I didn't realize Mr. Bigglesworth was French.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/2006041...25_2006104_xml

I also wonder if the Bulls would have won so many championships had Sam Bowie not been picked before Michael Jordan.

I wasn't arguing for al-Qaeda-Iran connections there (although they are numerous.) I was pointing out that the Iranian state itself has committed terrorist acts in the past and has shown that it doesn't respect other states territory.I'll repeat what I said earlier on this - while both countries acquiring nukes tends to give the appearance of calm it really just leads to a longer more diffuse war where both sides support paramilitary groups. All the "hot spots" during the US/USSR Cold War, India/Pakistan in Kashmir - just because conventional warfare is now out of the question doesn't mean the two sides stop fighting. And Iran has already shown its willing to fight wars like this through the Pasdaran and organizations like Hezballah.You want to talk about Iran's economic self-interest? Look south-west. Who is going to step up and stop a nuclear-armed Iran from invading Saudi Arabia and the gulf states? Would the US really step up if it meant nuclear retaliation into Israel and US targets, either the army or the homeland? Shucks, if you want to bring realism into this, isn't invading a powerless resource-rich neighbor what makes sense for Iran to do? Even if you don't believe they would go that far, they could shut down the Straits of Hormuz real easily with nuclear weapons to deter the United States from stepping in.

If that one line committed Iran to a path towards building nuclear weapons, I wonder what it would take to destabilize them enough to use them?

What? :confused:

When it comes to Israel and the Arabs, and the US's involvement, I found this list of deaths from Arab terrorists attacks after they signed an accord in 1993.

hxxp://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/victims.html#Sep

I look at this list and wonder what we would do as a country if this was happening here. Would we react the was Israel had done? Would the same people decrying the treatment of Arabs still be doing it? What would we do to stop this from happening if it happened that often here?

I can't imagine being an Israeli and the fear one might feel just going to the market, or the fear a parent might feel taking his or her child to school.

Another Dutch strawman. rex says that we:

1) Called Iran part of an Axis of Evil

2) Invaded another part of the Axis of Evil (implying that Iran saw that they too could be invaded based upon their inclusion in the group referenced in (1)

3) Spread ourselves thin by our invasion in (2), allowing us to be in a weaker negotiating position

And yet all you reference is the first part. ALL of those things led to the Iranians upping their nuke program, not just the 'one line'. But then again, "If all we have to do is announce regime change as our foriegn policy, invade their next door neighbor in a war of aggression, and leave ourselves relatively defenseless to provoke a nuclear research program, who knows what it will take to REALLY set them off" doesn't roll off the tongue.

That's all well and good, but in an average year, Israel kills 2-3 times more Palestinians than the Palestinians kill Israelis. Imagine the fear Palestinians feel taking children to market... Have a look for yourself:

Report 2005
Report 2004
Report 2003
Report 2002


Using tanks, artillery, and helicopters doesn't magically make it better than suicide bombers...

That's pretty bad stuff, I'll admit. But I wonder how much of this is a response to innocent Israelis dying? Doesn't make it right, I understand that, but there's an automatic response in many people for revenge against the people that have harmed one of your own.

It's very hard to feel empathy for a group of people who continue to say, through word and deed, that they want an entire group of people to die. Granted, children are innocent in this, but I think perhaps if the Arabs would simply leave the Israelies alone and allow them to live in peace, all of this would never have occured. They don't want Jewish residents to live near them, have started several wars against Israel, and expect the government not to react.

I say again, if this would have happened in the US, how would we react? If there was a group that made it their duty to try and kill every single Christian just because they're Christian, then tries to create terror whenever possible, would we respond differently than the Israeli's do?

I'm certainly not justifying children dying, but would American's react any better? How would you react if you were an Israeli?

The difference between the Israelis and the Palestinians is: When an Israeli child is murdered by a Palistinian, the Palestinians celebrate the event. Whan a Palestinian child is murdered by an Israeli, the Israelis regret the event.

And yet they kill them in much larger numbers... you'd think if they really felt bad about it they could change their military procedure or training or impose serious consequences or do something that could have an impact. You can talk a good game all you want, but results count, and the results are that Israelis kill more Palestinian children than the reverse. In 2005, Israel killed more Palestinian children than Palestinians killed Israelis in total (men, women, children, soldiers and civilians). That doesn't strike me as the conduct of a remorseful people.. Vengeful maybe..

