BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc

Subject: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: skarpi
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 06:06 PM

Well, helló all.

Since 1941 the Us Naval have been in Iceland and had our defence
in the air , today they told us that Mr Bush is closen down
the Naval air force baxe in Keflavík Iceland, that means that we don´t
have any defence over Icelandic airspace, we had four jets F-15
and two helecopters the 56th s&r a great unit , the best
s&r in the Navy for many years .

So I am thinking and asking this question is Mr Bush
going into Iran??
They told us also that they need those jets elsewhere.

This is just a silly thought from a worryman in the Atlantic.

All the best Skarpi Iceland.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 06:09 PM

Probably.

But if he doesn't, the next president will.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Peace
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 06:14 PM

Iceland needn't worry because the US will have bases to fly from in Iraq and the Indian Ocean (carriers). Iceland was important because of the GIUK Gap and the need to have land-based fighter coverage for convoys replenishing supplies to NATO forces in Europe, but since the Cold War is not anymore, you'll be fine there. Iran might be in for a little excitement, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 06:41 PM

More excitement than anyone would ask for...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 07:00 PM

I don't think so, Skarpi. The US forces are stretched awfully thin right now, and a new combat theater would make them snap.

Consider this:

Reservists and National Guard people aren't re-enlisting or, for that matter, enlisting. This means that about 40% of the military is losing people, experienced people. The same thing is happening in the active forces, so much so that they have put in a "stop loss" program so that "critical" people can't go home from Iraq or Afghanistan when they were told they could. Even the generals and admirals are concerned about what is called "force strength." Some reserve units have been deployed overseas as often as three times in the last five years.

To go into Iran would mean that Bush would have to institute a draft, a move which would take Congressional approval and I don't think he'd get it because it would be political suicide. He wouldn't have the chance of a snowball in Hel of avoiding possible impeachment, because the people would elect a Congress that would be opposed to Bush.

To go into Iran would also mean that the military would be fighting a war on THREE fronts, and not even during WW2 did the US do that.

It's simply not possible at this time.

Should, however, someone explode a nuclear bomb on the US or some equally catastropic event happen all bets are off.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 07:16 PM

What with what's happening in Palestine (the Israelis breaking into a prison etc!) and the Palestinians running out of international friends due to Hamas winning the democratic process that the USA has been demanding they have, Iran will offer several thousand troops on the ground to 'defend the Palestinians from the aggressive Isrealies'...

To save face, the USA will then just HAVE to beat up on Iran... and having spent all that money on micro nukes, they will just HAVE to be used...

So bend over, put your head between your knees and kiss your ass goodbye!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Barry Finn
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 07:51 PM

If Shrub & company could figure out a way to pounce on Iran I think they would. That said, I don't think they can at this point in time. As to the US pulling out Iceland, it may be a blessing. We probably aren't worth the rent anymore. We're probably gonna start attracting international abuse, if not all ready, from locals as well as others anywhere we are presently based if we continue to piss the world off. So seeing us leave may be cause for rejoicing.
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 07:57 PM

I just tried, Foolestroupe, and no matter how hard I try...I just can't bend over quite that far.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Peace
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 08:09 PM

Ask someone to help, LH. Bush, for example . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 10:43 PM

I tried too. Now I have a hernia and can't straighten up.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Peace
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 10:49 PM

It's National Hernia Week, Rapaire. Give it your support.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 12:03 AM

Little Hawk, did you try to do it forwards?

Well, that's your problem then. Most Americans seem to be able to bend over backwards for their political system, corruptions and all.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 12:15 AM

Robin,

I don't think Little Hawk wants to be counted amongst Americans just now.

People have been predicting nuclear final scenarios since 1951. Number of actual catastrophic nuclear warhead explosions = 0. Number of panicked predictions of doom from nuclear warheads going off = 2.872 x 10^4. Go figger.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 12:19 AM

It'll happen sooner or later Amos, you know what they say about boys and their toys - "Use 'em or lose 'em!"

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: kendall
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 08:36 AM

Peace, that statement about hernias belongs in the Quotable quots thread!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Alba
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 09:21 AM

Halló Skarpi don't hafa áhyggjur , Runni hefur neitun Liðsflutningaskip til hátta stríð með Íran og neitun tími eða stuðningur frá 62% af Ameríkumaður!
Hann hefur neitun Liðsflutningaskip , neitun stuðningur frá hans eiga Veisla eða Ameríkumaður. hann vilja vera í 2008 og þá amybe Friður vilja koma aftur til the Veröld:)

Love to You and Yours as always Icelanderman and I hope to play a few tunes with you at the Getaway this Year

Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 10:06 AM

I wouldn't be so sure of Bush and Iran, folks. This is from a 29 page report he supposedly "wrote." Look to see the draft reinstituted, he's arrogant enough to believe he can do it, imo:

"If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur — even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack," Bush wrote.

