# Iraq fires scuds



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Iraq fires Scuds at Kuwait. 

I thought Iraq said they had no Scud missles?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

ehMax, it is amazing that the weapons inspectors could not find these missles. My fear is, if they missed these, then what else was hidden and now ready for utilization by Hussein?


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I heard a report on the news on the way to work the Pentagon has said they are not certain they were scuds. 

I'm not for war.... but I find myself guilty for having a morbid fascination about the whole news coverage though. I'm sure I'm not alone.


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

I have heard the word "alleged" quite a few times this morning.
I really hate the sloppy journalism we have to put up with in this day and age.  
They don't even know where the debris landed and yet they report that they were scud missles. Wow, someones been eating their carrots to inprove their eyesight.  
Robert


----------



## Bjornbro (Feb 19, 2000)

Please people! Do I need to read play-by-plays of the war in iRaq here on ehMaq? I've got dozens of television news casts, dozens of radio broadcasts, umpteen millions of websites, and every single newspaper you can think of to give me that information.

Instead let's talk about the "human condition" aspects of war. Vent your feelings, share your thoughts and give your perspective, but please let's not try to be a mini-CNN.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

ehMax, re your having "a morbid fascination" with the media coverage, I would think that this is fairly common. Luckily, you are not morbidly fascinated with the war itself. I don't think that anyone on this forum has been fascinated with the war in Iraq -- some have supported it, some have opposed it, but no one seems "morbidly fascinated" with war as an institution.

On this topic, what would you do if someone was openly expressing a fascination and desire for war, total war, war between everyone with the attitude of "let the strongest country win and survive", an expressed desire of genocide against certain people? Would you step in and censor this person? Lock the thread? Banish this person? No one has come even remotely close to this point of view, but I am trying to gain some insight into how you view your role as Mayor of our fine community.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Well stated, Bjornbro, re you comment that we should "...talk about the 'human condition' aspects of war. Vent your feelings, share your thoughts and give your perspective, but please let's not try to be a mini-CNN." As well, hopefully this "venting" will not overlook the fact that real people on all sides of this situation will be killed. Good point!

On a "kinder, gentlier" note, how is your little girl?


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*Do I need to read play-by-plays of the war in iRaq here on ehMaq?*

ehMaq...  

Do you need to read play-by-plays? No, if you see a title of a thread that doesn't interest you, pass over it. 

I wasn't doing a play by play, more of a comment that Iraq said they had no Scud missiles and then apparantly they had used them.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

ehMax, I am guilty of this form or "word aphasia" (which is a true learning disability under the "dyslexia" umbrella of learning disabilities) in that I read over ehMaq as well and did not see the "q". At times, the eye sees what it expects to see, even though the letter/word is not present. Our cognitive and affective processes also see/feel/emote things that are not there.


----------



## james_squared (May 3, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ehMax:
*Iraq fires Scuds at Kuwait. 

I thought Iraq said they had no Scud missles? *<HR></blockquote>

Hello,

We must be careful not to spread rumours created by the media. Not saying this is the case, but we must be careful. The media sometimes (aren't I polite) makes a comment based on their sources, which may not be 100% accurate.

I was listening to CBC last night and they were, more or less, guessing about what was going on. People then hear these guesses, and think they're facts, which may cause people get upset or confused.

Given the fact that the situation in Iraq is already very confusing, let's do our part to not make it more confusing or we'll just get really confused and I find everything confusing when I'm confused. Confusing, isn't it?

James


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

james_squared, in today's Globe and Mail, they have printed a large map of how/where the assault on Iraq will take place. This is not the first time the G&M has printed maps of what will take place in Iraq. I found it odd that they would provide such detailed information on "how the invasion of Iraq is expected to unfold". Not that this will assist the enemy in any manner, but I sense that these "expectations" about the war will cause a "mixed message" when the war does not "unfold" as expected. We shall see.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

This is actually interesting... about media reports and being accurate. The story I linked too at ctv.ca *DID* specifically state Scud missiles. Now, when you go to the same story, it just says missiles. 

Anyway to check a cached version of the page?

A good point about not taking reports of media at face value... Especially now when every news station is so eager to get the scoop 5 minutes before the other stations.


----------



## james_squared (May 3, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr.G.:
*james_squared, in today's Globe and Mail, they have printed a large map of how/where the assault on Iraq will take place. This is not the first time the G&M has printed maps of what will take place in Iraq. I found it odd that they would provide such detailed information on "how the invasion of Iraq is expected to unfold". Not that this will assist the enemy in any manner, but I sense that these "expectations" about the war will cause a "mixed message" when the war does not "unfold" as expected. We shall see.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hello,

Exactly. I would suggest that we be careful about what we read in the papers or hear on the radio over the next little while. The true nature of the 'conflict' will probably not be known until sometime after it has all ended.

There is very little reason to expect that the military will give the media 100% accurate information. Further, we must be careful when reading the media's interpretation of the military briefings.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ehMax.:
*A good point about not taking reports of media at face value... Especially now when every news station is so eager to get the scoop 5 minutes before the other stations.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup.

James


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Copy and paste ehMax, copy and paste.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Last night all of the newsrooms were openly speculating. At one point on the National, Peter Mansbridge semed to assume that the decapitation had worked (he was under a lot of camera pressure and was rambling). Then Janice Stein comes on and repeats another rumour (originally from Reuters) that the Washington correspondant had already relayed about the US broadcasting from Iraq radio stations. The woman got it totally wrong and instead of providing analysis (which I assume is what she was asked to do) acted as if she was a source of information. Complete hokum. Only the retired CF admiral from Victoria kept his cool.

The publics insatiable appetite for information mixed with the vacuum in reliable information and propaganda, spin and agendas makes it incredibly difficult to seek out the truth. And I seem to remember that the US declared several months ago that it was willing to put out disinformation as part of the fight on terrorism. In other words, who the hell knows what is really happening?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

jwoodget, is it only "The publics insatiable appetite for information", or the desire of certain media conglomerates to create this literal "need" for the latest news on this issue. Read the article that Macspectrum posted by W.R. Pitt to see, in a far more eloquent manner than I am able to express, this concern with the media.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

I guess we'll only know all the information a few years from now, when someone can get all the files and piece together the correct set of events 

As for Iraq sending "missles" @ Kuwait... they missed rather horribly, and two were shot down by Patriot Missles. Is somebody begging for a beating? Or is this a little wave of defiance before the wave comes crashing down?