One problem is that so many people see this and agree. The terrorists understand this. They build their bombs in homes, making sure there are plenty of women and children around. They always travel with children. After they fire their rockets into Israel, they hide behind women and children or they hide in the mosques.

To them, their own families are expendible. The highest honor these nutballs achieve is to have their own children die as "martyrs." It's absurd, but that's their culture, and they are keenly aware of how the media around the world condemns the strike itself instead of the fact that these people instigate violence, then sacrifice their own children.

I think it is important to note that there are not so many anti-Isreal people as their are nuetral people who don't particularly like either side in the conflict. Yes, I understand why Isreal reacts the way they do. I also understand why the Palestinians act the way they do with guerrilla tactics: they can't compete on conventional terms.

Jim, getting a little back on topic, you mentioned before that Iran should be kept from getting nukes 'by any possible means' or something like that. I'm interested how far, in your opinion, is possible. Just air strikes? A ground invasion? An invasion with occupation? Strategic nukes? Nuking the entire country?

No, that's not what I said. You can go back and read what I wrote just as easily as I can repeat it.

Meanwhile, can I ask if you've read the Hamas Charter? What do you think of it? What do you think of the recent statements of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regarding the destruction of Israel?

What about Mogadishu? We lost like 18 soliders and killed over 1000 people during that whole black hawk down fiasco alone...so we aren't remorseful over that?

I still don't quite understand how strawmen work, but let me give it the Mr Bigglesworth college try.

1.) Iraq did nothing wrong.
2.) Bush called them "evil".
3.) Bush invades all countries he calls evil that did nothing wrong.
4.) Bush will invade Iran by June of '07.

Awww, shucks, that's not a strawman, that's just typical Mr Bigglesworth bullshit. Mix your bullshit with my straw and we might have some mortar, but I admit, it would still smell like shit. :)

You're in denial. Read some of the reports:

Four Palestinian schoolgirls were shot dead by the Israeli army in their classrooms or walking to school in the Gaza Strip in September and October. Raghda Adnan al-Assar and Ghadeer Jaber Mukhaymar, aged 10 and nine, were shot dead by Israeli soldiers while sitting at their desks in UN schools in Khan Yunis refugee camp. Eight-year-old Rania Iyad Aram was shot dead by Israeli soldiers as she was walking to school. On 5 October Israeli soldiers shot dead 13-year-old Iman al-Hams near her school in Rafah. According to an army communication recording of the incident and testimonies of soldiers, a commander repeatedly shot the child at close range even though soldiers had identified her as “a little girl... scared to death”. The commander was charged with illegal use of his weapon, obstructing justice, improper use of authority and unbecoming conduct. He was not charged with murder or manslaughter.

Ten-year-old Walid Naji Abu Qamar, 11-year-old Mubarak Salim al-Hashash, 13-year-old Mahmoud Tariq Mansour and five others were killed on 19 May in Rafah in the Gaza Strip when the Israeli army opened fire with tank shells and a helicopter-launched missile on a non-violent demonstration. Dozens of other unarmed demonstrators were also wounded in the attack.

In April, Israeli soldiers used 13-year-old Muhammed Badwan as a “human shield” during a demonstration in the West Bank village of Biddu. The soldiers placed the boy on the hood of their jeep and tied him to the front windscreen to discourage Palestinian demonstrators from throwing stones in their direction.

In March ISM activist Rachel Corrie, a US national, was crushed to death by an Israeli army bulldozer in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip. In April ISM activists Tom Hurndall, a United Kingdom (UK) national, and Brian Avery, a US national, were both shot in the head by Israeli soldiers in Rafah and Jenin respectively. Both were gravely injured. In May UK journalist James Miller was shot in the neck and killed by Israeli soldiers in Rafah.

Ahmad Ghazawi, aged six, and his 12-year-old brother Jamil were killed on 21 June by a tank shell fired by the IDF in a residential area on the edge of Jenin city. Their 11-year-old brother Tareq and a neighbour, Samer al-Ahmad, were seriously wounded in the same incident, which was caught on video by a neighbour.

Baha al-Bahesh, aged 13, was killed by a single bullet fired from an IDF armoured personnel carrier on 22 September in Nablus while standing with four international aid workers from the International Solidarity Movement.

