversaries.
“Our policy regarding the arrogant U.S. government will not change,” Mr. Khamenei said in a televised address to mark Eid al-Fitr, the Muslim feast day at the end of the holy month of Ramadan. “We don’t have any negotiations or deal with the U.S. on different issues in the world or the region.”
Mr. Khamenei said the country wouldn’t surrender to excessive demands, and vowed not to change Iran’s policy of supporting regional allies that the U.S. and Israel oppose. Chants of “Death to America” have since been a regular refrain during government gatherings and Friday prayers, and hard-liners often refer to the U.S. as “the great Satan,” a phrase coined by Iran’s first Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
The comments were the most detailed from Mr. Khamenei since the nuclear deal was struck Tuesday. The hard-line cleric’s views are being closely watched because he has the final say in most matters of state and could still back out of the agreement.
Eurodriver
08-12-15, 08:02
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/a-new-day-in-iran-84154591/?no-ist
Perhaps the most striking thing about anti-Americanism in Iran today is how little of it actually exists. After the September 11 attacks, a large, spontaneous candlelight vigil took place in Tehran, where the thousands gathered shouted “Down with terrorists.” Nearly three-fourths of the Iranians polled in a 2002 survey said they would like their government to restore dialogue with the United States. (The pollsters— one a 1970s firebrand and participant in the hostage-taking who now advocates reform—were arrested and convicted in January 2003 of “making propaganda against the Islamic regime,” and they remain imprisoned.) Though hard-line officials urge “Death to America” during Friday prayers, most Iranians seem to ignore the propaganda. “The paradox of Iran is that it just might be the most pro-American—or, perhaps, least anti-American—populace in the Muslim world,” says Karim Sadjadpour, an analyst in Tehran for the International Crisis Group, an advocacy organization for conflict resolution based in Brussels.
You know what invading Iran, or bombing Iran, or doing anything to Iran would do? It would turn people who we think hate us, but actually don't, into an actual enemy.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-12-15, 08:26
So the people are just like us and if we just were able to remove their leadership everything would be OK?
Haven't we heard that before?
There is no doubt that there is a significant portion of the Iranian population that is moderate and even pro-western. I don't really see how that matters in this debate since they haven't been able to make significant inroads to change the policies of their govt over the past 40 years. It also seems like the Japanese and Germans were able to overcome some pretty horrific treatment by the Allies in WWII.
California has more conservatives than any other state outside of Texas, doesn't mean that their leaders are ever going to make decisions any time soon that I think are right. I don't care what the electoral breakdown is, what are the govt policies?
KalashniKEV
08-12-15, 08:53
It isn't Fox News or Israel that leads me to conclude Iran is a martyr state. It's the fact that they sent children in human wave attacks against fortified Iraqi positions during the Iran / Iraq war that leads me to conclude they are a martyr state.
You keep posting that picture over and over again with very little understanding about what's behind it, or the time it reflects.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/a-new-day-in-iran-84154591/?no-ist
You know what invading Iran, or bombing Iran, or doing anything to Iran would do? It would turn people who we think hate us, but actually don't, into an actual enemy.
You do get that the populous in Iran doesnt need to have a vast majority of Anti-Americanism for the hate to be justified right? Ali Khamenei hates the US with a passion, that's all that matters as far as power based decisions are made. And that source is uhh.. biased to say the least.
MountainRaven
08-12-15, 09:26
A- We don't need to remove Iran's leadership. Just convince them that it's better to have us as a friend than as an enemy.
B- I'm pretty sure that Iran has several entirely legitimate reasons to hate us, from supporting a coup against their democratically elected government to giving Saddam chemical weapons to drop on their kids. And then supporting their two most powerful regional adversaries.
KalashniKEV
08-12-15, 10:19
B- I'm pretty sure that Iran has several entirely legitimate reasons to hate us, from supporting a coup against their democratically elected government to giving Saddam chemical weapons to drop on their kids. And then supporting their two most powerful regional adversaries.
Don't forget devaluing their currency by 2/3rds- Even people who are back and forth from the US to Iran aren't happy about that.
Plus, taking away the sanctions delivers a crippling blow to the Ayatollah. Sanctions always strengthen the dictator.
Opening dialogue, business, and travel will not only remove the ability of evil interests to manipulate our perceptions, but also the corresponding evil element in their own country.
Eurodriver
08-12-15, 12:40
You do get that the populous in Iran doesnt need to have a vast majority of Anti-Americanism for the hate to be justified right? Ali Khamenei hates the US with a passion, that's all that matters as far as power based decisions are made. And that source is uhh.. biased to say the least.
Actually the guys who conducted that poll were arrested for spreading pro USA propaganda. It's in the link
You keep posting that picture over and over again with very little understanding about what's behind it, or the time it reflects.
I have a complete understanding of what's behind it and what it represents and the time it happened. I simply assumed you did as well and didn't need to spell it all out.
Don't Plus, taking away the sanctions delivers a crippling blow to the Ayatollah. Sanctions always strengthen the dictator.
Ain't that the truth. How many times have sanctions been tried with total failure.
Let me help you with the really, really easy part.
With respect to Imperial Japan in 1940 and Iran today, neither country is actually negotiating in good faith and regardless of "friendship medals" or "nuclear treaties" both have ulterior motives that are not in our best interest.
I would have thought that point would be completely obvious, but you missed the easy ones last time around as well.