What an attitude - *we're going to annihilate you before you can even think of getting us!*

Skarpi, good to hear from you. It is embarrassing and shameful that we have such an idiot at the head of our government. My sincere apologies to you and your fellow countrymen, for his idiocy and policy of fear.

Ast,

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: robomatic
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 10:09 AM

shhhhh! No one in America is supposed to tell! We're keepin' it a surprise!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 10:27 AM

Look at the country's geography. It would be a cast-iron sonuvabitch to get into that place with ground troops (just ask the Russians about Afghanistan). The only thing that would make sense is either chemical/biological warfare, otherwise the loss of American troops would quickly reach 'unacceptable' levels. The alternative is the assassination of its leadership or some other form of destabilization. Nukes are a no-go because of the terrain. More damned mountains than Carter had liver pills.

Have a nice day.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 11:34 AM

Peace,

You miss the point that one or two 100KT devices, in the oil fields would remove Iran from all significance to the world...


It would take decades, if not longer, to put the fires out.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 11:37 AM

All of the arguments in your 16 Mar 06 - 10:27 AM post were being made about Afghanistan just prior to our invasion of it, Peace (and of course, we are there still).

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 11:47 AM

You are both correct (BB and CC). I didn't say the US wouldn't. I suggested it would be foolish. The nuclear strike that BB mentions is one scenario, but it kinda leaves the place unusable, and that wouldn't be the thing the US would want. It's not about a 'defensive' first strike; it's about the conquest and subsequent utilization of the land, IMO. However, I have been wrong before. Incidentally, Canada has troops in Afghanistan also. We are not any smarter than y'all.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 11:53 AM

Peace,

So, what part of Iran does the US supposedly want to utilize? I sort of thought that the problem was the potential actions of the Iranian government that were causing all the concern.

They sell the oil to other countries, not the US. That might be why those countries don't want the UN to take any effective action....

Sort of like Iraq- Just look at who was/is making money from the present situation, and you will see who objects to anything being done to require compliance with UN resolutions and treaty obligations.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 11:57 AM

I would think it's within the view of the present US administration to want to run the place and not have to destroy it. Oil's oil. I have no wish to argue this. OK, you're right. It was my opinion, nothing more and nothing less.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 12:56 PM

They have no problem with destroying a country for oil, Peace, as long as they can buy the warlords who run the chaos after we've destroyed it. As long as they have access to the oil, they don't give a poop about what happens to the civilians in the area. Just look at Afghanistan (where we have an oil agenda in the form of pipelines).

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: DougR
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 01:29 PM

I doubt it Skarpi. If it becomes necessary to invade Iran I think it will be a large coalition of forces from many countries. Iran cannot be allowed to have nukes.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 02:01 PM

No one should be allowed to have nukes.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: skarpi
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 02:07 PM

not even the Us ?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 02:23 PM

I just took a vote here in North America, and we expect Canada to turn over the keys to their country to the US next week...


But I may have to start studying Chinese, once the rest of the world votes...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 02:25 PM

LOL

More truth in that than enough, BB.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Justa Picker
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 03:14 PM

Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan (and stretching the troops even more thinly not to mention no public support on the home front) the U.S. cannot go into Iran without strong coalition support and the forumlation of a strong, uniform coalition.

Make no mistake they WILL be going in. (Unfortunately they missed the most opportune window for invasion back in 1980 right after Reagan was elected. Had they gone in then, the US would have had the overwhelming support of the populace. (Payback for the Hostage/Embassy thing and all that.)

The other good window - again missed - was during the 1991 Gulf war. They were right in the neighbourhood and had all of the requiste ground troops and muscle to have gotten the job done. (The whole middle east pretty much needs a military enema anyway.)

But, it's a catch 22. They HAVE to put the current hardline-fundamentalist Iranian regime down and the majority of their youthful population do want them gone, and would love closer ties to the west on many different levels, not to mention culture, trade and commerce.

If they don't, Iran WILL toil and achieve armageddon with a first nuclear strike on Israel, and of course the appropriate nuclear response will immediately follow.

Before that happens though, they WILL export their nuclear technology to Al Qaeda, the west bank and gaza, Syria, Yemen, Sudan .... you get the picture. Course all of those countries have clearly demonstrated that they are rational, secure, abide and adhere to treaties, and would never initiate a first strike on Israel. :-)

And if they do go in, they'll unite all the terrorists even more closely in their various Jihads and attacks on the west.

Expect oil to hit between 150 and 200 dollars a barrel shortly after the invasion begins.

