BS: The coming war with Iran?

Subject: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 08:21 PM

Looks like it's in the works to me, but we'll have to wait and see.

Here's a link to one interesting bunch of comments:

How The War With Iran Could Play Out

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 08:49 PM

Yoicks

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: jaze
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 10:22 PM

If it happens, I fear it will be the beginning of some really bad times for us all.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Once Famous
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 10:43 PM

Want it to not happen?

Overthrow their government now. Take out their madman President.

Otherwise, it's us or them.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Anonny Mouse
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 11:22 PM

Wow, Little Hawk-the link to that blog is downright scary-well, not the link-what's written. "If you're under the age of 42..." be prepared to be drafted?!?!? Fortunately that rules me out, but not my sons.

If anything that article may have been too optimistic, as dire as it was. Really seems to me to be the powder keg to start WWIII...a lot more international involvement than first blush. Tactical nukes? Missile attacks on Israel? Geez all that's enuf to keep me up nights as if I could do anything about it. Martin may have a point...

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: number 6
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 11:37 PM

It aint gonna happen until there are direct Islamic fundamentalist attacts in Europe .... then that will get the Europeans all pissed off then they can join into the meleee. Let's face it, the U.S. hasn't the manpower or the economics to go this alone, and they aren't stupid to this fact ... they need all the help (militarily) they can get.

And all it took was a cartoon ... a smooth move in tactics one must say.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 11:47 PM

They may not be stupid, but the C-in-C is, and history is replete with examples of reckless decisions at the top causing huge cockups. Bonaparte's Russian campaign, Hitler's Second Front, MCLellan's lassitude, etc., etc... all it takes is on dumpkopf in a position of leverage.
The fact that such an action might precipitate the 3rd World War seems to be a bit beyond his imperious sensibilities.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 11:54 PM

"It aint gonna happen until there are direct Islamic fundamentalist attacts in Europe ...."

What is a direct attack? Perhaps I should ask what is an indirect attack?

It seems quite possible that this could easily be set up so that the U.S. could be assured of European allies.

Regardless of whether Europe is attacked or not, the U.S. neo-cons have brought us to the brink of extinction.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Anonny Mouse
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 11:55 PM

6-Yer probably right on with that-and I think it would have to be on the scale of 9/11-like taking out the Eiffel Tower, or some other comparable landmark type of thing, with a (sadly) massive body count.

Meanwhile it just seems so many whackjobs are running the most militant, fundamentalist middle east nations. So comforting to know the economic well-being of pretty much the entire rest of the world is dependent on their oil. Sheesh! :(

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 12:39 AM

So if it does happen, then we wont be getting oil from the ME, oil prices will of course rise and there will be increased tension between the west and China as everyone scrabbles for the non ME oil.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: LadyJean
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 01:15 AM

I knew Iranians in college. They were good people, good Muslims, but not terribly serious about it. They didn't drink, or date. But they went to dances, and parties. They hung out with the rest of us. When a professor asked Hossein (Usually called Hoss.) if he'd been to Mecca, Hoss responded " Hell no! You got to kiss a lot of stuff good bye when you do that!"
The Iranians I knew knew how to enjoy themselves. They subsituted caffeine and sugar for alcohol, but they were serious partyers. I always wonder why Iranians put up with the mullahs. I keep hoping they will stand up and drive the fanatics out. They won't do it if we invade.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 01:31 AM

They put up with the mullahs because they hated the Shah.

They didn't like what American imperialism was doing to their culture and their economy. They chose the lesser of two evils.

They still prefer the Mullahs to the western puppets.

Thats democracy for you!

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: goodbar
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 01:57 AM

being 17 as of now i may have to start thinking about how i'll dodge the draft...

"sarge i'm only 18 i got a ruptured spleen and i always carry a purse, i got eyes like a bat and my feet are flat and my asthma's getting worse, just think of my career and my sweetheart dear and my poor old invalid aunt, 'cause i ain't no fool i'm a-goin' to school and i'm a-workin' in a de-fense plant"

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 07:15 AM

from that blog:
"All in all, I find it hard to comprehend that anyone could possibly see the above as some sort of "win" scenario. And yet, we are told this may be necessary to prevent the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon maybe in ten years (and maybe more years before it could be delivered). "


Of course, the fact that the Iranians have already obtained the delivery system, and are more like 2 to 3 years from functional, deliverable nuclear weapons ( at the outside) seems to have been missed.