Nine-year-old Shaima’ ‘Abu Shammala was killed on 17 October in her home in front of her parents and siblings by a shell fired by the IDF into a densely populated refugee camp in Rafah, in the Gaza Strip. In the same incident five other residents were killed, including a 15-year-old boy and a 70-year-old woman.

ain Hook, a United Kingdom national working with the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), was shot by IDF troops while inside the UNRWA compound in Jenin refugee camp on 22 November. The ambulance was delayed by the IDF and he died shortly afterwards. On the same day Cahoime Butterly, an Irish aid worker, was injured by a shot fired by an IDF armoured personnel carrier inside Jenin refugee camp.

Nivin Jamjun, aged 14, was shot dead on 28 June in Hebron by Israeli settlers who destroyed and vandalized Palestinian houses and property.

Fatima Abu Jish was killed in January as she was returning to her village of Beit Dajan from the hospital in Nablus where she worked as a receptionist. The IDF fired at her car which was in a queue of cars slowly travelling along a track through the fields because an IDF barrier had blocked the road to the village. The IDF first stated that soldiers had been firing in response to shots. It then admitted that no shots had been fired at the checkpoint. The IDF then claimed that a soldier had fired at the wheels of Fatima Abu Jish's car and that disciplinary procedures would be taken against him. No reason was given why one car in a convoy should have been targeted.

Two Bedouin women and a child were killed in June in the Gaza Strip when an Israeli tank shelled their tent with a 120mm shell filled with up to 2,000 flechettes. Three other artillery shells exploded in the same area, wounding other Bedouin and killing sheep. The IDF initially said it was responding to gunfire, but later said that the killings had been a ''mistake''.

Follow-up, these are all several years old, I was tracking BBC links for a while just because I find it stunning how one-sided some people's views of this conflict are. Anyway, it looks like the links still work:

12 year-old shot, apparently without provocation

Hamas member, 14 civilians killed in assassination (8 children), 140 wounded

5 policemen, unassociated with terror groups, assassinated due to IDF's "bad information", also 14 year-old shot dead for throwing stones

Woman carrying baby shot and killed

Tank fires into market, unprovoked, kills 3

Woman, 3 children shredded by unprovoked tank round

13 year-old boy, pregnant woman shot at demonstrations

4 month old girl killed in shelling of Gaza town

19 year-old used by IDF as human shield, shot in head

5 dead, 2 children in assassination

6 dead, 3 children in botched assassination

doctor killed when ambulance shelled due to ambulance moving too quickly

This is a conflict where both sides violate the Geneva Convention and every other accepted standard of human rights with sickening regularity and casualness. The best that can be said of the IDF is that their intent typically lies somewhere more along the lines of reckless indifference to the loss of human life rather than willfulness.

This is all I have to say.

http://sofaraway.ytmnd.com/

I think the fact that this dissolvedinto a Arab vs. Israeli debate supports the statement I made. Iran will drop a bomb on Israel and celebrate without worrying about the repurcussions since the holyland will be back in Arab hands...since when has radioactivity made a "holy" land not holy? It still will be, and it will be theirs.

Truer words were never spoken.

Aw, poor Dutch. His fantasy world that he has staked so much on is falling apart, and he is reduced to attacking someone for something that Bush will do something that Dutch himself agrees with: attacking Iran to stop them from developing nuclear weapons. Sad.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2...asy-world.html

I'm not the one that thinks America is awful bad, brother.


Actually, how can I attack you on your opinion of Iran when you refuse to give it? You're so busy blathering away about how evil America is that you get wound up in your own spin.

I doubt there's a bigger hawk on the board than me. I don't see anybody suggesting it would be a good idea to attack Iran, and only the lefties think it's likely. I think it's a complete impossibility. Iran is what it is, and military force is not going to have any impact. There's not much Bush can do from a diplomacy perspective, either. It's clear to me that Iran is going to be the next administration's problem, since the next administration will have at least some credibility with Iran.

Actually, Iran is Israel's problem. It's a shame that our government doesn't put the safety of it's own citizens first.

Ah, attacking one's patriotism. The last refuge of scoundrels.

I hope this is facetious. I've written about a million posts in this thread alone going over my position. Fantasy world.

oil

Isreal doesn't have any oil.

Exactly my point. Our involvement in the Middle East has very little to do with Israel.

I'm not going to sit here and defend or excuse the individual actions of IDF soliders. It seems the terrorists' tactics have worked on you very well, though, the same way they've worked on many journalists working the region.

It is in their handbooks to try and get the IDF to shoot at children and at mosques. That is one of their tactics, and it works very well, because people not paying attention to the core of the conflict can easily be convinced it's a 50/50 thing.