Course the US has only known since the Opec crisis of 72/73 that they shouldn't be depending on foreign oil, nor building a middle eastern foreign policy around such; but hey now that pretty the entire Arab world (and Venezuela) will shut off those taps, they haven't much choice but to finally put some emphasis into alternate fuels. In the meantime the western economies will go to shit.

I don't delude myself into thinking that these opinions would be popular here in the bastien of bleeding heart, leftwing liberalism, but I believe the predictions made will unfortunately come to be, one way or another. You fools should support an administration that will do whatever it takes to safeguard your country from mainland terrorist attacks. Your constitution IS your achilles heel and the terrorists know that as well. It needs to be modernized for the current time we're living in, not based on how civilization was in 1776.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 03:23 PM

oil FACTS

Justa Picker,

No arguement with your statements nor with the conclusions, but I would like to discuss your comment "Your constitution IS your achilles heel ". That document provides the means by which "an administration that will do whatever it takes to safeguard your country from mainland terrorist attacks" can do so. IMO...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Justa Picker
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 03:29 PM

Not quite.

Freedom of speech isn't always a good thing, especially in the interests of National Security/wartime and, have a media reporting things from an oppositional bias.

As far as the Patriot Act, if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to lose. It's the only viable alternative to internment camps...Guantanimo excluded.

Nothing like letting your enemies know how you are; how your morale is; and how they're doing at attacking you.

Ridiculous.
Everything's completely upside down.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 03:36 PM

I don't have a problem with your opinions, JP, but your predictions are bollocks. And you totally don't understand the US Constitution and its purpose and necessity. Shame, really, since it's not your country's system of government, nor your servicemen and women you advocate sacrificing for the fulfillment of your little hot-dog cowboy fantasy world. Easy, isn't it, when someone else is doing all the nasty work (and most of the suffering).

And aside from the 1973 war, no country has ever waged a first strike war against Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 03:39 PM

Except for 1948, CarolC.... And THAT war has not been concluded, yet....( except for Egypt and Jordan)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 03:46 PM

No, other countries didn't start that one, beardedbruce. "Israel", or what became Israel after it declared itself a country, started that one long before the other countries joined in. It just didn't call it a war until after it declared itself a country. Convenient, isn't it? Wage acts of aggression against other people but don't actually call it a war until they respond. Hard to lose with that strategy.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 03:48 PM

I believe that we disagree on the interpretation of the facts of this matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 04:26 PM

JP does have a point though. It would be a hell of a lot easier for the government of Israel to rule the United States if it didn't have that pesky US Constitution to contend with.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 05:10 PM

Hmm, so are we seeing the warm-up in Iraq right now?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 08:22 PM

CarolC - 16 Mar 06 - 12:56 PM

"They have no problem with destroying a country for oil,.....Just look at Afghanistan (where we have an oil agenda in the form of pipelines)."

Really CarolC? what pipelines are they - quick give Don F a shake and he can tell us all about the TAP Pipeline that the US has absolutely sod all to do with and which is as far away from being constructed now as it was twenty years ago. But according to CarolC the US "has an agenda" - Utter crap, if you are going to peddle fairytales at least try and hang them on a framework with a bit of credibility

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 09:38 PM

Really CarolC? what pipelines are they

At this point in time, it appears that the pipelines in question are the ones they don't want companies like Bridas from Argentina to build. But give them some time and I'm sure they'll have some pipelings of their own they'll want to build.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 09:40 PM

That should read, *pipelines*

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 09:50 PM

CarolC:
"And aside from the 1973 war, no country has ever waged a first strike war against Israel. "

Okay, so a country HAS waged at least one first strike war against Israel according to you, glad to hear of it. Kind of makes the rest of your sentence bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 09:56 PM

...and the 1973 war was specifically for the purpose of taking back territory that Israel took from those other countries (the ones who started the 1973 war) in previous wars. So if we use beardedbruce's logic, we can say that it was really Israel who started that war as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 10:07 PM

Deja vu all over again.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 11:12 PM

It all began shortly after the 2nd World War, when a bunch of European Jews decided they needed a Jewish homeland on someone else's ground somewhere, and set out to accomplish that through terrorist acts in Palestine. There was resistance to those acts, but that resistance was not officially termed a "war" until the state of Israel was announced to exist. The USA was the first nation to recognize that state. I wonder why? Anyway, then it was called a war, as Carol points out. Arabs and Palestinians did not go to Europe and start a war...European Jews went to Palestine and started a war. Everything that has occurred since then has been a series of reactions and counter-reactions following that original illegal act.

And that act was a reaction to the Holocaust.