Unfortunatly for this war, we have a very pro-American media/propoganda machine and then Iraqi TV which along with the American media is so biased, its almost useless weighing what they say as truth. Are there any 3rd party journalists on the ground? Or did the American soldiers shoot/help deport them all?


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

Information? More like entertainment. Watch the pretty colours as the Tomahawks fly through the AAA and fly to the target. Tonight, a cab driver, tomorrow...?

Truth, like lives, is just another casualty of war. The embedded reporters self censor.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Britnell...the truth is, most definitely, the very first casualty of war.

And I agree with several others here when they point out that "we will not know what has really happened until well after the fact".

I concur.

But..having said all of that...I hope it all goes well.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Interesting conversation. Five years later, how do ya'll feel about it? My feeling was, if Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, then _why on earth didn't they use them to defend themselves? What are they waiting for?_


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Interesting point, fjn.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Its amazing how much ones perspective on things can change in 5 years. 


<----


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

For a second I thought you guys were talking about the upcoming war with Iran.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury, Iran with a nuclear bomb is actually more freightening than Iraq with this bomb.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

'Iran doesn't want to attack anyone, do they? They just want to be left alone." I disagree with you there, my friend. Those in power in Iran would be crazy enough to use this bomb against Israel.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Hzlphlph... ahem... good morning. I am confused why this old thread has been resuscitated. Is there something new going on in current events that I've missed in my sleep? Are the drums of war beating on the telly again?

I am not certain there's such a thing as a completely innocent country left in the world. Perhaps that's always been something of a fairy tale. All nations attempt to act in the interests of self-preservation. Some take it a little further and veer into extreme nationalism and aggressive aspirations to empire and global conquest. Is there no country in the world which doesn't have blood on its hands, or did at some point in its history?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

The problem with what you're saying is that while Iran attempts to develop nuclear weapons they are simultaneously repeatedly saying openly that they will use them to obliterate Israel "from the face of the earth." Perhaps you missed these comments, made many times by their president and other elected officials, over the course of several years.

At the same time, other countries that obviously possess these technologies do *not* use them, even when repeatedly attacked.




MasterBlaster said:


> Iran doesn't want to attack anyone, do they? They just want to be left alone.
> 
> Iran offered to lower the price of oil to reduce hardship in the world. The USA responded by stepping up its threats to attack it.
> 
> Israel and the USA want to attack other countries, they do many evil deeds. What they both have is a powerful public relations machine that distorts the truth, a huge budget, very high tech and well trained military.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

A valid point/concern, HowEver.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I sometimes wonder if those countries who are (seemingly) forever mouthing oaths to wipe Israel off of the map aren't simply going for full-bore bluster because it plays well to the masses - both the rowdly faithful at home and the easily nettled and eternally news-hungry abroad. Every nation with access to nukes (and many without) realizes what a full-scale nuclear conflgration in the Middle East would have grave implications with reverberating consequences that could drastically alter the earth's population, living standards for those who survive, etc.

In other words, it's mostly a bunch of talk... talk to appease the rabble at home for whom tough talk is a requirement and to goad the enemy abroad, for whom every threat of a nuclear kind is pounced upon with adrenalin-charged glee... it makes for great copy all around.

The day every nation bristling with nuclear weapons decides they're tired of playing nuclear chicken is the day we drop into a terrible new Dark Ages. I'm hoping we'll be wiser than that. Alas, it's a terribly risky game to play in the first place.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Ah, for the good old days when the Shah was on the Peacock Throne in Teheran, eh? Now he was a _good_ ***** and could be counted on. How did the West lose its grip so badly?


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Half baked lunatics with their crazy schemes. Iran could perhaps launch 11,000 missiles, if they had 11,000 missiles, but all it would take is one single warhead to vapourize Tehran, with perhaps 10% of the population of their whole country killed in a quarter of a second. It's just the sabre rattling that has been going on for years, and literally years, ever since a Macedonian prince named Alexander kicked their a$$...


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

MasterBlaster said:


> I hope everyone in power will cool their heads and prevent another stupid war.


I have the feeling that there is a taste for warfare these days. Our ex-Dear Leader, Tony Blair, certainly developed such a taste.

A couple of items from the Beeb News site, one from yesterday, and one from today:

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Israelis 'rehearse Iran attack'

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Iran discounts 'attack by Israel'


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) -- The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief warned in comments aired Saturday that any military strike on Iran could turn the Mideast to a "ball of fire" and lead Iran to a more-aggressive stance on its controversial nuclear program." 

Strike on Iran could turn Mideast into fireball, official says - CNN.com


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Considering that all it has taken to 'discourage' Iran's nuclear program is the occasional Israel/US factory strike, it doesn't seem as if a nuclear strike on Iran is remotely necessary.

But it certainly would do more than "learn Iran to a more aggressive stance." It would annihilate any stance that what's left of Iran might have in mind. We're not talking "Scud" missiles here.




Dr.G. said:


> "DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) -- The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief warned in comments aired Saturday that any military strike on Iran could turn the Mideast to a "ball of fire" *and lead Iran to a more-aggressive stance on its controversial nuclear program*."
> 
> Strike on Iran could turn Mideast into fireball, official says - CNN.com


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

HowEver said:


> The problem with what you're saying is that while Iran attempts to develop nuclear weapons they are simultaneously repeatedly saying openly that they will use them to obliterate Israel "from the face of the earth." Perhaps you missed these comments, made many times by their president and other elected officials, over the course of several years.
> 
> At the same time, other countries that obviously possess these technologies do *not* use them, even when repeatedly attacked.


I'd like to see the links to where Iran or its President actually said this. To the best of my knowledge the only statement to this effect was a deliberate mistranslation from Farsi published in the US media, that didn't mean anything of the kind. On the other hand various prominent American leaders, including Hilary Clinton have made this exact statement about obliterating Iran.