As for your last WMD comparison, relying on the UN to conduct successful inspections in Iran "per the deal", is exactly the same situation that resulted in problems with Iraq when Saddam proved to be less than forthcoming. For some reason you seem to expect greater cooperation and transparency from Iran when the time comes.
A problem with Iraq? Wow, you really do have all your bases covered, don't you?
The problem with Iraq, as it turns out, is that they had no WMD program. A couple trillion dollars, a destabalized ME and other assorted blowback- including a strengthened Iran- later, we're now concerned with Iran.
If Iran simply wanted to develop weapons and deal with the consequences, they could.
Sanctions are over. The rest of the nations that plan to do business with Iran are going to do so as they've had enough of the U.S. taking extraordinary action in the interests of the Israeli's, peace, security, you name it.
Now you want us to believe that they are going to rebuild their economy and rejoin the internation economic community so they can suicide at a later date. Take your word for it because you just know they aren't negotiating in good faith. I imagine they're not terribly comfortable with the idea that one of our political parties field candidates that will gladly promise to abrogate the deal and even attack Iran if that country doesn't capitulate entirely.
This country needs to look inward and examine its own record on international conflicts, consequences and accountability. A good question for you to ask is how so many of our legislators ended up being so transparently paid to wag the dog on behalf of other nations interests? Follow the money on this one as the entities responsible are fairly brazen about it.
You do realize that Iran is much further down the path than even we thought the Iraqis were? That is an objective fact.
Since even Kev states that Saddam was nothing more than a Pan-Arab nationalist, you have to agree that Iran is a much more ideologically driven and dangerous entity if given nuclear weapons?
So, while gas is cheap and plentiful, we'll wait 10 years until oil rises again, Iran is closer to or has a nuke, and then we think this problem will be easier to deal with. That is an interesting theory and strategy.
Hey, I'd love to be wrong. I hope and pray that I am. The ME is a complete mess and they will be lucky if the sand can soak up all the blood. Some here think that the ME was this great place until W started breaking things. Or since Israel. Or since the Colonial days. Or since the Crusades. Frankly, since the Rameses III the place has been pretty messed up, but I guess that gets us back to the theory that only strong dictators can run the middle east.
It is possible that Iran will develop a nuclear weapon with or without the deal. If we break the deal and/or continue our hardline approach, we're about to lose the bulk of the economic disincentive for Iran to cooperate given that the sanctions regime will collapse. The only thing the United States can do to absolutely prevent this at this point is invade and occupy.
This deal moves a vast percentage of the nuclear material- legal under the N.P.T.- out of the country, but that's irrelevant.
The real issue are these assumptions:
1. Iran plans on acquiring a nuclear weapon.
2. They will break any deal we make with them.
3. We are justified in completely ruining a relatively advanced, large ME nation if they don't capitulate entirely and surrender any nuclear capability.
To these ends, AIPAC is running a massive scare campaign to get the American public to agree with what its paid-off legislators are now saying- namely a lot of nonsense and assumptions similar to the above. The hype and frenzy is shameful. Israel, in particular, is a client state and receives a lot of money. They absolutely should not have as much control over what the United States does in the ME as they do.
And for what? None of those three massive assumptions is an easy sell given our own recent history of destabilization of the ME and the carnage that has ensued. It certainly hasn't helped our own national security. If there is a country that acts carefully, rationally and could conceivably make another case for a horrific preventative war, we aren't it.
The problem with Iraq, as it turns out, is that they had no WMD program. A couple trillion dollars, a destabalized ME and other assorted blowback- including a strengthened Iran- later, we're now concerned with Iran.
If Iran simply wanted to develop weapons and deal with the consequences, they could.
Well except for the chemical weapons they used on the kurds, you are correct they had no WMD program on the scale we feared they might.
Problem is, as I tried to explain in the simplest terms possible, is when the UN tried to find out what they did and didn't have, Saddam played games with them. So on the heels of 9-11 we had to weigh the risk of knowing vs. not knowing.
The actual problem was Bush (43) deciding to "fix things" since we were there anyway. If we had simply gone in, taken Saddam out of power, established the WMD threat and went down the list a couple guys and put somebody in charge of the existing government we could have left Iraq in a very short time without leaving them vulnerable to ISIS or Iran.
So now we have a deal with Iran, where we will rely on groups like the UN to conduct inspections and make sure they aren't using their nuclear program to develop weapons. And for some reason you actually think they are going to comply in good faith.
I don't believe that at all, I think Iran will develop a weapon at the first opportunity and our inability to deter them from that goal simply encourages them. Obama made dire threats against Assad if he crossed the chemical weapons line, Assad crossed the line and Obama basically did nothing. Sanctions certainly won't prevent Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
The real issue are these assumptions:
1. Iran plans on acquiring a nuclear weapon.
2. They will break any deal we make with them.
3. We are justified in completely ruining a relatively advanced, large ME nation if they don't capitulate entirely and surrender any nuclear capability.
WOW. So you think Iran is entitled to a nuclear capability? Do you really not understand where those dominoes go?
Do you think Saudi is going to accept a Shiai nuclear power without them being invited to join the nuclear family for the same reasons you just stated? Do you think a nuclear Saudi Arabia is a good idea?
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-12-15, 22:15
The Shia-Sunni thing is the real issue. The Isreali angle is a distraction. Hell, give them nukes so that they can get to their end game faster. Loose 15% of their populations and they'll be pacifists for a couple of generations. Europe did it centuries ago. I'm tired of propping up and making excuses for a whole region. The only viable strategy for the region is strong man dictators that are inherently unstable- and then we complain about how unstable the region is.