In addition, assume that Iran hits, say 5 Israeli cities. Then look at the fallout patterns, and ask yourself if there could even be a Palestinian state in that region afterwards- even on the West Bank.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 07:22 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 05:12 PM

Makes Ballistic Missile Breakthrough

A defence ministry statement said the new technology could be built into Iran's Shahab-3 missiles (pictured) - which the Islamic says already has a range of at least 2,000 kilometres (1,280 miles).
Tehran (AFP) May 31, 2005
Iran announced Tuesday it had successfully tested a new solid fuel motor for its arsenal of medium-range ballistic missiles, a technological breakthrough that sparked fresh alarm in Israel.
"The test was a success," Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani said on state television.

"When you fill a missile with liquid fuel, you have to use it quickly. With solid fuel, a missile can be stored for years. And in addition, it makes the missile more accurate and cheaper too."

A defence ministry statement said the new technology could be built into Iran's Shahab-3 missiles - which the Islamic says already has a range of at least 2,000 kilometres (1,280 miles).

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/iran-05p.html

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 08:03 AM

I think the guy is missing one important pice and that is France... The US will jolly the French into an active role and well as perhaps a few lesser powerfull Eropean countries...

You can allready see the PR stuff going on... The anti-Islamic cartoons were no accident...

But, hark, sanity will overtake the insane and corrupt Bush junata before the Iranian invasion plans can be implimented... Remember in the selling of the IRAQ-mire invasion, they first tired to sell it in August and then admitted that August was a bad month fir "new products" (like when did killing folks become a product?)... Well, point is that until the Isrealis have use if air bases in the Kurdish controlled territory, the unveiling of the Iran invasion is accademic...

But keep your eyes on Kurdish territory... Until then, think and push for sanity...

Peace,

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Janie
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 08:19 AM

What Amos said.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Beer
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 08:51 AM

Before this war starts a truce will be called because the panepidemic will be upon us creating a greater catastrophe than a blood and guts shootout.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 09:07 AM

In reading the link supplied by LH, I was surprised at the awe in which the author held the Russian air-defence system that he claims the Iranians have. Is this the same type of "state-of-the-art" air defence system that the Coalition Forces swept aside in Iraq in 1991, obviously it will have been updated, but then again so has the US armoury and probably at a significantly higher degree. The author also seems to place undue importance on numbers, in modern warfare they do not tend to matter as much as they did previously, especially when you have no intention of 'occupying' territory.

The proposed disposition of forces he recommends prior to the "US Attack" could not be carried out without notice. The Iranian submarines (all two of them) are conventional diesel-electric boats, their supposed adversaries were designed, trained and equipped, to fight the largest and most powerfull submarine fleet in the world (Soviet Northern Red Banner Fleet). Following the dispositions as recommended I would measure the live expectancy of those submarines in hours. The Missile Patrol Boats would not fare much better, as to fire their missiles they must first obtain target information in order to obtain a firing solution. That means turning something on, again their supposed adversaries were designed, trained and equipped, to counter the largest and most powerfull army in the world, the Red Army in Europe. The Missile Patrol Boat's electronic emmissions would be detected instantly, aircraft from the carrier's Combat Air Patrols would do the rest.

The author's assumption that there are no internal points of friction within Iran is erroneous, there are in fact many, but the two most significant are the Iranian Kurds and the Iranian Arabs, both factions are not overly keen on their Persian lords and masters.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 10:09 AM

The usual cheering sections on this forum, of course, are already lining up on their respective sides and hollering for their team.... (shrug)

Here is another link for you to ponder and debate about. This one's quite dramatic:

The First Day of the War with Iran

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 10:36 AM

No.6 - what were the Madrid and London bombings if they weren't direct attacks on Europe?

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 10:42 AM

More likely, Iran strikes back at Rome or Athens, the EU gets upset and drops a nuclear bomb in the oilfields and it burns for the next 150 years...

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 10:59 AM

Only the USA, Iran or Israel are megalomaniac and irresponsible enough to pre-emptively drop a nuclear bomb on someone else, in my opinion...

But that's just an opinion, of course. Same as your opinion.

Of the three, Iran could least afford to do so, as it would immediately receive a massive response from the USA and Israel which would prove decisively fatal to Iran. You don't fire a puny few nuclear bombs (which is all they could possibly have in the next ten years) at people who already have several hundred or several thousand of their own nukes...unless you do it as a last bitter, despairing gesture, in response to them having already done it to you first.

We can speculate all we want, but no one knows for sure unless and until it happens.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 11:06 AM

"Of the three, Iran could least afford to do so, as it would immediately receive a massive response from the USA and Israel which would prove decisively fatal to Iran."