I think this is the perfect example of the Churchill quotation about a lie making it around world twice before the truth has a chance to put on its pants.

If I was an Iranian leader, I would certainly be working on getting nuclear weapons given all the hyperbolic sabre rattling that is directed at them.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

fjnmusic said:


> Interesting conversation. Five years later, how do ya'll feel about it? My feeling was, if Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, then _why on earth didn't they use them to defend themselves? What are they waiting for?_


My feeling is that this is a really old thread.










Glad to know what your feelings where FIVE YEARS AGO!


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Old as the hills, yet new as the morning dew. 

Has anybody noticed the stepped-up rhetoric about Iran in this thread? The new enemy? Isn't that EXACTLY how the American government talked about Iraq prior to the pre-emptive strike that started the Iraq "war"? I don't use the word war, because it is more like a slaughter. There is no way the two sides are anywhere close to being evenly matched. When we do not pay attention to the lessons of history, we are doomed to repeat it.

We get ALL of our information filtered through the western media. Remember that folks, whenever you feel the need to beat the drum.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Everything old is new again.

I dig Iran wanting its own nuclear stick so it can play with the big boys. The only problem with the global nuclear club expanding its membership list is that each new addition helps increase the odds that someone, sometime, is going to make a mistake. Such mistakes can bring about swift responses/retataliations and the results of a full-on nuclear exchange would be horrendous.

In that light, I would rather see a surgical strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.... as long as said strike doesn't hasn't reprisal measures that _also_ involve conventional payload missiles and escalate to nuke-tipped ones.

Dangerous game any way you look at it.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

HowEver said:


> The problem with what you're saying is that while Iran attempts to develop nuclear weapons they are simultaneously repeatedly saying openly that they will use them to obliterate Israel "from the face of the earth." Perhaps you missed these comments, made many times by their president and other elected officials, over the course of several years.
> 
> At the same time, other countries that obviously possess these technologies do *not* use them, even when repeatedly attacked.


"A cancer that must be removed" I believe was the wording.

Thing is, you attack Iran and you go to war with Syria, Algeria, Hezbollah (unofficially Lebanon) and a some other angry guys like Binny. The countries will fight a war symmetrically and the other guys will fight a war that the Americans cannot protect themselves from or defeat. The US has realized its position. The propaganda of the deed my friends, the US fell straight into the trap. The US cannot invade another country in the Middle East, it is exactly what they want.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I'd like to see the links to where Iran or its President actually said this. To the best of my knowledge the only statement to this effect was a deliberate mistranslation from Farsi published in the US media, that didn't mean anything of the kind.


Yes, but GA, you do realise that this is heresy, don't you? Never heard of running with the herd? Toeing the line? Tut-tut.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> Old as the hills, yet new as the morning dew.
> 
> Has anybody noticed the stepped-up rhetoric about Iran in this thread? The new enemy? Isn't that EXACTLY how the American government talked about Iraq prior to the pre-emptive strike that started the Iraq "war"? I don't use the word war, because it is more like a slaughter. There is no way the two sides are anywhere close to being evenly matched. When we do not pay attention to the lessons of history, we are doomed to repeat it.
> 
> We get ALL of our information filtered through the western media. Remember that folks, whenever you feel the need to beat the drum.


Exactly.

There are some extremely powerful people in the US and Israel who are pushing very hard for an Iran attack.

My opinion and the opinion of many others is that Iran, if left alone will gradually evolve into a stable, more educated and more moderate society. They were gradually heading that way and were attempting to participate in the world before 2001. Those pushing for war do not want to see a sovereign Iran, they want to turn the clock back to the time of the Shah where the West controlled Iran and its oil. All this talk of democracy in the Middle East is pure window dressing and BS, they do not want sovereign self-determination. 

If we were so hot and unassailably noble about bringing "democracy" to the Middle East, why do we tolerate Saudi Arabia? With it's fundamentalist rulers and repressive government, who are certainly just as bad or worse than Iran's currently are and also incidentally the country that spawned all of the presumptive 9-11 bombers and Osama bin Laden. 

Oh right, I forgot, because those leaders have said they'll work with the West for a cut of the oil profits. So "democracy" doesn't really matter then, it's just whether you'll roll over for the USA's oil lust.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Adrian. said:


> "A cancer that must be removed" I believe was the wording.


Again, I'd like to see a link with the context. That isn't the translation I've read either and the context certainly wasn't talking about wiping Israel off the map.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Max said:


> In that light, I would rather see a surgical strike on Iranian nuclear facilities ...


Let me know when it's going down. I want to stockpile plenty of clean underwear.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Max said:


> Everything old is new again.
> 
> I dig Iran wanting its own nuclear stick so it can play with the big boys.


I think they are just looking at Korea. The big boys will leave them alone if they attain even one bomb. The big boys know this and want to knock out the chance of them reaching Korea's level of development because the big boys have no intention of leaving Iran alone. The big boys don't give a damn if the whole region erupts into civil war as long as they can have their military planted there giving orders.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

GA, I don't disagree with you, especially regarding your Korean point. But if Teheran is intent on getting the bomb (and other Arabic countries are in favour of that development), then surgical action could result in angry escalating measures that, while not necessarily going nuclear, might be very bloody minded indeed, all the same.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

That's what they said about Iraq. The rest of the Arab countries rolled over.




Adrian. said:


> "A cancer that must be removed" I believe was the wording.
> 
> Thing is, you attack Iran and you go to war with Syria, Algeria, Hezbollah (unofficially Lebanon) and a some other angry guys like Binny. The countries will fight a war symmetrically and the other guys will fight a war that the Americans cannot protect themselves from or defeat. The US has realized its position. The propaganda of the deed my friends, the US fell straight into the trap. The US cannot invade another country in the Middle East, it is exactly what they want.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> My opinion and the opinion of many others is that Iran, if left alone will gradually evolve into a stable, more educated and more moderate society. They were gradually heading that way and were attempting to participate in the world before 2001. Those pushing for war do not want to see a sovereign Iran, they want to turn the clock back to the time of the Shah where the West controlled Iran and its oil. All this talk of democracy in the Middle East is pure window dressing and BS, they do not want sovereign self-determination.