Everyone shits on W, but his major screw up was thinking that given a chance they could join the 21st century, or at least the 19th. They seem incapable of doing that with the current mindset and they only way that is going to change is for it to bleed them out. Or we keep on having strong man after strong man in a descending spiral of crazy.
Between shale and other Western Hemisphere sources we can support ourselves, let China and the EU figure out a way to get the oil out.
KalashniKEV
08-13-15, 11:54
I have a complete understanding of what's behind it and what it represents and the time it happened. I simply assumed you did as well and didn't need to spell it all out.
Clearly you do not... as you continue to make obvious.
WOW. So you think Iran is entitled to a nuclear capability?
"Entitled" is a very interesting word...
The only viable strategy for the region is strong man dictators that are inherently unstable- and then we complain about how unstable the region is.
Did you know Iran had a secular Democratic government led by a western educated Prime Minister up until 1953?
It ended when we sponsored a coup to concentrate power in a dictator... which then resulted directly in the Iranian revolution.
Did you know Iraq also had a secular government until 2003?
It ended when we overthrew the Ba'ath regime and replaced with a tyrannical puppet of the revolutionary government mentioned above... which resulted directly in the formation of the ISIS.
I don't think anyone is "complaining about how unstable the region is" when it has clearly been our policy to keep anyone in the region from ever getting their shit together. America would also be the same way if the population were kept grasping and desperate, and foreign interests were allowed to intervene and sow the seeds of chaos.
Clearly you do not... as you continue to make obvious.
Ok then, enlighten me. Is it the Iranian Boy Scouts going out for a weekend of Koran study? Or are we going with Israeli propaganda? Why don't you simply set me straight?
"Entitled" is a very interesting word...
It's a specifically chosen word given the comment I was replying to.
Let me try this, do you think Saudi Arabia should be able to develop nuclear weapons simply because they decided they wanted to? Is that capacity the "right" of any nation with the resources to do so?
Wow, I can't believe how many here are anti-Israel.
Is anyone here pro-Israel, besides me?
I'm surprised by it too, but no you;re not the only one.
I'm pro-Israel, just not much use for the Israeli Government.
As a Christian, understanding who Jesus is and what His life and death on the Cross meant, I have no reason to support Israel because of Old Testament interpretations.
I do support a Jewish state simply because the Jews have been hounded and persecuted everyplace they have settled. Not a big supporter of militant Zionism, though.
In terms of our post-war foreign policy, we pretty much chose an unstable Middle-East in order to curtail Soviet influence in the area.
My problem with Israel is that they continually fail to acknowledge, even in the smallest way, that they owe their continued existence to us. In every major conflict they've been in since 1954, America has been their supply train. When they were in danger of going Winchester during the Six-Day War, it was a non-stop sky train of C-141's, depleting our European war stocks, that kept them in business.
I don't expect them to suck our dicks, but I would like to see a little cooperation.
Go to the library like I did, check out both pro-Israel and anti-Israel histories of the Middle-East, read histories of United States foreign policy, make your mind up from that, not dogma.
JM .02
One can support Israel without a religious justification. Many atheists like myself support Israel on the basis of it being the most civilized state in the entire region (which isn't that difficult of a task, to be perfectly honest).
I don't have deep insight into this, but I am fairly certain that they can and do provide us with intelligence on the various going-on in the savage-infested surroundings they find themselves in.
Endgame is this: UN lifts sanctions (IIRC, the UN has already voted to do so), GOP-controlled Congress refuses to sign off on the treaty, Russia, China, and Europe get to make bank working with Iran and we lose Iran as a potential regional ally for another thirty or forty years (French companies are already getting ready to set up shop in Iran - it's probable that Russia and China are doing likewise).
Chuck Schumer has come out against the Iran treaty and has said that he wouldn't have done so if he didn't believe that Obama had the votes to pass it.
So given this, the more likely endgame is that the US gains a useful regional ally to oppose ISIS and greatly reduce Russian and Chinese influence in the region - both important considerations in our strategic shift to the Pacific and the current Putinist Cold War. And, perhaps, by acting as war daddy to both Iran and Saudi, can bring stability to the middle eastern cold war between those two.
Kosher sausage is obviously delicious. And sex isn't gay when it's done by two straight men whose religions forbid homosexual relations.
I don't think of myself as being pro-Israel, but I do think of myself as being a zionist. I support Israel's right to exist and their existence as a secular, liberal democratic republic. I do not give them full, unquestioning, unwavering support in their every endeavor, particularly not when it comes to violating treaties and international law and responding to rocket attacks that hit open desert by blowing up a UN-chartered school filled with teachers and students.
I wouldn;t give anyone unquestioning support, but your characterization of Israeli strikes against rocket launch sites is unfair. Terrorists using human shields and schools to launch their attacks are the ones responsible here. Israel goes to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties, both on moral grounds, and for PR purposes - civilian deaths make Israel look bad. For the terrorists, they have every incentive to maximize civilian deaths on the "palestinian", i.e. arab side.
Keep in mind, that if the same standard were to be applied to the US, WWII and every conflict since have been examples of US mass murder of civilians, yadda, yadda. While this may be true in some examples, it is not even close to being true on the whole.