Have some IDF soldiers gone too far? Absolutely. And a few of them have been jailed for it. The Israelis do not want to kill citizens.

Here's the difference: if, tomorrow, the Arab extremist groups (of which there are many, all funded by different countries and factions) all decided to recognize Israel's right to exist and stop the violence, the violence would stop. The IDF wouldn't just unilaterally keep fighting.

Now, if tomorrow the IDF suddenly stopped fighting (and make no mistake about it, this is a war) and ran around with flowers instead of guns, do you think for a second the Arabs would leave them alone? If so, you have no understanding of the history of the region.

Just look at what the Arabs have tried. Repeatedly massing troops on the Israeli borders (again, Israel is about the size of New Jersey). Troops that outnumber the IDF. But somehow (most notably in the first strike against Egypt), the Israelis have remained alive.

You're quoting the Amnesty International report on Israel. While AI does some good work, they have a strange bias in that they refuse to consider a jihad a special form of abuse and they seem to target the US, in particular. Gitmo has been their cause celebre as of late.

http://www.aspenberlin.org/interesti...p?iGedminId=90

The director of AI, Irene Khan, has accomplished a lot, especially for women's rights in Islamic countries. But she is a Muslim, and began her AI career by turning its focus against Israel during the occupation of Jenin. AI's refusal to recognize the religious extremists' role in instigating so much violence around the world is a serious problem. Gitmo would not exist if Muslim extremists had not decided to kill 3,000 Americans in the attack on the WTC.

That was a declaration of war on America, and we deserve some benefit of the doubt in defending our borders, just like the IDF deserves some benefit of doubt.

So, you and the others here who conveniently forget the religious extremists' role in creating these situations continually refuse to acknowledge the fundamental problem here.

Read the Hamas Charter. Defend it. Read what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said recently about eradicating Israel. Defend it. Read what Gamal Abdul Nasser said while massing troops on Israel's borders in 1967. Defend it.

Each abuse you mention in detail is regrettable. And some should have been punished, though some probably are misreported. The Arab side of this conflict is much clearer. You can't dismiss it as mere rhetoric because these people act on it, they live it.

Hamas is the official government of Palestine. Ahmadinejad is the elected president of Iran. Nasser was the leader of Egypt for a couple of decades.

There is a right side and a wrong side of this war, and I'm firmly on the side of the people who weren't dancing in the streets when the WTC towers fell.

Do you like America or not? Simple question.

Israel doesn't exactly have diplomatic relations with Iran (much less anyone in the region). So you suggest Iran and Isreal should wage war to solve this issue? Smart.

Two different topics. We're still not defending our borders, btw.


...you don't think that attack was precipitated by anything?


And the imperialist countries? I think you're conveniently forgetting their roles as well



Are you referrencing the Israeli's videotaping and cheering 9/11?

Last refuge of scoundrels.

Jordan and Egypt


Not necessarily. That's really up to Israel, though.

In other words, it's out of the question for Iran et al. to accept Israel's existence.

I'll leave that to the countries who have issues with Israel, and Israel themselves.

Edit: Spelling

The international community should stand down and let Iran and Israel solve this once Iran has nukes? Smart.

PLEASE tell me you're not justifiying the 9/11 attacks. PLEASE tell me your blind eye to the REAL enemy in this whole situation (extremist Arabs) hasn't clouded your judgment to the level that it's now, somehow, the US's fault we were attacked. You want to take the side of the terrorists in this, that somehow they were right in killing 3,000 of us here?


All the Arabs have to do is LEAVE ISRAEL ALONE. Allow them to live in peace, and they'll do the same. Hell, they've TRIED to do the same and made concession after concession to the Palestines, but yet there's still fighting. Funny, that.

I can guarantee you that if this was happening in the US, we would not have a QUARTER of the patience for our citizens being murdered on the streets that the Israelis do. You're simply on the wrong side of this, Rex. I cannot fathom how someone can justify the terrorist's stance on this.


No, I think he was referrring to the Palestinians celebrating the attacks. You must have conveniently forgotten them.

Who are you calling scruffy looking? :)

Actually, rexall believes that ISRAEL perpetrated 9.11. Or at least, he's tried to insinuate that in the past.

We were talking about countries and Israel and the debate over their "right to exist"

Why do you right to exist in quotations? Do you not feel Israel and their people have that right?

Justifying? No.