Iran will evolve? Based on what? Their merciless torture and murder of students and foreigners and homosexuals?

No, that's certainly no reason to attack a foreign country. But there is no indication that things in Iran are going to get better for anyone but the ruling class.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

HowEver said:


> Iran will evolve? Based on what? Their merciless torture and murder of students and foreigners and homosexuals?
> 
> No, that's certainly no reason to attack a foreign country. But there is no indication that things in Iran are going to get better for anyone but the ruling class.


Based on the fact that it was already evolving in a more moderate direction before the Bush regime decided to stir it up. The president before Ahmedinejad was elected was definitely a moderate, but was made to look weak and ineffectual after Iran's overtures to the US and Israel ended with Bush slamming the door in their face. 

I am not defending Iran's fundamentalist dictatorship, I'm just saying that it is no worse than other dictatorships in the region who we now call our friends and allies. The only difference with Iran is that they insist on saying that they will control their own country, rather than exist as a de-facto US colony.

And we agree, this is absolutely no reason to invade a country and that IMO includes any threats about surgical strikes. Iran has a higher level of education and a bigger middle class than many of the other countries in the region. I'm of the opinion that education eventually dissolves the appeal of unthinking adherence to fundamentalism, whether you're talking about Islam in the Middle East or Christianity in the USA. 

The whole problem in Iran was caused by Western countries in the 1950s when they deposed the democratically elected President of the then non-fundamentalist country and imposed the dictatorship of the Shah on the country. It was the fundamentalists who fuelled the revolution that drove the Shah out.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Thanks, MasterBlaster. It's nice to hear they are killing and maiming fewer innocent people than they used to. That's progress for you. Students still seem to have it pretty bad, etc.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Again, I'd like to see a link with the context. That isn't the translation I've read either and the context certainly wasn't talking about wiping Israel off the map.


Interestingly enough, Israel wasn't on the map until, what was it, 1948. Before that, it was called Palestine. Maybe that's what they refer to--a return to the "good old days." Not that the Jewish people shouldn't have a homeland, but why have it smack dab in the middle of enemy territory?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

HowEver said:


> Thanks, MasterBlaster. It's nice to hear they are killing and maiming fewer innocent people than they used to. That's progress for you. Students still seem to have it pretty bad, etc.


With all due respect, HowEver, it's not like the U, S and A has such a clean track record in this area. Remember the "four dead in Ohio"? Os the "collateral damage" of innocent people in Iraq? If you recall, the first four deaths of Canadian soldeirs in Afghanistan were from American "friendly fire." I guess if you want to be safe you keep your friends close and your enemies closer.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

fjnmusic said:


> Not that the Jewish people shouldn't have a homeland, but why have it smack dab in the middle of enemy territory?


It's the "Holy Land".

Everyone and his brother want to lay claim to it.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Just reading this afternoon that there is a new resolution to come before the US House possibly next week called House Resolution 362, that will demand that President Bush "initiate an international effort" to impose a land, sea, and air blockade on Iran to prevent it from importing gasoline and to inspect all cargo entering or leaving Iran.

As many are pointing out most countries would view a military blockade taken against them as an act of war and no doubt Iran would too. This resolution does not call for any kind of UN support for the action either (probably because it wouldn't get it based on the sketchy evidence of Iran breaking any rules).

Apparently there are already 77 House Democrats and 92 Republicans lined up to support this bill. This sounds so much like the kind of crap they were pulling prior to the Iraq invasion.

This bill would initiate a military confrontation which will hasten the justification for a military action against Iran.

There is little coverage of this in the media, so far. The media seems pre-occupied with the election.

Looks like Bush is gearing up for Iraq: The Sequel. Fool me once, indeed. 

Better get that underwear stockpile ready, SnappleQuaffer.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Interestingly enough, Israel wasn't on the map until, what was it, 1948. Before that, it was called Palestine. Maybe that's what they refer to--a return to the "good old days." Not that the Jewish people shouldn't have a homeland, but why have it smack dab in the middle of enemy territory?" 

fjnmusic, the United Nations approved the UN Partition Plan (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181) on November 29, 1947, dividing the country into two states, one Arab and one Jewish. The British mandate over Palestine was due to expire on May, 15th, 1948. So, on May 14th, at a minute before midnight, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel. By dawn the next day, troops from Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Yeman attacked Israel from all sides. 

Within the Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel came the following ideals: That the State of Israel would be"... based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations." 

It went on to declare "... to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions. We extend our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East."

History needs to be viewed in perspective, with an understanding of what actually happened at a certain time and place in history. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

fjnmusic said:


> With all due respect, HowEver, it's not like the U, S and A has such a clean track record in this area. Remember the "four dead in Ohio"? Os the "collateral damage" of innocent people in Iraq? If you recall, the first four deaths of Canadian soldeirs in Afghanistan were from American "friendly fire." I guess if you want to be safe you keep your friends close and your enemies closer.


Absolutely solid post. Unfortunately, the massive scale of repression, assassination, misogyny, torture, imprisonment and exile put the lie to your comparison.

Canada and the US are hardly bunnies in a world of wolves, there are huge injustices here, systematic ones too. The unfairness of 40 million Americans without health care is a crime, indeed. Their education system is crumbling. But that's democracy for you. What it isn't is a brutal totalitarian regime.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

HowEver said:


> Absolutely solid post. Unfortunately, the massive scale of repression, assassination, misogyny, torture, imprisonment and exile put the lie to your comparison.
> 
> Canada and the US are hardly bunnies in a world of wolves, there are huge injustices here, systematic ones too. The unfairness of 40 million Americans without health care is a crime, indeed. Their education system is crumbling. But that's democracy for you. What it isn't is a brutal totalitarian regime.


I'm not sure what you're point is HowEver. No one is saying that Iran isn't a dictatorship. What I'm trying to say and I think a few others as well is that this shouldn't single it out for some dubious plan of "liberation" from the US and it's enablers. The world is full of dictatorships, including many that we do business with and have political alliances with. I think we've already agreed that Iran's government, flawed as it is, does not constitute a rationale for invasion.