Israel needs an external threat to justify their crimes.
Nobody is fooled- Netanyahu has his hand firmly on the stove in Palestine and simply turns up the heat whenever he needs a political victory.
In the aftermath of each little episode, you see a land grab, expansion of the settlements, more slaves for the SodaStream factory, etc...
It's boringly predicable kabuki theater.
Yes, the horrible crimes of defending themselves against attack and hatred from literally all sides, including from within. Shame on them.
Are you suggesting that Netanyahu controls various Muslim terrorist groups who have repeatedly sworn to wipe Jews and Israel off the face of the Earth? That;s news to me.
The only reason countries enter into arms control agreements is because they think they will be better off with them than without them. The Iranians knew that BHOs position was that he would not fight a war at any cost and didn't trust the Israelis to out source an attack. They negotiated like they had nothing to lose, because unless the pissed off BHO as much as the GOP does, they knew they were OK.
So Iran gets to work on their bomb on the margins waiting for the magical "North Korean" moment when they are untouchable and able to exert nuclear influence over the gulf region at a minimum. We got no war. Which is not the same thing as peace. All while the Sunnis will work on their own bomb and we end up with a nuke in the House of Saud which is a step closer to bat-crap crazy than Pakistan ever was.
History teaches us that the US will delude itself and punt when it comes to conflicts and cut and run when it comes to long wars. So our adversaries promise peace and do low-intensity/non-decisive wars. The 10 years in the aftermath of WWII is the only exception and it will take as large a hit for us to modify our strategy.
This sums it up pretty damn well.
I'm surprised by it too, but no you;re not the only one.
I'm much more surprised by the Pro Nuclear Iran thing than any anti Israel sentiment. Of course those may not be mutually exclusive.
I'm not a huge fan of Israel, mostly because we prop them up with US tax dollars, but I trust them with nuclear weapons which is more than I can say for anyone else in the region.
KalashniKEV
08-14-15, 07:59
Ok then, enlighten me. Is it the Iranian Boy Scouts going out for a weekend of Koran study? Or are we going with Israeli propaganda? Why don't you simply set me straight?
It is a powerful photo indeed, but time and time again you fail to see what's behind it. They were a people faced with existential destruction... and the two major superpowers were both backing the other guy (mostly- Reagan did illegally negotiate the sale of 1,500 missiles to the Ayatollah despite the arms embargo). All options were on the table- including child soldiers.
There are also Yezidi child soldiers fighting ISIS.
Sad.
Let me try this, do you think Saudi Arabia should be able to develop nuclear weapons simply because they decided they wanted to? Is that capacity the "right" of any nation with the resources to do so?
In a state of nature, man is in possession of all of his rights. The same is true for nation states.
We enter the social contract and give up some of our rights for safety and convenience.
I am aware of no such contract existing between the US and any other country.
Many atheists like myself support Israel on the basis of it being the most civilized state in the entire region (which isn't that difficult of a task, to be perfectly honest).
That is exactly the same argument that was used in support of apartheid South Africa.
Yes, the horrible crimes of defending themselves against attack and hatred from literally all sides, including from within. Shame on them.
Are you suggesting that Netanyahu controls various Muslim terrorist groups who have repeatedly sworn to wipe Jews and Israel off the face of the Earth? That;s news to me.
The source of Netanyahu's power is fear. Without a few rockets coming over, he has no tangible threat to point to. By allowing it, he justifies (to some people) the settlements, the ghettos, and the crimes of the Israeli people against the Palestinians.
It's all a game. Nothing more.
It is a powerful photo indeed, but time and time again you fail to see what's behind it. They were a people faced with existential destruction... and the two major superpowers were both backing the other guy (mostly- Reagan did illegally negotiate the sale of 1,500 missiles to the Ayatollah despite the arms embargo). All options were on the table- including child soldiers.
There are also Yezidi child soldiers fighting ISIS.
Sad.
Oh, so in fact I DID completely understand the photo and they really were children being sent in human wave attacks against fortified Iraqi positions. But because I failed to provide your sympathetic narrative I obviously have no understanding of the photo at all.
So to repeat myself "I have a complete understanding of what's behind it and what it represents and the time it happened." I just don't hold the same apologetic view of Muslims sending children to die in war. And with Iran, in war "all options are on the table" and that includes the destruction of all humanity if need be. This isn't a constant with every country.
Iran wasn't on the verge of extinction when they sent children soldiers to fight. The enemy was not in sight of Tehran and carrying out atrocities on the population as they advanced demonstrating their would be no reasonable conclusion. The fight rarely moved beyond the border in either direction and Iran sent in children human wave attacks to try and create a break through hoping Iraqi's might not shoot kids.
When Iran finally accepted an Iraqi ceasefire, which pretty much returned everyone to the pre war state, Khomeini addressed the population by radio.
"Happy are those who have departed through martyrdom. Happy are those who have lost their lives in this convoy of light. Unhappy am I that I still survive and have drunk the poisoned chalice..."
In a state of nature, man is in possession of all of his rights. The same is true for nation states.
We enter the social contract and give up some of our rights for safety and convenience.
I am aware of no such contract existing between the US and any other country.
As with men, if somebody has vowed to kill you and all like you, it's probably a poor idea to give him a gun or help him build one. As with men, we isolate and contain dangerous, violent psychopaths all the time, the same should be true of countries. Especially those who have a documented track record of being willing to sacrifice their own children to achieve their objectives.