Only if you are acting in a sane manner- which I do not see Iran or N. Korea doing. Both the civil and religious leaders have made statements that indicate a less than complete grasp of reality.

MAD ( Mutually Assured Destruction) depends on the sanity of both sides, or it does not work.

IMHO, of course.

And the question is, can we afford to let it happen, or should we take pre-emptive action to prevent it? And no, I do not know the correct answer until after the fact, either.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Alba
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 11:08 AM

Well before any of this carnage goes down I am going to the Cash and Carry, wholesalers later.
Does anyone want me to pick them up a anything in the way of Bunker supplies.
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 11:23 AM

Or even Bunk-up supplies! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Alba
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 11:25 AM

:) SJ. Sounds like an even better plan..lol

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 11:32 AM

Woooooo-hoo!

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 11:49 AM

It has ever been the strategem of aggressors who seek justification for a "first strike" to assert that their opponents are insane, evil, and capable of anything. One's own insane actions are presumably thereby rendered moral and proper against one who has been labelled as an insane opponent. Ha ha.

This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, and saying "it's okay for me to do what would be normally be considered an insane act were anyone ELSE to do it, because I'm good and the people I'm about to do it to are evil and insane."

This is the classic defence of one's own insanity by implying that insanity is a condition found only in one's opponents. No, my friend, insanity applies to everyone when they act in an insane fashion, and pre-emptive wars are criminally insane actions...or merely criminally pragmatic actions. You do them because you're paraniod or you do them because you think you can win...or both.

I doubt that the Iranians are any crazier than you, BB, because their opinion of the sanity of those they consider "enemies" appears to be identical to yours. Therefore, they are, by that hypocritical form of logic that justifies all pre-emptive strikes, entirely justified in killing you first.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Wouldn't it be ironical if two nations went to war merely because they BOTH regarded the other as being incapable of acting in a sane manner? This would be a case of 2 idiots, each incapable of honest self-awareness, each battling to the death against their own mirror image.

I believe that describes Israel and their Muslim opponents quite well, as a matter of fact. It also described the USA and the Soviet Union quite well, back in the Cold War.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Anonny Mouse
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 11:55 AM

Another horror story-The First Day of the War with Iran-yet somehow plausible from LH. The probably dominoeing (is that a word?) from all of this economically is perhaps the least mentioned, but likely the most devastating (aside from tactical nukes here and there).

Of course, this only addressed "the first day." I sincerely hope this all remains in the realm of speculation. Surely the highly-paid "think tanks" like Rand have done dozens of these. Now the question is: who's paying attention??

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 12:06 PM

Every bit as fanciful as the first link but with far more holes in it

Here are a few of them

Mr Douglas Herman states that:

"The war began as planned." - the first attack going in just after sunrise. Then a bit further down he informs us that around 09:15 with the first missile counter-attack by the Iranians - "Thousands of unsuspecting US soldiers died in the early morning barrage." Sounds a bit bloody ridiculous that having been blasting the hell out of nuclear facilities, naval ports, airfields and missile sites in Iran for what must have been the best part of four hours that there would be any "unsuspecting US soldiers" anywhere in the world let alone within the theatre of operations. Doesn't Mr. Herman believe that the Area Commander would have given his lads a 'heads up' on what was about to happen?

I won't comment on what would be the most likely mission priorities, but we will stay with those selected by Mr Herman. On the subsequent sorties as described by Mr. Herman he obviously does not believe that air defence suppression missions would be flown. That's odd because against an opponent with any sort of air force or any sort of air defence capability that is exactly what you would do. It is precisely what has been done since 1967, but for some reason Mr. Herman has decreed otherwise.

He is quite right about the outcome of any attempted air combat. For example a MIG-29 against say an F-16, the latter can acquire and engage at approximately 120km, the former has to wait until the range closes to 80km. I realise that at combat closing speeds of anything up Mach 4.6 that 40km difference disappears fairly quickly, it does give the F-16 the chance to get the first dig in, and gives the other guy something extra to think about. The Shah's air force was quite good, but the current mob when they initially got into power killed loads of them, their current record regarding aircraft would seem to indicate that they can barely maintain and operate simple transport aircraft, let alone keep high performance fighter aircraft up to snuff. My prediction would be that the Iranian Air Force would bug out in exactly the way that the Iraqi Air Force did - they would be no shows.

If as Mr. Herman states the, "..the pre-dawn, pre-emptive attack wiped out fully half the Iranian defense forces in a matter of hours." Does he not grant the attacking force the intelligence to target the command and control centres of the Iranian armed forces? Again that is what has been done in the past without fail - why not now, in this particular instance?