The same kind of complaints were being made about Iraq before that invasion, that they were somehow the worst thing to come down the pike since Nazi Germany, that they would wipe out Israel, that their nuclear and other WMDs would result in "mushroom clouds over NYC". This is all about whipping up a war-frenzy. We need to step back from the propaganda coming from Washington and cool down this push for some immediate solution to a problem that is only hypothetical at this point. Iran is not threatening war and there is no need for the US with or without any other Western countries to attack them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

HowEver said:


> The unfairness of 40 million Americans without health care ...


They have health care, not private health insurance.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Macfury said:


> They have health care, not private health insurance.


Six of one, none of the other...


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Potato, potatah.

Here is an astute little commentary from MadTV that puts the whole thing in perspective, including Apple and Steve Jobs.

YouTube - The New iRack from Apple


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Again, I'd like to see a link with the context. That isn't the translation I've read either and the context certainly wasn't talking about wiping Israel off the map.


It's interesting, because that's what I thought he said, but from Wiki it seems to say that there was an eror in translation, but I don't kow if the true translation sounds any better. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I could see how it could be interpreted or translated incorrectly.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Kosh said:


> It's interesting, because that's what I thought he said, but from Wiki it seems to say that there was an eror in translation, but I don't kow if the true translation sounds any better. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I could see how it could be interpreted or translated incorrectly.


In Ahmadinejad's speech 2 years ago the error in translation has been attributed to someone at an Iranian news agency. Several scholars have agreed that the correct translation from the Persian language would be closer to "the regime occupying Jerusalem should vanish from the pages of time." A clarification was later made by the Iranian government that Ahmadinejad wasn't suggesting attacking Israel or wiping out the country, only that he was calling for regime change at worst, something that Israeli and US leaders have called for in Iran for decades.

Also the context of this speech is wrong. In Ahmadinejad's speech he was quoting the Ayatollah as saying that, not saying it directly himself.

Despite that various western media have gone with the "wipe Israel off the map" quote and have stuck by it. The correct translations have hardly been heard about. The media echo chamber has only intensified this so that we get internet posters, media pundits and US politicians saying with authority that Iran has threatened the destruction of Israel on several occasions. Even the current resolution before Congress calling for a military blockade of Iran, that is certain to result in a war if it is implemented, references the incorrect translation as justification. Propaganda is amazing.

And now we have PNAC member and arch-neocon William Kristol saying that if Bush thinks Obama is going to win the election, he will bomb Iran.

So Americans are being told that war with Iran is inevitable — elect McCain, you'll get an Iran war, elect Obama and Bush will start one.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"They have health care, not private health insurance." Macfury, unless you are on Medicare or Medicaid, or have your own health insurance, you are not covered in the US for any sort of health care. For the working poor and many part-time employees, you are on your own.

Medicare.gov - The Official U.S. Government Site for People with Medicare (Medicare is a Health Insurance Program for people age 65 or older, some disabled people under age 65)

Medicaid (For people in NY State who receive Supplemental Security Income and meet certain income, resource, age, or disability requirements.)


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> In Ahmadinejad's speech 2 years ago the error in translation has been attributed to someone at an Iranian news agency. Several scholars have agreed that the correct translation from the Persian language would be closer to "the regime occupying Jerusalem should vanish from the pages of time."


We all know this twits real point, considering he did organize an international conference in order to get to "the truth" about the holocaust that "didn't happen". He even invited his little hate-buddy Irving who wrote a book claiming that the Nazi's had no technology that could kill so many people, therefore it was propaganda initiated by the evil mind of Churchill. So translation or not, this dude is one dude that really has a fetish about Israel.

Really, I can understand the Palestinians being upset about Israel, since it was their land to start with. And I can understand Syria, Jordan and Egypt, since they lost land when they attacked Israel. But Iran? What threat does Israel have? It's like a two day drive across solid desert to get to the desert in Iran, and another day or so to get to anywhere where plants have a chance of getting water. I'll never understand their fetish about such things.

Reminds me of "fuddle duddle"...



> ...only that he was calling for regime change at worst...


Yeah, a Hezbollah regime!



> In Ahmadinejad's speech he was quoting the Ayatollah as saying that, not saying it directly himself.


Isn't this the twit that wanted to have a holy jihad because the Pope quoted some obscure dude from the 14th century at Regensburg? Maybe the Pope should declare a Crusade in retaliation! beejacon 



> So Americans are being told that war with Iran is inevitable — elect McCain, you'll get an Iran war, elect Obama and Bush will start one.


Enevitably, Iran will overplay it's hand. If they start hurling bombs around, it would be pretty easy for the Turks or the Pakistanis to do the same. Bush could only start a war if he can get funding from Congress, unless he thinks he can do it under his 30 day emergency measures power and his fund of $50 million to throw at such things. So I don't think he would, or even could, unless he wants to go down as the world's biggest loser.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> Interestingly enough, Israel wasn't on the map until, what was it, 1948. Before that, it was called Palestine. Maybe that's what they refer to--a return to the "good old days." Not that the Jewish people shouldn't have a homeland, but why have it smack dab in the middle of enemy territory?


Because Stalin's scheme of having a Jewish Homeland on the border between Siberia and Mongolia was not too popular...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> With all due respect, HowEver, it's not like the U, S and A has such a clean track record in this area. Remember the "four dead in Ohio"? Os the "collateral damage" of innocent people in Iraq?


Four were killed in a protest because the state (not the federal government) ordered out the National Guard, who in essence are militia that has some basic training and "serve" their country for a weekend every month. They were not the professional grade people. And really, more people were killed on the streets of Montreal after a hockey game / riot! I don't think you can compare that to the sytematic killing machine of a xenophobic / homophobic / islamophobic / *phobic regime like Iran.

I don't know of any Democrats in the US that were tortured and killed by the secret police when the Republicans took over - and vice versa. I know of no program in place where the US systematically exterminates minorities, tortures and kills people because of their religious beliefs, and I have never seen any American law that imposes the wearing of special clothing upon women.