I think that extremists on any side of the fence are bad.


Pakistan and India still fight over Kashmir.


Nope, I didn't forget that. I just didn't forget the Israeli's, either.

I believe there's a lot more to the story than we'll ever know.

I don't believe that they perpetrated it directly, though.

lol @ comparing Pakistan and India to Israel and the Arabs

How in the world are you able to operate a computer?

I guess it depends on your perspective.

Not for me to decide. Many in the Middle East would say no.

Which led to...


That's where you stand based on your own opinion, correct?

Well, if you're going to take that perspective, you can't then turn around and say 'Imperialism' is wrong, because it's the same thing.

Woah, slow down. This is a forum for opinion, we aren't asking you to set world policy. ;)

Wow.

Just ... wow.

So, if I suddenly stated:

How would you feel? Would you take the same stance, because, much like the KKK, the extremist Arabs want nothing less than a complete eradication of a race.

Huh? Solecismic, Glengoyne, Dutch, BishopMVP, probably more that I am not thinking of, all think that we have to attack Iran if they won't give up their nukes diplomatically.

dola -- (first time I've used that word)

I'm not accusing you of being a racist, so don't misunderstand me. I'm simply saying that taking that stance gives one the impression you're agreeing with the one from the radicals that a country and it's people have no right to exist.

I probably missed that somewhere, but do you think Iran has a right to develop nuclear weapons, Mr. Bigglesworth? What should the US do, if diplomatic measures fail, about this situation, if you had the decision-making power?

If you already stated your opinion, my apologies, I missed it.

Apples. Oranges.

Well, I'm not sure about Solecismic, but as far as I can tell Glen, Dutch and Bishop have simply argued that Iran shouldn't have America's permission to have nukes. They have not advocated any sort of immediate action, other than diplomacy ... and considering that nobody believes that Iran is suddenly about to acquire nuclear technology (most estimates put them at 10-15 years away) ...

They can speak for themselves, and will correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my take on the various arguments.

This isn't at all like Iraq. With Iraq the estimates given to the public were that they were DAYS away from having WMD capability. The political situation here is entirely different.

I don't agree that the people themselves have no right to exist.

Let me know this, though: Why do you think Israel has, without question, the "right to exist"?

The same way I feel any country, the United States included, has a right to exist.

I can't justify why the US should exist either, but they do. Same with Israel. If you want to be technical, we "stole" this land from it's former owners too -- so did virtually every other country in existance today. Israel is no different.

Why should Egypt exist? Or Jordan? Or Iran? Israel has as much right to exist IN PEACE that those other countries do, but no one is out there saying those other countries shouldn't.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'right to develop nuclear weapons'. Countries have a right to defend themselves, and if they deem that they need nukes to do it I can't fault them for going after it. And when your biggest rival (Isreal) and the foriegn beliggerant power that invaded your neighbor has them, it's a good idea to get them yourself. I also believe that all things being equal, it's better that they not have them. So I think the US should work out a carrot/stick diplomacy with some combination of sanctions/nuclear power/trade barrier reductions in there.

If diplomacy fails? Then the US is going to have to accept a nuclear Iran, like they have a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuclear China, a nuclear Pakistan and a nuclear North Korea. The costs of war against Iran far outweigh any benefits likely to result from it. Air attacks will only delay Iran's attainment of them. Full scale invasion is impossible right now and likely will cost far more than Iraq, both in terms of lives and resources.

I'm probably wrong about Glen. But just on the first page you have FN:

...and BishopMVP:
Solecismic said something along the lines of 'doing anything possible, hopefully diplomatically' to keep Iran from getting nukes, which sounds to me like he is in favor of doing more that talking, but he hasn't explained it.

That's the thing. We're in such a spot now that our diplomacy carries much less weight than it might otherwise.

But hey, at least we got OBL, the WMD's, and secured the borders!

So it's your position that once some world power unilaterally decides the political borders and declares a geographical area a 'country', that that country's right to exist must be defended no matter what? I'm not saying that I disgaree with your conclusion, but I think I disagree with how you got there.

Fair enough. It's really not an easy question to answer. On one side, more aggessive actions on the part of the US, when we're spread thin already isn't a solution, but I think the US and the Government is trying to stop anothe North Korea from happening, but I can guarantee you if they could turn back the clock, we would have done anything we could to have prevented that.