But how is it that a Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi Germany results in a Jewish counterattack on the Muslim inhabitants of Palestine?????

Oh, well, you have to go way back to an ancient holy book to find a rationale behind that... ;-D Riiiiiightttt...

Is any of this rational or justifiable? Any of it? No. It's just the strong and paranoid and ruthless siezing opportunities to take what doesn't belong to them from someone who appears to be vulnerable. First Hitler. Then the Israelis-to-be. And later Saddam. And Syria. And the USA.

They are all scoundrels. They are all after their own gain. To take sides and pretend that one is the "good guy" and the other "the bad guy" is really a bit silly, given the fact that not one of them really gives a damn about anything except being the winner at the end of the day. It's realpolitik, not a struggle between good and evil. It's like Meyer Lansky taking on Dutch Shulz. It's criminals fighting other criminals, and may the best-armed win.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 12:08 AM

"when a bunch of European Jews decided they needed a Jewish homeland on someone else's ground somewhere, and set out to accomplish that through terrorist acts in Palestine."

Little Hawk!

You Naughty little boy! You have been reading those damn history books again, haven't you?!!! Come now, take your little propaganda tablets, and we'll have no more of this nonsense!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: robomatic
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 12:20 AM

More imaginary history, and it dont' even rhyme!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 12:40 AM

Yes, I agree, robomatic. JP and beardedbruce appear to have very vivid imaginations when it comes to history. Or at least the people they get their "information" from do.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 12:57 AM

Unfortunately, I'm old enough to remember watching then current documentaries about the activities at the same time as the movie came out, and being confused by the two totally opposed views of history... so SOMEBODY's been telling porkies for decades...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: robomatic
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 02:46 AM

Carol when I agreed with you that Israel had been attacked unprovoked at least ONE time you backpedaled so fast the wind almost knocked me over.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 02:57 AM

Little Hawk - 16 Mar 06 - 11:12 PM

"It all began shortly after the 2nd World War, when a bunch of European Jews decided they needed a Jewish homeland on someone else's ground somewhere, and set out to accomplish that through terrorist acts in Palestine. There was resistance to those acts, but that resistance was not officially termed a "war" until the state of Israel was announced to exist. The USA was the first nation to recognize that state. I wonder why? Anyway, then it was called a war, as Carol points out. Arabs and Palestinians did not go to Europe and start a war...European Jews went to Palestine and started a war. Everything that has occurred since then has been a series of reactions and counter-reactions following that original illegal act."

What complete and utter twaddle - coming from someone who thinks of himself as an impartial student of History.

Your timing is wrong.

Your given reason for the influx of European Jews is wrong.

No mention of the statements/pronouncements made by the Arab League.

No mention of the attacks carried out by the members of the Arab League.

No mention of the ending of the League of Nations British Mandate and the fledgling UN being unwilling to take it over.

No mention that the UN was the first to recognise the State of Israel, that was followed by recognition by the US and the bi-lateral declaration that the US would guarantee the sovereignty and security of the State of Israel.

"Arabs and Palestinians did not go to Europe and start a war" Not for the want of trying - Tosser Arafat - the father of International Terrorism - remember him LH.

Student of History - BS

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: skarpi
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 04:08 AM

All I I was wandering about is why so suddenly?? why take our airdefence so quickly , the jets goes in September this year hmmmmm I think it´s strange, in 1951 we had a defenceagreement that both Us and
Iceland agreed about ,the agreement was about the Us would defence our airspace and look out for all unknown opjects,Iceland have now three
radar stations witch we made in the 1980´s on top on three mountains, and know the Us is braking that agreement
they say that this cost to much , well the Vikings offers to pay
everything about the airport and the helecopters no proplem,
plenty money in Iceland, but the Mr Bush ;>( said no ,
strange , we support Us into Iraq, but we NOT do the same mistake again.


I know that we all agree about whats going on in the world is wrong
Israel having theyr own war against Palest,US against Iraq, Russia
against tetsjena, what do gain for all this ?? while lot a of people
are fighting for their lives becouse they don´t have food to eat or water to drink..........

So Iceland has two ways to do things ,

1. declear that we are not gonna be In Nato or ..........


2. or we can start an army, do you know where to get a F-15?


other than this , please be friends and don´t fight about
somethings that we cannot change here at Mudcat, we talk about things
and we can agree or a disagree , but here on Mudcat we don´t
solve those things. I would like to say alot things about
Israel but I will keep that for my self among other things.

I understand that this cost Us alot of money but leaving so quickly
and giving us time to do other arrangement before they go ,
thats not good enough.

I think we should close this thread before anyone says something
that is gonna hurt someone.