The worst that has ever happened in Canada to an outgoing government is that some people are removed from the trough and have to "get jobs".

Iran is all about killing, and if tortures and executions have dwindled, it's only because the people that the regime wants to torture and kill are all over here, living in Detroit and other places, probably driving a Cab near you.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> We all know this twits real point, ...


Yeah right, let's bomb 'em, 'coz we all know what they really wanna do, because the media pundits on Fox and CNN keep telling us what they really wanna do.

Whatever the twit's real point is is not really relevant, since he's mostly a figurehead. The responsible position, if the US government was actually headed by adults rather than selfish cowboys, would be to avoid inflaming the situation. But what we have is American leaders opening talking about invasion and even obliteration, while propagandizing about the danger that Iran poses.

A less isolated Iran would be a less dangerous Iran. The US hawks only want to paint Iran into a corner where they have no choice but war.



> Enevitably, Iran will overplay it's hand. If they start hurling bombs around ...


This threat of Iran hurling bombs around is propaganda. It is the US that is proposing a military blockade to trip a war. They're looking to set up a Gulf of Tonkin and if they keep going where they're going they're bound to get it.


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

Quote:

Originally Posted by fjnmusi

Interestingly enough, Israel wasn't on the map until, what was it, 1948. Before that, it was called Palestine. Maybe that's what they refer to--a return to the "good old days." Not that the Jewish people shouldn't have a homeland, but why have it smack dab in the middle of enemy territory? ,,,snip


Well, Not really so, I am bit of a Bible studant and if you study your history in a nutshell, you will see that the Jewish homeland has always been in the midst of her many enemies because she was given that land through Abraham , the Father of the faithfull 3500 years ago and her neighbors have been disputing it ever since. THe term Palestine derives from the Philstines [ a nomadic sea peoples] whom the Israelites defeated under Joshuah when they took the land from pagan tribes on the west side of the Jordan
It is a geographic crossroads that seen the tramp of most nations coming up against it with some success when Israel had departed from their God as he warned them through their prophets and in the Book of Deuteronomy.
Many nations have gotten their waterloo for attacking israel against God's intentions- he promised to be a wall of fire around her and He has not left the scene that I know of. Gen 12:3 warns of that. Interestingly enough- The prophet Ezekiel has prophesised just that in his 38th chapter.
If Iran is dumb enough to attack her along with Russia , syria or any other hate motivated groups they will go down just like the babylonians, persians, greeks , and romans . Iran has some real firepower right now besides nuclear , thanks to the russians- a 300mph torpedo that will blow anything out of the water I understand so they are getting cocky.


shalom
jj


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> This threat of Iran hurling bombs around is propaganda. It is the US that is proposing a military blockade to trip a war. They're looking to set up a Gulf of Tonkin and if they keep going where they're going they're bound to get it.


Actually, I think you're dead wrong. There is a very real chance that if Iran had a nuclear bomb they would use it. They have shown a massive disregard for the rights of their own citizens, and others. The US and Israel have the capacity, and don't use it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

HowEver said:


> Actually, I think you're dead wrong. There is a very real chance that if Iran had a nuclear bomb they would use it. They have shown a massive disregard for the rights of their own citizens, and others. The US and Israel have the capacity, and don't use it.


Gotta agree. To think otherwise is naive in the first degree.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

HowEver said:


> Actually, I think you're dead wrong. There is a very real chance that if Iran had a nuclear bomb they would use it. They have shown a massive disregard for the rights of their own citizens, and others. The US and Israel have the capacity, and don't use it.


Fearmongering is what you're doing here HowEver.

Iran hasn't invaded anyone, nor threatened to. They have threatened to defend themselves if attacked. I don't disagree that they have shown a massive disregard for the rights of their own citizens, as I have already said, they are a dictatorship. So is our pal Saudi Arabia.

The threatening has been coming from the US and Israel and it's been a non-stop drumbeat for years.

I am being called naive because I don't swallow the arguments, using _exactly_ the same reasoning, of the same criminals who brought us the fraudulent Iraq invasion. Well, if that's naiveté, then those who are believing in this manufactured push for war with Iran are blind and seem to be exhibiting no capacity for learning from the past.

BTW, calling someone naive, doesn't constitute an argument for anything. Where is the shocking evidence that Iran is planning on attacking anyone and therefore it will be up to the US or Israel to bomb them? There's no more evidence then there are WMDs in Iraq. You non-naive people are being sold another fraudulent bill of goods.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> BTW, calling someone naive, doesn't constitute an argument for anything. Where is the shocking evidence that Iran is planning on attacking anyone and therefore it will be up to the US or Israel to bomb them? There's no more evidence then there are WMDs in Iraq. You non-naive people are being sold another fraudulent bill of goods.


Guess you forgot about the American hostages detained for just a bit of time, and the chest beating of that period did you?

Thinking it can't happen again is, well, you know . . .


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I for one am having a hard time believing Iran would be the first to go nuclear in a world already bristling with thousands of nuclear warheads, several hundreds of which would most assuredly be set loose on Iran by Israel and her allies in a heartbeat... very swiftly following Iran's own launch. These are weapons whose destructive force are magnitudes greater than the weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki... using delivery systems far more deadly and accurate. This is the doctrine of MAD put into brutal practice. The entire Middle East would turn into a fused lump of black glass and the fallout would reach Africa and Europe in a matter of days. Who profits from poisoning such a huge part of the globe in a massive nuclear exchange?

I have to agree with GA... the drums of war are beating something fierce. This reeks of propagandizing and preparing the masses for the "inevitability" of war.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Bloody minded Bush attack puppies.....Iraq was wrong and now you want to do Iran.....idjits all. 



> Iran may not be run by saints. No country is. But Iran has never threatened the U.S. Nor has Iran ever invaded another country. The Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has pledged there will be no Iranian nuclear weapons, nor will Iran start a war.


In well over 100 years Iran has NEVER invaded any of it's neighbors and WAS a democratic state OVERTHROWN BY THE US AND BRITAIN. 
You think they MIGHT have a good reason to pissed and suspicious.