That is what we are dealing with.
KalashniKEV
08-14-15, 15:17
so to repeat myself "I have a complete understanding of what's behind it and what it represents and the time it happened."
No, you still have a very shallow and incomplete understanding.
As with men, if somebody has vowed to kill you and all like you, it's probably a poor idea to give him a gun or help him build one. As with men, we isolate and contain dangerous, violent psychopaths...
You're making a very good argument to wipe Israel off the map... or at least demand their disarmament to avoid annihilation.
No, you still have a very shallow and incomplete understanding.
How can that be? You just explained it all to me a few posts up.
But I know when I'm having my time wasted, so believe as you like.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-14-15, 17:57
No, you still have a very shallow and incomplete understanding.
You're making a very good argument to wipe Israel off the map... or at least demand their disarmament to avoid annihilation.
Suuuuuure.
The pic is supposed to be kids being sent to the front lines, mine sweepers or something? Are you saying that isn't true or that there is kind of nuance to drafting kids this age?
KalashniKEV
08-14-15, 20:44
How can that be?
I get that you can see what it's a picture of... but you obviously don't understand the light and the space of it... and that's not something I'm going to be able to explain to you.
Keep posting it though! Many other people and cultures on today's Earth would simply fold when faced with the same realities.
I get that you can see what it's a picture of... but you obviously don't understand the light and the space of it... and that's not something I'm going to be able to explain to you.
Keep posting it though! Many other people and cultures on today's Earth would simply fold when faced with the same realities.
Except for one thing, Iran was never on the verge of anything. Again, the enemy was never at the gates, they weren't poised to take Tehran. In fact Iraq never got further than the bank of the Shatt al-Arab. Iran never managed to invade Iraqi territory.
It was basically a stalemate war. Your very, very false narrative about how things were so dire "all things were put on the table, even kids" is pure bullshit. Iran was at risk of "not winning" and nothing else. Furthermore, even if Saddam drove all the way to Tehran, we wasn't going to engage in genocide and wipe out the population, he would have simply installed a puppet government, taken over Iranian oil reserves and probably reformed it into a mostly secular state like Iraq.
But by all means, continue to tell me I don't really understand the conflict. Continue to explain why the situation was so dire that the Iranians decided to sacrifice children. Maybe you could even figure out a way to blame Israel if you think hard enough.
But I agree with you on one thing, if the Iranian government "believes" things are "on the brink" they will pretty much do anything. In this case sacrifice children over a stalemate war that neither country could realistically win. Now imagine if they had nuclear weapons. Are you telling me they wouldn't use them?
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-14-15, 21:35
I get that you can see what it's a picture of... but you obviously don't understand the light and the space of it...
Uhm, what?
It's not a cubist painting or a Rorschach print. I would have gone for ambient lighting and a lower camera position to get more of the kids in the pic. The contrast is a little high too. Definitely not Pulitzer quality.
You've spent a lot of time writing stuff for this thread, but this is where you draw a line?
I'm much more surprised by the Pro Nuclear Iran thing than any anti Israel sentiment. Of course those may not be mutually exclusive.
I'm not a huge fan of Israel, mostly because we prop them up with US tax dollars, but I trust them with nuclear weapons which is more than I can say for anyone else in the region.
I am disgusted, but not shocked. The same human emotions and factors that played into so many people being happy at Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler are at play here.
It;s a shame people don;t know such basic and recent history, but when there are funny cat videos and "reality" shows to watch, who has the time?
That is exactly the same argument that was used in support of apartheid South Africa.
Well, Israel is not South Africa, and is the polar opposite of South Africa. My point stands, Israel is the most civilized, humane, modern and decent place in that entire region. Not really surprising, as it is the only one that isn't dominated by a medieval totalitarian death cult (i.e. Islam).
The source of Netanyahu's power is fear. Without a few rockets coming over, he has no tangible threat to point to. By allowing it, he justifies (to some people) the settlements, the ghettos, and the crimes of the Israeli people against the Palestinians.
It's all a game. Nothing more.
No, the source of Netanyahu's power is being the democratically elected leader of a modern, and productive nation.
As for fear, well, it is very reasonable and understandable to fear an enemy that has sworn to kill you, and will sacrifice the lives of their own children to do so.
I get that you can see what it's a picture of... but you obviously don't understand the light and the space of it... and that's not something I'm going to be able to explain to you.
Keep posting it though! Many other people and cultures on today's Earth would simply fold when faced with the same realities.
Kev is an interpretive modern art expert. The rest of us are amateur chumps who haven't achieved his level of artistic mastery.
Uhm, what?
It's not a cubist painting or a Rorschach print. I would have gone for ambient lighting and a lower camera position to get more of the kids in the pic. The contrast is a little high too. Definitely not Pulitzer quality.
You've spent a lot of time writing stuff for this thread, but this is where you draw a line?
LOL. Well said.
So according to Kev:
Iran is a totally peaceful, rational, and trustworthy partner in peace.
Israel is an evil, genocidal tyrannical regime.
Fearing an enemy that repeatedly has tried, and occasionally almost succeeded in wiping you out is to be frowned upon.
Photos and well-documented use of children as mine sweepers requires abstract interpretation.
Got it.
Can we just get a damn war with someone? I need another 2003.
KalashniKEV
08-15-15, 08:15
Except for one thing, Iran was never on the verge of anything. Again, the enemy was never at the gates, they weren't poised to take Tehran.