Lots a love to all , all the best Skarpi Iceland,.;>)

Subject: Is Mr Bush going to talk to Iran ?
From: GUEST,The artist formerly known as donuel
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 06:53 AM

Yes

Wittingly or unwittingly, the son of Bush has led a coalition of two into Iraq and has once again done Iran's bidding.

The US has succeeded in doing what the Iraq Iran war did not.

Iran today is meeting with our secretary of state to discuss mutual needs and wants. Nuclear matters are not on the table but for the first time in over 20 years the US will be talking with the Iran government on an official level. This bears repeating.

With the evil empire rhetoric put aside and the US in such a weakened position, Iran has chosen their time wisely to get the chunk of Iraq they always wanted.

Greed makes strange bed fellows.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: robomatic
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 10:01 AM

If that's really Hakman (Donuel) he (she/it) is in a rare moment of lucidity. Despite that a distinction needs to be made between the government of Iran (raving religious nutcases making their own laws, religious and otherwise) and the people of Iran (young, intelligent, ready for democracy for years, since we took it away from them, actually). The existing system is in place since the US unites them in self-defence.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Peace
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 10:18 AM

And there is the key. Get rid of the leadership and let the people have their say away from 'leaders'.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: ifor
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 10:52 AM

"The notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. Having said that all options are on the table"
George W Bush
Feb 2006

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 01:04 PM

Hardly backpedaling, robo. Just considering the merits of beardedbruce's brand of logic (which I notice you didn't object to when bb used it). What's good for the gander, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: GUEST,robomatic
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 02:01 AM

In that case you are simply stating that you exchanged your brand of bad logic for another's. In my book that doesn't make for a better understanding, just an exchange of prejudices.

Meanwhile, as for depriving Iran of her leadership, at present is the perception of US (U.S.) as a common threat that unites Iran's leadership with Iran's people. There is almost nothing else to accomplish this. Unfortunately it also appears as though there is a real world threat coming out of Iran. It's a genuine problem and I'm not jealous of the folks who wish to solve it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 05:53 AM

Just for the record - GUEST,The artist formerly known as donuel - The Coalition that "son of Bush" led into Iraq in 2003 consisted of more countries than the Coalition that "father of Bush" led into Iraq in 1991 - 38 versus 34 to be exact.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 07:03 AM

Apologies Skarpi, what I left out of my last post.

Iceland requires air defence from who? In the present political climate, with regard to Iceland, I would tend to think that there is no obvious threat that requires air defence to counter it.

Can the US cover it's commitments to Iceland using other resources based elsewhere? I would imagine so.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 07:41 AM

Teribus - Date: 17 Mar 06 - 02:57

Can you please give a link to support each of your statements that you claim refute LH's 'version'?

I think not! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 10:49 AM

In that case you are simply stating that you exchanged your brand of bad logic for another's. In my book that doesn't make for a better understanding, just an exchange of prejudices.

Or, if you wanted to learn to not be prejudiced, you might be willing to see the fallacy in that kind of logic. Which is what I had in mind when I highlighted it by turning it around. But I see you are intent on holding on to your prejudices. Pity.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: GUEST,robomatic
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 01:37 PM

That's because my prejudices are better than yours!

Don't weep for me Argentina!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: skarpi
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 04:33 PM

Teribus,
there is a thread from Russia , only 18 months ago a big fleet where
only 50 sea miles from land for about 2 weeks , so it´s
still tread from the east.


they where east of the Iceland, but as always we the vikings
will manage , we just have to take up the sword again and
build up an army to defence our self.

all the best Skarpi *iceland.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: GUEST,robomatic
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 04:58 PM

Skarpi:

I am all in favor of defending Iceland, but who are you worried about? I don't think Russia has any big plans with you in mind, do you know any different? How about Greenland? Think they might want to change names with you to correct that old problem with world maps?

You should not alarm the Western Europeans amongst the forum with talk of renewing old Viking Ways. It might bring back bad memories and undercut any points you wish to make regarding present-day Israel.

Isn't one of the popular activities of Iceland capturing puffins to make lunch of them?

Your fan,

Robo

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 05:12 PM

Well, you're entitled to your opinions, robomatic.

I think I'll stick with my own prejudice (preconception), which is that we are all human beings and none of us is any better than anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Peace
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 05:14 PM

Present war (coalition members)

CLICK to enlarge image.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Peace
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 05:16 PM

Gulf War coalition forces:

Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: skarpi
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 06:37 PM

my dear friend Ropo, I am not afraid of anyone , but when you sign a agreement you keep it , you do not brake it right ?