Iran has been proven to have a connection with Al-Queda, so with them developing a nuclear weapon, how long under one falls in the hands of a Al-Queda operative? War isn't the solution, but when their actions may have a direct effect on our ability to defend our nation, we have a right and a responsibility to take action. Plus, I too have a fear they will use them on Israel, then we'll have no choice but to act.

Arguing that force should follow failed diplomacy is not at all the same thing as saying we should use force instead of diplomacy.

Y'know, that's not what I'm saying, but I can see how you would see that. What I am saying is the Israel has the same right to live and exist as any established, recognized country in existance today. The same reason no one discounts, say as an example, Germany's right to exist as a country, is the same reason no one should discount's Israel's same right.

One of the big problems here is Bush. Nothing can happen until he's out of office because he and his administration have proven that they can not handle a delicate diplomatic situation.

Personally, I think he should resign. I'd advocate it if I thought Cheney would improve the situation considerably. I don't have a lot of confidence in Cheney, either.

However, this is a serious problem. You have a country that has helped attack Israel in the past and in the present. Its leader is a radical fundamentalist who believes Israel should not only disappear, but every man, woman and child should be slaughtered.

I'm not sure diplomacy can work, but if it is to work, the entire civilized world must work together to isolate Iran and supervise the dismantling of its weapons facilities.

Once these options are exhausted, and only then, force must be used. That's at least several years down the line. You can't exercise diplomacy against a nutcase if force isn't an option down the line. That's what makes the UN so pitiful on a larger scale.

The Iraq invasion was a huge mistake. We are only in the beginning stages of learning just how much of a mistake Bush made.

As for MrBig, Rex and Mojo, there's really nothing I can say to a person who justifies the statements from the Iranian president and justifies the language of the charters of groups like Hamas, now the elected leaders of the Palestinians.

These leaders seek the eradication of an entire country. Their predecessors have made many attempts to do so in the past.

If we don't intervene, there will be a nuclear war in our not-too-distant future. That may be entertaining if you're an anti-semite or an anti-islamic to the extent where you find their deaths exciting. To me, the certain death of hundreds of millions, not to mention a world-wide economic disaster, sounds a lot worse than using force against Iran if it comes to that.

In this instance, it is ABSOLUTELY the same thing. Hamas doesn't JUST want the land, they want EVERY Jewish man, woman and child to die. The KKK didn't JUST want the blacks out, they wanted them to not exist. Exact same thing, from two radicals groups with similar agendas.

It's actually a fairly decent analogy in that the reason there were blacks in the first place was because of the Imperial powers' actions. Although, actually, you can assign some blame to the Muslim powers, since they were the ones typically selling the slaves.

well, if you want to boil it down simply:
"because it does."

not only does it, but they have defended themselves, in a darwinst type of way resulting in their "existence" so simply by the fact that they do, it should be. Now if you want to continue your train of thought, that perhaps they dont, then by naturality it would seem you would support an attack on israel, or thereby any country attacking any country and the lines are drawn aftwerwards. Ok, then the lines are drawn and Israel is on one side and many countries on the other. Should Hamas, not change their charter and then support an attack on Israel you are implicitly giving israel the right to destroy the attacking country (in this case Palestinian territories). So be it...I disagree that one group does not have the right to attack another unless provoked or to stop genocide or to stop an impending attack. It doesnt matter at this point which came first the chicken or the egg, as a civilized group of humanity one group (in this case Hamas/Iran, since they hold the cards simply in verbage alone) can change the world, for what would be, IMO, the better.

thank you

I love you :kiss:

It seems to me that there's only a couple of ways of looking at it. Either the bar for a state's "right to exist" is set in such a way that many, if not MOST states have no right to exist; or else there is something special about Israel, which if you start thinking and talking that way, you are in fact aligning yourself with al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

I am also puzzled why the western Imperialist powers are assumed to be agents of injustice, when that region bears more of the fingerprints of the various Muslim empires than anything else.

Im a fan of all countries, including a palestinian have the right to exist...so I lean that way.

As does Israel.

I haven't been arguing against attacking Iran, tomorrow, I've been arguing against attacking Iran EVER, under the current set of circumstances (obviously if they attack Isreal or invade Iraq it's another story). I figured that is what they were talking about.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...top_world_news

Yes, nothing at all like Iraq.

(Granted, the article talks about it being 16 days after installing the centrifuges. But the remarks of the State Department official are meant to project impending doom, much like the remarks about Iraq's WMD's before we invaded there)

i agree, we agree on something!!

is that sentence wrong? we can NEVER attack some country?