Correct, Iraq didn't march on, or seize the capital. The fledgling revolutionary government was able to hold most of it's terrain by enforcing a mostly static front line. That's kind of, uhhh, the point... not losing territory or getting your capital surrounded and all...
What you don't know about history pales in comparison to your lack of knowledge regarding warfare or how it works... I know you're smarter than this based on your previous posts.
Well, Israel is not South Africa, and is the polar opposite of South Africa.
The polar opposite?
I agree that the apartheid regime in South Africa was not violent or expansionist... can we then think of any other violent expansionist regimes that herd people into ghettos based on their religion, and steal their things?
Perhaps that's not a perfect analogy either, since those guys were not dependent on handouts to keep the flag up.
Can we just get a damn war with someone? I need another 2003.
That's got to be the absolute stupidest statement ever posted to this forum.
I'm glad someone had fun and didn't lose any brothers over jack shit.
That's got to be the absolute stupidest statement ever posted to this forum.
I'm glad someone had fun and didn't lose any brothers over jack shit.
How many hours did you put on the forklift back then? Sure must have been a swell time for you.
Actually, it seemed like a nice segue to move the topic back on the road and out of the weeds.
Your last sentence, now THAT was pretty stupid. And condescending.
KalashniKEV
08-15-15, 08:27
Your last sentence, now THAT was pretty stupid. And condescending.
Agreed.
Edited and removed.
MountainRaven
08-15-15, 12:47
One thing I have learned from post-World War 2 history: People are constantly misapplying the lessons learned from World War 2.
It's like we learned that a2+b2=c2 and are using it to solve every problem we're presented with, as though no triangles exist but right triangles, no geometric shapes exist but triangles, and no math problems exist but geometry problems. As soon as someone suggests that we not solve a particular problem with a2+b2=c2, it seems that certain people will invariably begin lathering at the mouth shouting/chanting, "a2+b2=c2! a2+b2=c2!"
Maybe that's why we're not really solving any of our problems correctly.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-15-15, 12:49
One thing I have learned from post-World War 2 history: People are constantly misapplying the lessons learned from World War 2.
It's like we learned that a2+b2=c2 and are using it to solve every problem we're presented with, as though no triangles exist but right triangles, no geometric shapes exist but triangles, and no math problems exist but geometry problems. As soon as someone suggests that we not solve a particular problem with a2+b2=c2, it seems that certain people will invariably begin lathering at the mouth shouting/chanting, "a2+b2=c2! a2+b2=c2!"
Maybe that's why we're not really solving any of our problems correctly.
Hell, I can't even do such superscripts.....
MountainRaven
08-15-15, 17:23
Hell, I can't even do such superscripts.....
That's unfortunate, but I'm sure you're not an O2 thief.
;)
H open-bracket sub closed-bracket 2 open-bracket /sub closed-bracket O
πr open-bracket sup closed-bracket 2 open-bracket /sup closed-bracket
Becomes
H2O
πr2
There are also buttons in the advanced reply window for wrapping sub and sup over text already entered.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-15-15, 18:29
Would the world be better off with more Israels or Irans?
Would the world be better off with more Israels or Irans?
From an American standpoint, Israelis. Iran sponsored and supported the Shiite militias with money, weapons, and training the entire time we were in Iraq, Israel hasn't sponsored any of our enemies that I can recall.
Would the world be better off with more Israels or Irans?
You know, the first impulse is to say Israels, and that is fine. But when you think about it for a bit it goes beyond the country and to the people and the Government they allow.
So if we take the governments out of it, get everyone into a big room and run them one at a time through a chute - decent people to the left, assholes, terrorists, murders, rapists, and other criminals, etc. to the right, we would probably end up with a much larger group on the left hand side than the right.
The question then would be, which Nation would have the greatest percentage of decent people. I've never been to either Nation, so I don't know.
As much as I object to the way the Israeli Government behaves, government wise I'd still take them over the Iranians.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-15-15, 23:40
You know, the first impulse is to say Israels, and that is fine. But when you think about it for a bit it goes beyond the country and to the people and the Government they allow.
So if we take the governments out of it, get everyone into a big room and run them one at a time through a chute - decent people to the left, assholes, terrorists, murders, rapists, and other criminals, etc. to the right, we would probably end up with a much larger group on the left hand side than the right.
The question then would be, which Nation would have the greatest percentage of decent people. I've never been to either Nation, so I don't know.
As much as I object to the way the Israeli Government behaves, government wise I'd still take them over the Iranians.
Very true.
You know, the first impulse is to say Israels, and that is fine. But when you think about it for a bit it goes beyond the country and to the people and the Government they allow.
So if we take the governments out of it, get everyone into a big room and run them one at a time through a chute - decent people to the left, assholes, terrorists, murders, rapists, and other criminals, etc. to the right, we would probably end up with a much larger group on the left hand side than the right.
The question then would be, which Nation would have the greatest percentage of decent people. I've never been to either Nation, so I don't know.
As much as I object to the way the Israeli Government behaves, government wise I'd still take them over the Iranians.
And if only that were an option.
I'm probably certain there are plenty of Muslims who struggle the the barbarity of their religion just as those kids born into hateful ideologies such as the KKK will struggle with those beliefs.
And it's not just the Muslims, the Israeli's have proven they will kill their own, the assassination of Rabin was a deep look into the flawed fundamentalism of Israel. The nation was founded on the terrorists acts of the Stern Gang and the Irgun.