I am afraid that the Us covement has made Icelandic people
against them ,,,,,,,, Us people are our great friends
and I sure hope that they will be so for a long time in the future.
what we are loosing are the 56th resque unit that is the hardest of
all loosing , why becouse we don´t have many helecopter that can
go to resque , no one who can go and take fuel on air.Tehy have been
a trusted men and go everytime we ask for help , helping seamen
and people who are climing and so on , they are the finest unit in the world, and a great friends.

In September they go , and I don´t think thats enough time
to get a new helecopters instead in time .

that old viking way hmmmmmmmm ....................
what I meant was that we might start an army our self.

I have a question   Ropo

can Iceland be the only country without defence system?
with out force? is it possible in this world that a country can be with out an army and weapons , peaceful country in all way ?

well if that is possible I have no worry at all.
Then I can see green grass and lots a flowers all around me
and everyone lives in peace .

all the best my friend , Skarpi Iceland.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: John O'L
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 08:14 PM

US, Japan and Australia seem to be making plans...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 08:31 PM

You don't worry me, Teribus. I am simply not willing to spend the seemingly incredible amount of time you must invest in looking up every little fact that might back one of your political arguments. I don't give that much of a damn about scoring petty techical victories in these debates. I'm just occupying a little idle time here between other things, not trying to win an international award for political journalism.

It is simply apparent to me in a general sense that European Jews went to Palestine after WWII with the intention of founding a Jewish state there, and that it wouldn't have happened that way if not for Hitler's Holocaust happening first. I don't think it was a good idea for European Jews to carve a Jewish state out of Palestine. I would not have supported that idea at the time, were I in a position to have much to say about it. The subsequent 50 or so years seem to have proven it wasn't a particularly good idea...depending, however, on whom you ask. Those who are fervently pro-Israeli, of course, must think it was a wonderful idea.

We disagree on that and shall no doubt continue to do so.

I think the USA was the first sovereign nation to recognize the government of Israel, but I may be mistaken. If I am, I'm sure you'll correct me, and I will be oh so much in your debt. ;-D Can I kiss your hand if I meet you? You are clearly a brilliant man.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 08:40 PM

Yeah, little Johnny seems to think he's playing Monopoly, not in the real world. he seems to think that Australia is one a 'Big Nation', instead of just a 'Big Country' (ABCTV oz watchers will get the pun!).

he has reduced Govt Debt, by cutting back expenditures on things like Health, Education and other services over the years. Several Hospitals have now closed their Emergency Wards and Obstetric Wards due to lack of funding and doctors. Several years ago , he cleverly restricted the number of GPs able to be registered, which caused a cutback in the number of medical students at Universities.


You do begin to wonder whether the conspiracy theorists have something about Govts wanting to cause a crisis that will cause a rapid deopulation...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 08:48 PM

Skarpi. Ask Russia (or China) for a defence pact. That will get your helicopters back REAL QUICK... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: GUEST,Robomatic
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 09:12 PM

Skarpi:

I am not in favor of the US abandoning a formal pact with Iceland either in word or intent. I plead ignorance to the fact. We have heavy installations of military here in Alaska and they are moved around all the time we just assume it's for the best and will not do us any harm. We are a border state (Alaska) but with modern times we are receiving way more trade delegations from the Russians than military fly-by's (although there are still some of those, the Russians haven't stopped being Russians after all). If you are serious that the US is violating an agreement of longstanding with the people of Iceland, has there been official action taken on the part of your country? Has our country responded?

Carol, I'm glad there are some 'prejudices' we have in common.

Little Hawk, your recitiation in brief of Middle East history I took to be a deliberate provocation to others on this forum. Your repetition of it suggests more ignorance than bliss, although I have to keep in mind from some of our earlier 'discussions' the fact that you have a unique glossary of standard words and phrases in your mind that translate differently from the rest of us. But your contributions to the thread bring up the notion that even in hindsight history is rarely "twenty-twenty".

Incidentally, in 1948 both the United States and the Soviet Union couldn't recognize the new nation-state of Israel fast enough. I can't remember which was first, but I remember an Arab delegate chiding the USSR over it in the UN speechifying that took place in the wake of the Six Day War. The USSR decided they could make more headway in the Middle East by throwing in with various Arab movements, and it was their aid both economic and military to Egypt that got the heavy funds moving into the area.



As they say in Iceland, may there be a car in every garage, a puffin in every pot.

Cheers,

Robo

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 09:35 PM

You're so right, Robo...like the vast majority of my fellow human beings...all of us, in fact...I am far more given to experiencing ignorance than bliss. Bliss is a very rare thing indeed. Ignorance is universal, I find. I know I'm ignorant. How could I not be? I'm human. We all blather on from our tiny thimblefull of knowledge, imagining someone else will be impressed. Well, I'm not impressed, and I don't expect you to be either.