I think Mr Bigglesworth would prefer there be a smoking gun next time. I think that is wrong, but I understand where it comes from, assuming it's not part of Mr Biggleworths grander view of anti-Americanism.

That's the big dispute I have with the Bush administration is that they promised us intel reform, and apparently there have been some shakeups in the fundamentalist approach to intel gathering and collection, but the end result, especially with regards to Iran, seems like the same approach we took with Iraq. I don't know how you handle it better, but that's where I expect the US intelligence (and European Intelligence agencies for that matter,) to do their job a whole lot better.

Even it that means go back to the old system where HUMINT was a questionable practice of paying the actual bad guys to find out what's going on (rather than paying the bad guys enemies--who tell us what we want to hear). No matter how much people hated the old way, you have to admit, we knew what was going on in the world a lot better than we do today trying to rely on Predator drones.

It's sad to see how powerless the UN is in all of this.

Iran wants to be the new superpower in the Middle East. That cannot, in any way, be a good thing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060416/...n_palestinians


Honestly, the west cutting off funds to the Palestinian Authority cuts much deeper than Iran is willing to admit. Iran was always funding Hamas, the west was funding the PA. Now that the charade is over and Hamas is the public spokeman for Palestine, the west funds dry up and all they are left with is Iraq and Iran funds and Al Qaeda funds. Errrr, scratch the Iraq funds, Saddam Hussein isn't paying Hamas anymore and not sure how much money Al Qaeda has left these days.

It brings to mind H.L. Mencken: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."

Well let's all welcome Hamas to the real world. After they pay for their terrorist efforts, I wonder how much left of that they will have for their the people under their authority.

I'm sure not much, and when they continue to suffer, it will be because of the United States. Right, Mr. Bigglesworth?

Did you stop reading after the part you quoted?

It's sad and pathetic watching someone's worldview crumble before the facts, to the extent that his only rejoined is to call someone a traitor.

Hamas has been one of the most humanitarian organizations towards the Palestinian people. It's why they were elected. Democratically.

Boy, it's not like Dutch to have his facts wrong...

Surely you wouldn't suggest that's the ONLY reason they were elected.

I didn't call you a traitor, I see no reason to believe you've taken any action against our nation. It's America, it's your right to hate it...if that's your thing. It's also my right to disagree with it.

Where have a said that? All I've said is that You and Rex got your panties in a bunch believing that the President is hell bent on making war with Iran in the immediate future.

I've been pretty clear in this thread that I think a US attack on Iran in the near future is a bad bad, very bad idea.

I agree as well for that matter.

Yes I know, I corrected myself in a previous post, sorry about that.

Oh I'm not a traitor, I just hate America. Interesting, what brings you to that conclusion? I guess if I act on my hate of America, that would make me a traitor. I voted for Kerry, is that enough to make me a traitor, Dutch?

Colonel Sam Gardiner was on CNN on Friday, and says that evidence is mounting that the US has troops on the ground in Iran already:
No idea if it is true, but it wouldn't surprise me. Sy Hersh reported it right after the 2004 election. Some Democratic congressmen have written the President and asked if this is true, that the US has either special forces or are working with groups that are attacking targets in Iran. I'm sure Bush will set everyone straight.

Honestly Dutch, we're not in grade school anymore.

Now look what you've gone and made me do:

So, likewise, would you say that whenever there's evidence (no matter how small) that a nation has developed nuclear weapons without international consent, we should invade them? If so, when's the invasion of North Korea? Should we invade India and Pakistan after the fact (or just continue to reward them)? Israel's nuclear program is a poorly-kept secret, should we invade them?

Or perhaps we should invade a nation whenever they're ruled by a brutal dictator with anti-American views, eh? I guess we'll be going into North Korea soon, then, as in right away, right? And we'll be popping into Zimbabwe really soon now, right?

:)

Northern Ireland.

Grade school questions are easy then, right?

What's your favorite color? Blue
What's your favorite food? Pizza
What's your favorite country? Oh fuck you and grow up!

Yeah, I got it already. ;)

Er, Saudi Arabia? Not the state, officially, but certainly many of the exceptionally wealthy fundamentalist-leaning citizens. Why is money from Saudi Arabia such a blind spot for you?

Grade school questions are asked in a way to acquire a particular, unrelated, response, so that the questioner can immediately say "See! You're Wrong! Neener neener!" See also - Fox News.