Shades of 1984........pity the planet. Mindless right wing ideologues right out of PNAC's playbook.

•••



> I have to agree with GA... the drums of war are beating something fierce. This reeks of propagandizing and preparing the masses for the "inevitability" of war.


exactly ...the pornography of war and the mindless Bush followers are being "groomed" for it.....


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Bloody minded Bush attack puppies.....Iraq was wrong and now you want to do Iran.....idjits all.


Ah yes, sorry, I keep forgetting. YOU're right and we're all wrong.

Sorry but your views don't mesh with mine and never will. I will however refrain from calling you names as you are want to do with all who disagree with you.

Told you once I'm NO PUPPY, but that fell on deaf ears again. Your dialogue gets very tiresome with the insults.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Guess you forgot about the American hostages detained for just a bit of time, and the chest beating of that period did you?
> 
> Thinking it can't happen again is, well, you know . . .


So what are you saying SINC, that when the Iranian student revolutionaries overthrew the despotic Shah and then overzealously captured some American hostages - that is your pretext for a war that could kill millions? And you're calling me naive?

They did release them eventually after all, without any bombs being dropped. And if you remember they would have released them sooner if Reagan campaign operatives hadn't illegally intervened to make sure they wouldn't get released until he was inaugurated, so that soft-on-terror Jimmy Carter couldn't get the credit.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

What I am saying is that there was a time when they openly defied the US and given a nuke they will surely do it again. You can count on it. And we all know where that will lead. And it won't be US initiated.


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

Interesting site re current news/ background on the players surrounding Israel:

DEBKAfile
yrs
jj


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> What I am saying is that there was a time when they openly defied the US and given a nuke they will surely do it again. You can count on it. And we all know where that will lead. And it won't be US initiated.


So you have a "feeling" that they will openly defy the US of A. That's a crime?

There's the difference right there. Saudi Arabia, at least as despotic and tyrannical as Iran is our friend and ally. They are a nation run by religious fundamentalists who brutally repress their own citizens ... but ... they don't openly defy the US of A. They got into bed with them and their royalty has gotten fabulously wealthy because of their coziness with their Texan brothers including the current US President and his family.

Iran insists on controlling their own sovereignty, therefore they are a massive and imminent threat to world peace and must be attacked and democratized - really soon.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

*http://www.ehmac.ca/search.php?do=getnew*



SINC said:


> What I am saying is that there was a time when they openly defied the US and given a nuke they will surely do it again. You can count on it. And we all know where that will lead. And it won't be US initiated.


Do we, Sinc? Please. You're putting words in our mouths here. Your fear-mongering does not wash with me. I can't see Iran being suicidal enough to launch a nuclear first strike. Thankfully, thus far no one else possessing nuclear weapons (and let's face it, it's a motley crew) haven't fired off their weapons as a prelude to war. What makes you so certain that Iran will be eager to buck the trend - and that we agree with you?

Speak for yourself, man.

Don't get me wrong... the more nuclear weapons out there the greater the chances we will see an exchange occur due to an accidental firing or the result of frayed nerves from increasingly tense sabre-rattling and conventional weapons being readied along with the usual escalations of troops amassing, materiel being moved to expected battle fronts, etc. Do we really want a larger nuclear club, one where every nation has a seat?

The problem with trying to dissuade nations that want into this club is that it's too easy to pass on the carrot and to go with the stick... and then go 'hot' with that stick.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

HowEver said:


> Actually, I think you're dead wrong. There is a very real chance that if Iran had a nuclear bomb they would use it. They have shown a massive disregard for the rights of their own citizens, and others. The US and Israel have the capacity, and don't use it.


Perhaps Israel hasn't, but the U, S and A certainly has. Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki? In fact, the only country that HAS used nuclear firepower on any massive scale is our good friends to the South, the only real superpower that has ever existed weapons-wise, though they would have you believe differently. Whatever happened to all those nuclear weapons supposedly held by the USSR during the cold war, where mutual deterrence was the only thing preventing the world from being blown up several times over? 

The nation that needs the closest watching is the one with most firepower, and that's not Iran. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer, they say. The USA is not our enemy (yet), and let's try not to p!ss them off.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Max said:


> Do we, Sinc? Please. You're putting words in our mouths here. Your fear-mongering does not wash with me. I can't see Iran being suicidal enough to launch a nuclear first strike. Thankfully, thus far no one else possessing nuclear weapons (and let's face it, it's a motley crew) haven't fired off their weapons as a prelude to war. What makes you so certain that Iran will be eager to buck the trend - and that we agree with you?
> 
> Speak for yourself, man.
> 
> ...


Gee maybe Israel could sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and a country like Iran might not feel so threatened. But Israel won't sign and wants us to believe they have no nukes and that every breath they take is one of peace and goodwill towards their neighbours.

If the Iranian leadership isn't building nukes they would be crazy not to. All they have to do is look to Korea, no one is talking about invading them, just talking about talking with them.

I don't want to see Iran have nukes, but I can understand why they would want them. The same way I could understand why an inmate in a prison cell might want to make a shiv, when he notices his new extra-large cellmate is looking longingly at his backside.

Maybe if the US would quit acting like a prison bully, smaller countries might be inclined to relax a little.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Maybe if the US would quit acting like a prison bully, smaller countries might be inclined to relax a little.


You know, when you think about it, when you look at Canada and the US on the map, we're bigger, and we're on top. If this was prison, the US would be our b**ch.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

See that MacDoc. Three posts in succession disagreed with me and nary a one of 'em called me an idjit or a puppy. Learn anything there?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Oh stop being such a idjit, you silly puppy. 

(not to be taken literally, Mr. Mayor!)

(cool web page, by the way, Sinc)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> I can't see Iran being suicidal enough to launch a nuclear first strike.


And I can. therefore our difference of opinion.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> And I can. therefore our difference of opinion.


Why? Just a feeling? This justifies a bombing raid?


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Why? Just a feeling? This justifies a bombing raid?