The difference in our views, yours and mine, amounts to one simple thing: you're pro-Israeli, and I'm not.

I see Israel as a fascist nation, an irresponsible nation, a criminal government, a militarily aggressive oppressor nation. I don't see them as a noble victim.

I also see the Muslim terrorists and despots who hate and attack Israel as criminals. I see both lots as criminals. How come you only get upset by my view of Israel as criminal, but not by my view of Muslim terrorists as criminal? Because you think the Israelis are the "good guys"? I don't. I don't think either side is very good at all.

That and only that is the source of our disagreement, and that is why you find my views provocative. I don't cheer for your team. I don't cheer for the other team either. I am opposed to the entire rotten game, in fact.

I'm amused that Russia and the USA both (as you say) rushed to recognize Israel in 1948. They clearly had their future strategic interests in the region in mind. I'm sure they didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts...

Look, man, they are ALL criminals. All these conquering governments and all these little bomber guys who run around in the shadows murdering people. They don't deserve your support or mine. No one should have been allowed to go in there after WWII and create a brand new nation by force of arms. It should not have been allowed to happen.

It has caused generations of people since to live in fear and it has wasted human energies and resources on fighting useless wars. I do not support any of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: GUEST,Robomatic
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 10:14 PM

Little Hawk:

I am very familiar with your emotions. In certain cases I've been in a mode after Shakespeare: "A Plague On Both Your Houses". It is true that I'm pro-Israeli. But I believe there is great distinction to be made in both historical events and behavior to allow a clear preference to Israel among non-involved, non 'biased' witnesses.

I think you have a blindness in your ability to parse events that makes every thing have an equal weight, hence evil deeds done by Israelis (an Israeli man shooting to death a group of Arabs in a mosque, which happened, the assassination of a Prime Minister by an Israeli) match with equal evil many many actions committed as policy over the years (suicide bombing campaigns involving citizens on buses, the capture and murder of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics, the invasion and murders of Israeli children in elementary schools, the shooting of several young Israeli girls by an Jordanian border guard, the mob killing by Palestinians of Palestinians who are thought to be informers, etc. etc). I would say that you are in a high state of positive feedback, so you get a square wave signal rather than a modulated signal, i.e. you get noise instead of information.

Your last statement:
No one should have been allowed to go in there after WWII and create a brand new nation by force of arms. It should not have been allowed to happen.
is not so much a case against Israel as an indictment of any nation state. That's how they all got started. Using it to pick on one nation is biased in the extreme. Particularly when that is exactly how the people now calling themselves Palestinians are attempting to do the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 10:58 PM

Well, no, Robo, that's not quite it. The fact is I tend to just naturally sympathize with underdogs. In a struggle between a very well-armed nuclear power, Israel, with an elite world-class military machine, backed by the Superpower USA....against a tremendously weaker scattering of regionanl Muslim opponents....I get more pissed offed at the powerful than I do at the weak. I recognize that they are both totally unscrupulous, but I resent the powerful more than the relatively powerless.

I pretty well always get more pissed off at the powerful than I do at the weak. I think that has to do with having been a small, weak boy who was picked on by more powerful bullies all the years I was in school. You just naturally end up hating the mighty of this world.

That's why, although I think it's really criminals on both sides in the Middle East, I get more pissed off at Israel and the USA than I do at their wretched opponents. Because Israel and the USA are the Mighty in that conflict.

The Mighty, as far as I'm concerned do not need my support. For the same reason, I always sided with Native Americans rather than "the cavalry" when I was a kid. I knew who the mighty were in that conflict, and I hated them for it. I sided with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong instead of America for the same reason...not because I admire Communism (I don't admire it). I sided with Vietnam in its border war with its giant neighbour China for the same reason.

I just detest big bullies. As far as I'm concerned, the USA is the number one bully in the world right now (with China waiting in the wings to take over some day), and Israel is the number one regional big bully in the Middle East.

I just truly hate bullies.

I am also instinctively more opposed to huge governmental actions which harm many people taken by civil governments than I am to a plethora of small isolated attacks by ragged little groups of assassins, bombers, etc.

I regard governments as intrinsically far more dangerous than little bands of terrorists, because governments are more powerful. Terrorists kill a few people. Governments kill hundreds of thousands, even millions of people. Terrorists are small fish. Governments are giant whales.

That again, is a difference in our thinking. We identify different entities as our primary enemies...or the primary source of evil in the world...and I bet it stems more from our childhood experiences than anything else.

I don't hate the small and sneaky in the shadows nearly as much as I hate the huge and ruthless of this world, showing off their might at their Nuremberg rallies (the Nazis) and their victory parades down Wall Street or Red Square or the Champs Elysses or such places. They own the media. They make the H-bombs. They drop thousands of bombs, not one or two in a marketplace somewhere. They suck the resources of the whole planet to fuel their killing machines.