And right or wrong, Israeli's did displace other people in the same way they were "relocated" in Europe a mere generation before. It convinced European Jews they needed a "homeland" state at all costs, but ironically the costs were committing nearly identical crimes and filling a displaced group with the same resolve to establish a "homeland."
It's a mess over there. Really wish we did have that magic chute, I don't think it would be any harder to integrate peaceful Jews and Arabs than it was to integrate the American south during the civil rights movement. And if it's good enough for us, it's good enough for them.
The polar opposite?
I agree that the apartheid regime in South Africa was not violent or expansionist... can we then think of any other violent expansionist regimes that herd people into ghettos based on their religion, and steal their things?
What a load of rubbish.
South Africa was violent (and continues to be, perhaps even more so now that ever).
Israel is not "expansionist". The only territory they took were buffer zones in the aftermath of 2 wars of aggression by their genocidal Arab neighbours.
As for "ghettos based on religion", I guess that's why Arab Musilim Israeli citizens can vote, run for office, serve in parliament and on the Supreme Court, serve in the military and even make it to the rank of General.
Nice try Kev, but your patently false pro-Arab narratives won't fly here.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-16-15, 14:28
What a load of rubbish.
South Africa was violent (and continues to be, perhaps even more so now that ever).
Israel is not "expansionist". The only territory they took were buffer zones in the aftermath of 2 wars of aggression by their genocidal Arab neighbours.
As for "ghettos based on religion", I guess that's why Arab Musilim Israeli citizens can vote, run for office, serve in parliament and on the Supreme Court, serve in the military and even make it to the rank of General.
Nice try Kev, but your patently false pro-Arab narratives won't fly here.
Glaciers move faster than Israel's border. Worst expansionist country in history....
Glaciers move faster than Israel's border. Worst expansionist country in history....
In fairness they do on occasion occupy the US Congress from time to time.
:sarcastic:
What a load of rubbish.
South Africa was violent (and continues to be, perhaps even more so now that ever).
Israel is not "expansionist". The only territory they took were buffer zones in the aftermath of 2 wars of aggression by their genocidal Arab neighbours.
Benito - we have discussed this before on another site. You should know the history of the conflict in the region. If you will reflect honestly, even though it was not always peaches and cream, for centuries the Arab majority and the Jewish minority, coexisted, for the most part peacefully in the region. In the middle ages the area became a haven for the persecuted Jewish people fleeing, first Spain, then ultimately, all of Europe. As you know, all was relatively okay until the first Zionists began arriving in the late 1800's. From the beginning the Zionist leaders did not want to coexist, they felt that the land was theirs, by Biblical decree, to the exclusion of both Arabs and Christians. You might also note that the vast majority of indigenous Jews were not in favor of Zionism because of the potential for upsetting the peaceful coexistence they had enjoyed for several centuries.
As the Zionists began the practice of buying up land from absentee landlords who had received title under the Ottoman Land Code which for the first time registered land ownership. Under the Ottoman Code the majority of land came into the hands of wealthy, or well-connected individuals who circumvented the legal process and claimed large areas of land which they had never had in their possession. Often the uneducated peasants who had worked these lands for generations, had no idea that the 'ownership' of the land they had 'homesteaded' had passed to these absentee landlords. The Zionists knew full well what had transpired and took advantage of it by purchasing large parcels of land and displacing the occupants of the land. The land purchased was held by the Jewish National Fund whose stated goal was to 'redeem the land of Palestine as the inalienable possession of the Jewish people.' The Zionists knew exactly what they were doing as evidenced by the statements of Zionist leaders:
In 1891, Zionist leader Ahad Ha’am wrote that the Arab landowners “understood very well what we were doing and what we were aiming at’
Theodore Herzl wrote - ‘We shall try to spirit the penniless [Arab] population across the border by procuring employment for it in transit countries, while denying it employment in our own country... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.'
In 1921, Dr. David Eder, a member of the Zionist Commission, wrote - ‘there can be only one National Home in Palestine, and that a Jewish one, and no equality in the partnership between Jews and Arabs, but a Jewish preponderance as soon as the numbers of the race are sufficiently increased.’
The purchase of land from the absentee landlords (which the land's occupiers were unaware held title) as well as forced displacement of the land's occupants began the discord between the Arabs and Jews which was only exacerbated by the actions of the Allied Nations as they divided up the Ottoman Empire after WWI. In the years between WWI and WWII, the internal affairs of the area were horribly mismanaged during the British Mandate. In 1940 Jewish land ownership was restricted to specific areas of land, nonetheless illegal buying and selling continued in the land designated for Arabs. The U.N. Partition included much of this illegally held land. When Israeli declared statehood in 1948, this land was assimilated into the Jewish State.
In the 1948 War many Palestinians fled the areas within the borders of Israel. Under International Law at the cessation of hostilities they should have been allowed to return to their homes. Although at the time the 'official' Israeli policy was to allow return, this was circumvented by the destruction of Palestinian villages and homes.
And so on. There have been wrongs perpetrated by both sides, murders, kidnappings, torture and terrorism. History is history and to ignore it is to not learn from it.
Acknowledging what has happened is not Anti-Jew or Pro-Arab, it is simply acknowledging what happened. Obviously at this point, Israel can not return to the original borders, it would be suicidal in view of the current situation. I honestly don't know what the eff to do. But I do know that we will never get it solved if we insist Israel is squeaky clean.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-16-15, 18:52
I think the Hittites have the best claim...