Herman - "By mid-morning, the second and third wave of US/Israeli raiders screamed over the secondary targets. The only problem now, the surprising effectiveness of the Iranian missile defenses. The element of surprise lost, US and Israeli warplanes began to fall from the skies in considerable numbers to anti-aircraft fire."

Laughable, air defence suppression would by now have taught all but the most foolish battery commander to keep his missile control radars switched off or invite immediate destruction.

As for Iranian anti-ship missiles destroying oil tankers? Another fanciful bit of rubbish, Iranian anti-ship missiles could not even sink the USS Stark. The Iranian fighter plane launching the missile managed to take off, search for and acquire it's target and fire it's misile how? While all the US and Israeli pilots were having a tea break? Ridiculous.

Herman - "US Navy ships, ordered earlier into the relative safety of the Indian Ocean, south of their base in Bahrain, launched counter strikes."

Now south of their base in Bahrain would put all those ships of the US Navy firmly in the middle of the Saudi Desert known as the forbidden quarter - Not a good place for ships, and a damn tricky place to get to particularly if you are in something large that needs vast quantities of water to float upon.

But not in the least discouraged Mr. Herman continues - "At 9 AM, Eastern Standard Time, many hours into the war, CNN reported a squadron of suicide Iranian fighter jets attacking the US Navy fleet south of Bahrain (i.e. in the desert). Embedded reporters aboard the ships--sending live feeds directly to a rapt audience of Americans just awakening--reported all of the Iranian jets destroyed, but not before the enemy planes launched dozens of Exocet and Sunburn anti-ship missiles. A US aircraft carrier, cruiser and two destroyers suffered direct hits. The cruiser blew up and sank, killing 600 men. The aircraft carrier sank an hour later."

Now let us be charitable to Doug Herman and allow that the US Navy's Fleet is in the Indian Ocean which is not south of Bahrain, it's sort of located east-south-east of it. How does this "squadron of suicide Iranian fighter jets" find the US Fleet? Do the Iranians send up a "squadron of suicide maritime patrol aircraft" to locate their target beforehand? Also it must be rather a large squadron for it to be capable of launching "dozens" of Exocet and Sunburn missiles. I know that the Exocet is rather a large missile, aircraft such as the Mirage (bomber version) and the Super Etandard carry one. Unfortunately for Mr.Herman the SS-N-22 Sunburn originally wheeled out in 1994 is a ship launched missile, it is big, it is fast, but like all anti-ship missiles in the former Soviet arsenal it needs to have target data. During the "Cold War" the Russians bankrupted themselves about five times just trying to get a missile system that could counter a strike carrier group, they couldn't come up with anything and eventually had to build carriers themselves. Nothing has changed AWACS, Tanker aircraft and far CAPS would render the SS-N-22 useless.

As you read to the end of the article it sounds uncannily like complete and utter bullshit - fictional bullshit, but bullshit just the same.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 12:10 PM

Would a link not have been more appropriate rather than a long copy and paste?

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 12:11 PM

Don't worry. I shall shortly post links to articles that will suit your partisan position better, teribus. ;-)

(by the way, I also considered that last one somewhat fanciful in various respects...it aimed for dramatic effect)

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 12:18 PM

Maybe you'll like this one better:

Another take on the War with Iran

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: number 6
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 12:19 PM

"No.6 - what were the Madrid and London bombings if they weren't direct attacks on Europe?"

Ok, Strollin' Jonny it will take another 'direct hit" to get the Europeans pissed off.

BTW .. Guest or who ever you are .. asked what I meant by direct hit, it means a 'hit' in a European country as opposed to a foreign consolate or the slaughter of some European vacationers in Indonesia, Egypt or some place as such. ... ok.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: GUEST,from Iran
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 12:20 PM

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/assaulton.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 12:25 PM

Populations are stirred to support wars by encouraging certain basic emotions.

Fear.
Anger.
Hatred.
Blame.
False righteousness.

Watch how it's done...

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: number 6
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 12:28 PM

"More likely, Iran strikes back at Rome or Athens, the EU gets upset and drops a nuclear bomb in the oilfields and it burns for the next 150 years..." ... you are correct Beardedbruce

"Before this war starts a truce will be called because the panepidemic will be upon us creating a greater catastrophe than a blood and guts shootout." ... more than likely Beer.

"Well before any of this carnage goes down I am going to the Cash and Carry, wholesalers later.
Does anyone want me to pick them up a anything in the way of Bunker supplies. " ... smart thinkin' Jude

"Only the USA, Iran or Israel are megalomaniac and irresponsible enough to pre-emptively drop a nuclear bomb on someone else, in my opinion..." ... damned foolish assumption L.H.