Iran wont do a thing unless Ivan gives the go ahead but they still have some ducks [lame] to lineup I think - she has lost a lot in the past in similar ventures on her bid to be the middle east medi mover n shaker and this may be her last shot at the can eh?
jj


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

SINC said:


> And I can. therefore our difference of opinion.


Why? Explain, please. Hopefully there's something beyond "just a hunch" lurking in that brain of yours.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> Why? Explain, please. Hopefully there's something beyond "just a hunch" lurking in that brain of yours.


Once a fanatic, always a fanatic, and the middle east has plenty of them to go around. Therefore the risk is there and very real.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Hmmm... the guy heading up North Korea could meet that definition and then some, and they're sitting on top of some nukes too, with a very large army... no nuke attacks from them yet!

The Israelis have weapons and a 'fanatical' desire to stay their ground. No nuke attacks from them yet!

That's your theory? That the Middle East is chock full of fanatics (save Israel, presumably) and where there's fanaticism there's bound to be nuclear weapons launches, sometime, somewhere, you betcha?

Come on, man.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Iran hasn't invaded anyone, nor threatened to.


Wrong - they invaded the United States when they took over the Embassy, which is by all measures an act of war. They also invaded Iraq, as well as their attacks on various ships in international waters during the Tanker War. They are under international sanctions for a reason, and it's not just because Bush wants a cheap thrill. They also occupy Armenian and Kurdish lands, and subject those people to various genocidal acts.



> ...they are a dictatorship. So is our pal Saudi Arabia.


Saudi Arabia is a kingdom, perhaps a police state, but is not a dictatorship. If we went around and pinned the term "dictatorship" on every nation that does not grant democratic right to the people - every nation would be a dictatorship. The problem in Iran is that, not only are these nutcases not legitimate, the people didn't even want them. They just wanted end of the murderers in the Shah's SAVAK...



> The threatening has been coming from the US and Israel and it's been a non-stop drumbeat for years.


Have you been reading The Protocols again? Israel attacked Iraq to end their quest for the bomb, and they will do it again when Iran tries to put a bomb together. Once Iran has a few bombs,they will end up selling them to their good buddies: Al-Qaida, Hezbollah, and North Korea. No good can come of these lunatics having a bomb.



> of the same criminals who brought us the fraudulent Iraq invasion.


Saddam got what he deserved - having pretty much bullied and threatened everyone in the world for forty years (first through his front men, then finally by himself once he liquidated the Ba'ath party.) He spent years trying to buy parts for whatever bimb he could build, spent years bragging about the size of his bombs and the superiority of his military machine. And he didn't give up, having lost the first Gulf War and destroying and looting Kuwait in the processes. Back to the lies and treachery, so that really, no one knew any of the story. No one could trust him after his regime broke over 160 international treaties and agreements, attempted toliquidate the Kurds, sabre-rattled with the Turks, supported Al-Qaida and allied organizaions (and even praised the workle works of Al-Qaida!), went to war against Iran, invaded Kuwait and Saudi Arabia - and generally showed that he was a bigger nutcase than pretty much any other regime ever. The only fraud is that Bush sold us a bill of goods - and I am still waiting for the "shock & awe" he promised...



> Where is the shocking evidence that Iran is planning on attacking anyone...


Judging by the number of fatwas issued by the Iranian government - they plan on killing any number of people, like Salmon Rushdie, Danish cartoonists, and really, pretty much anyone that has an opinion that is at variance with their own peculiar set of heresies. Plus, I think the construction of 3000 centrifuges pretty much makes the case that they want a bomb, and will fund it even if they have to make their people suffer incredible hardships ans repression.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> Saddam got what he deserved - having pretty much bullied and threatened everyone in the world for forty years (first through his front men, then finally by himself once he liquidated the Ba'ath party.) He spent years trying to buy parts for whatever bimb he could build, spent years bragging about the size of his bombs and the superiority of his military machine. And he didn't give up, having lost the first Gulf War and destroying and looting Kuwait in the processes. Back to the lies and treachery, so that really, no one knew any of the story. No one could trust him after his regime broke over 160 international treaties and agreements, attempted toliquidate the Kurds, sabre-rattled with the Turks, supported Al-Qaida and allied organizaions (and even praised the workle works of Al-Qaida!), went to war against Iran, invaded Kuwait and Saudi Arabia - and generally showed that he was a bigger nutcase than pretty much any other regime ever. The only fraud is that Bush sold us a bill of goods - and I am still waiting for the "shock & awe" he promised...


The rest of your comments are on the level of your "everybody knows what Ahmadinejad _really_ meant", which MB ably answered. No one should be able to start a war based on loose facts, innuendo and outright propaganda, although the US did so with Iraq and are attempting for strike 2 with Iran.

When you say that Saddam got what he deserved I can hardly argue against that. He was a murderous criminal and a bully. If someone could have plucked him out from the middle of Baghdad and put him on trial in the Hague, it would have likely received broad support. 

But did the people of Iraq deserve what they got? Did the families ripped to shreds by US aggression get what they deserve? Did the death of thousands of children, mothers and fathers get what they deserve? Did the thousands of dead and wounded US soldiers and their families get what they deserve? Did the US taxpayers who are now having to pay for a _multi-trillion dollar_ Iraq war get what they deserve?

And the irony of this is that it was the United States of America who installed Saddam and his party to power in Iraq, trained him with the use of CIA operatives, financed his massive arms build-up, provided the chemical weapons that he used against the Kurds, encouraged him to attack Iran and use those same chemical weapons and initially gave him the green light on annexing Kuwait, only to change their minds later and decide to go to war against their own Frankenstein monster. Who deserves to pay for that? You can be sure it won't be Bush, Cheney, Bush Senior or any of the other neocons who stuck their noses in the Middle East.

Counselling war based on propaganda or the fact that we think a regime is somewhat despotic would have us invading countries all over the world, including China. (Formerly fanatical Maoist "Red" China, SINC  ) Responsible leaders do not invade countries, they attempt to avoid bloodshed unless there is absolutely no other option. No one has shown that there is no other option with Iran. It is petulant children like the US hawks who want to paint Iran into a corner where they have no other option but to defend their sovereignty. Gulf of Tonkin part 2, here we come.


----------