I think the Hittites have the best claim...
They were part of the Canaanite bunch.
Noah - Ham - Canaan - Heth
Wait a minute.....damn, we are all related.
Glaciers move faster than Israel's border. Worst expansionist country in history....
This pretty much sums it up perfectly, and humorously. Well done, sir.
Benito - we have discussed this before on another site. You should know the history of the conflict in the region. If you will reflect honestly, even though it was not always peaches and cream, for centuries the Arab majority and the Jewish minority, coexisted, for the most part peacefully in the region. In the middle ages the area became a haven for the persecuted Jewish people fleeing, first Spain, then ultimately, all of Europe. As you know, all was relatively okay until the first Zionists began arriving in the late 1800's. From the beginning the Zionist leaders did not want to coexist, they felt that the land was theirs, by Biblical decree, to the exclusion of both Arabs and Christians. You might also note that the vast majority of indigenous Jews were not in favor of Zionism because of the potential for upsetting the peaceful coexistence they had enjoyed for several centuries.
As the Zionists began the practice of buying up land from absentee landlords who had received title under the Ottoman Land Code which for the first time registered land ownership. Under the Ottoman Code the majority of land came into the hands of wealthy, or well-connected individuals who circumvented the legal process and claimed large areas of land which they had never had in their possession. Often the uneducated peasants who had worked these lands for generations, had no idea that the 'ownership' of the land they had 'homesteaded' had passed to these absentee landlords. The Zionists knew full well what had transpired and took advantage of it by purchasing large parcels of land and displacing the occupants of the land. The land purchased was held by the Jewish National Fund whose stated goal was to 'redeem the land of Palestine as the inalienable possession of the Jewish people.' The Zionists knew exactly what they were doing as evidenced by the statements of Zionist leaders:
In 1891, Zionist leader Ahad Ha’am wrote that the Arab landowners “understood very well what we were doing and what we were aiming at’
Theodore Herzl wrote - ‘We shall try to spirit the penniless [Arab] population across the border by procuring employment for it in transit countries, while denying it employment in our own country... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.'
In 1921, Dr. David Eder, a member of the Zionist Commission, wrote - ‘there can be only one National Home in Palestine, and that a Jewish one, and no equality in the partnership between Jews and Arabs, but a Jewish preponderance as soon as the numbers of the race are sufficiently increased.’
The purchase of land from the absentee landlords (which the land's occupiers were unaware held title) as well as forced displacement of the land's occupants began the discord between the Arabs and Jews which was only exacerbated by the actions of the Allied Nations as they divided up the Ottoman Empire after WWI. In the years between WWI and WWII, the internal affairs of the area were horribly mismanaged during the British Mandate. In 1940 Jewish land ownership was restricted to specific areas of land, nonetheless illegal buying and selling continued in the land designated for Arabs. The U.N. Partition included much of this illegally held land. When Israeli declared statehood in 1948, this land was assimilated into the Jewish State.
In the 1948 War many Palestinians fled the areas within the borders of Israel. Under International Law at the cessation of hostilities they should have been allowed to return to their homes. Although at the time the 'official' Israeli policy was to allow return, this was circumvented by the destruction of Palestinian villages and homes.
And so on. There have been wrongs perpetrated by both sides, murders, kidnappings, torture and terrorism. History is history and to ignore it is to not learn from it.
Acknowledging what has happened is not Anti-Jew or Pro-Arab, it is simply acknowledging what happened. Obviously at this point, Israel can not return to the original borders, it would be suicidal in view of the current situation. I honestly don't know what the eff to do. But I do know that we will never get it solved if we insist Israel is squeaky clean.
That may be true, but you are leaving out various relevant things such as (in no particular order):
Haj Amin al Husseini (google him)
The Six Day War
Yom Kippur War
The numerous rejections by the "Palestinians" of Israeli offers of statehood
Killing terrorists is rather different than killing innocent civilians, athletes, children, etc.
The use of human shields (usually children) by one side (the Arabs)
The almost comical (if it were not true, that is) violent indoctrination of Arab children to kill Jews.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkNE__TiMZo
So, yes, to ignore things is to not learn from them.
This pretty much sums it up perfectly, and humorously. Well done, sir.
That may be true, but you are leaving out various relevant things such as (in no particular order):
Haj Amin al Husseini (google him) NO NEED TO GOOGLE HIM, I KNOW OF THE MUFTI (SP?) FROM MY READINGS ON THE AREA'S HISTORY
The Six Day War
Yom Kippur War
The numerous rejections by the "Palestinians" of Israeli offers of statehood
Killing terrorists is rather different than killing innocent civilians, athletes, children, etc.
The use of human shields (usually children) by one side (the Arabs)
The almost comical (if it were not true, that is) violent indoctrination of Arab children to kill Jews.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkNE__TiMZo
So, yes, to ignore things is to not learn from them.
Hey guy, the world is screwed up, why don't you and I team up and go someplace where we can agree who to blame, Rwanda?
You think I'm a Jew-hater - I'm not; I think you are to locked in on the whole Jews - promised land - they can do no wrong - your probably not.
Let's just agree to disagree and move on agreeing that we both want to assure survival of Israel, we just don't agree on the best course to take.
SeriousStudent
08-17-15, 23:29
Let's just agree that this thread needs to go to bed.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.