"being 17 as of now i may have to start thinking about how i'll dodge the draft..." ... better start runnin' up here to Canada right now Goodbar!

"I knew Iranians in college. They were good people, good Muslims, but not terribly serious about it." ... I knoew some Americans back in college, and still do now as a matter of fact, and they certainly are not all war mongers, or hell bent for wildfire wackos.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 12:29 PM

Teribus provides a sober balance of facts (which I accept at face value not having the time to look them up) to counter the arm-waving fiction offered in both these scenarios.

But here is the larger problem.

The contemplation of this war, developing scenes and counter-scenes, all the parts analysis, depends wholly on the postulate of agreement that this war IS taking place and will manifest physically.

I reject such a proposition.

Let us consider instead the notion that the outland ex-VP of Iran manages to oust the tendentious and bellicose President, by sparking an indigenous uprising.

The government falls to the rebels, and they establish a government committed to prosperity trade and firm but moderate religously-derived ethics, including such precepts as peace, responsibility, tolerance and gradually move forward on major social issues including the balance of rights between men and women, for example, and the right to free speech in a non-violent social framework.

Suppose instead of these war-mongering phantasms, we see the ancient wisdom of Persia come forward in new raiment, to generate a BETTER democracy than the sadly undermined one we use here in the US.

How'j'a like THEM apples?

A

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: GUEST,donuel
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 12:30 PM

The Islamic bomb, as they call nukes in Pakistan, would be the ultimate prize from an immediate military coup in Pakistan following a US invasion of Iran.

Each side would claim the other used a nuke first.

There would be much wailing and nashing of teeth. Christians would celebrate the event as the rapture. Muslims would devote themselves to the ultimate jihad, fatwa and universal chaos.

Fox news would delare the US milk supply to be safe despite the worl wide radioactive fallout.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: number 6
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 12:31 PM

I dunno Amos ... all my teeth hurt when I bit into one of them.

Ouch !!!

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 12:33 PM

One form of false righteousness is to claim that the enemy is insane, and therefore, one cannot reason with him and is "compelled" to attack him at the first opportunity for one's own security. People are usually zenophobic and insular and ignorant enough of others that they are easily convinced by such arguments about other people whom they will never know personally.

All civilian populations wish to survive, raise their children in peace, and live a good life. This is universally true. This is what your leaders do NOT want you to think about when they are planning to launch a war on someone.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 12:36 PM

What kind of odds are you willing to put on that scenario, Amos?

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 12:38 PM

It was just an opinion, 6, based on past performance and present rhetoric of those three nations.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: number 6
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 12:44 PM

Propably LH ... but there are so many possibilities and so many deranged humans involved ... who really knows who would make the first strike with a nuclear device ... as far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter, cause it's all insane.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 12:44 PM

I mean, it IS the assumption of unquestionable moral and cultural superiority that drives people to commit the most heinous immoral atrocities, isn't it? Always has been.

Tell me that the USA, Israel, and Iran are not each utterly assured of their moral and cultural superiority? They teach it to their children. It reeks in their every self-justifying statement. It is their implicit assumption, their psychological foundation, so taken for granted that it hardly needs to be said. Do they not all imagine themselves to be the noblest nation on Earth, the bearer of the torch of Truth? They do.

Such people are extremely dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 12:49 PM

Carol:

Oh, about 40%. Depends on how many people snap out of this bloody vision and come to their sense. People get sucked into catastrophe entirely too willingly, but if they see what they are doing they will choose otherwise, in most cases. It's when they cannot see consequences (cf. Bush) that we get major fuckups.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 12:50 PM

Yes, admittedly there are others who might do it. India & Pakistan. Russia. China. It's possible.

I'm afraid the disease of self-centredness is fairly common to nation-states...

I think, though, that nations in a messianic mood are the most dangerous, and that includes the USA, Israel, and Iran (and Saudi Arabia too, if they had the military clout, but they don't).

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: number 6
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 12:50 PM

I know some Americans, a couple of Iranians, a whole bunch of Israeli's, some Latvians, Lebanese ....

And ya know something. There is no detection of cultural self superiority evident in that group of people.

But then I have met some Canadians that flaunt cultural superiortty, I've met some Americans that have, Latvians that have .....

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: number 6
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 12:55 PM

Carol C. .... shouldn't you be busy packing instead of getting involved in all of this 'analysis to paralysis' ??

Reality is ... you're gonna be moving.

Reality isn't ... your gonna change the world.

sIx