Your last point...you're quite right. I am indicting nation-states, and the kind of nation-building that both the Israelis and Palestinians are attempting. I think the very idea of the nation state has long passed its useful time, like the idea of kingdoms that preceded it. I'm opposed to all efforts to create separate little warring enclaves called "nations" and break up larger, once peaceful associations of people. I was horrified by what took place in Yugoslavia after Tito, and regard it as having been an exercise in idiocy. Their inability to live together peacefully is their common shame. I think we should have gone beyond the nation-state mentality by now on this planet, and formed a world society, and managed to live as one humanity in peace together. We will someday too...unless we turn everything into ruins with another great war before it is achieved.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: number 6
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 11:12 PM

Curious L.H. ... what is you opinion on Quebec seperating from Canada?

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 11:14 PM

And when you have religious fanatics that believe that they should assist the end of the world so their philosophy can 'win'... I know which has the higher probability of coming to pass LH...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 11:41 PM

I agree with you entirely on the religious fanatics, Foolestroupe. But I regard them as potentially less dangerous than giant military powers like America, Russia, or China. Not less insane (they are more insane), just less capable of causing worldwide damage. Less capable of destroying 200 million people in an hour or a few weeks or a couple of years.

Anyway, there may be such religious fanatics in positions of power in Washington and Tel Aviv as well, not just in the Muslim world.

6 - My opinion on Quebec separating from the rest of Canada is that it's an asinine idea. It would be to the detriment of both Quebec and English Canada.

I am opposed to all such separatist movements. I am opposed to the Basques separating from Spain. I am opposed to any political movement which asserts that human beings are better off being separated into enclaves. I think it's caveman thinking. It's terrible. It's archaic. It's totally counterproductive.

And that is another reason I don't like Israel, because it is essentially an attempt to create a Jewish state. I don't like that idea any more than I would like all the Irish in North America to try to form an Irish state out of, say, Pennsylvania and New York State...or all the Catholics to do something like that...or all the Republicans...or whatever the hell self-defined group.

It's tribal. It's retrograde. It guarantees future conflict and heartbreak. It denies that we are a single humanity, and we are.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Peace
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 12:07 AM

"It's tribal. It's retrograde. It guarantees future conflict and heartbreak. It denies that we are a single humanity, and we are."

All countries themselves do that by their very nature. If countries exist, then why should smaller countries not exist?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: number 6
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 12:21 AM

I agree with ya on that Peace. It makes more sense than trying to merge many differnt cultures into one homoginized mash ... it's human nature to organize into 'common units' ... much like kingdoms of commonality ... it's just the way it is ... problem is, humans must recognize and respect one's kingdom even if it is 'foreign' to them.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: GUEST,robomatic
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 12:35 AM

Little Hawk:

Your reply was fascinating to me because while I still don't agree with you on Israel, I resonated totally with your attitude about bullies.

Two Points:

If you always side with the underdog, which I usually do myself, you are in great danger of oscillating back and forth just as I mentioned when I said you were like a positive feedback loop. You will be on Israel's side when they are successfully invaded or horrendously attacked, but not until then. Seeing Israel as a powerful bully is missing the point. Just as a REAL bully uses a 'bully boy' to initiate a fight, the powers of the region, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, possibly Iran, are trying to get rid of Israel by any means necessary. One of the techniques is to utilize the Palestinians as their 'bully boys'. Considering their resources in oil, population, and land area, claiming Israel as anything BUT the underdog is ignoring the true state of things. That there bully of yours is outnumbered with her back to a precipice, LH.

About Separatist movements such as the partitioning off of Quebec from Canada, the Basques from Spain, I agree fully with you. I just feel that Yugoslavia and Israel do not fall under the same conditions. It's a shame that they didn't, possibly they could have, but they simply don't at this point in time.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 01:02 AM

Interesting response, robomatic. I once did see Israel as the "little guy"...way back in the late 60's. The long history of their military dominance of the region since, backed by the USA, has turned it around the other way for me...particularly the events of their occupation in Lebanon. I never saw them as "the little guy" again after that. Geographically "little" England, after all, was once the world superpower. A nation's physical size does not necessarily indicate its military or mercantile strength. Japan once shook all of Asia, and Japan is a small country.

Yes, in my heart I almost always feel on the side of the invaded, the most grievously hurt, whoever they are. I don't see why I shouldn't feel that way, though. People all have a right to live on their own land and not be invaded by a foreign power, don't they? And should empathy not be extended toward those who are suffering the most at any particular time? Why should my loyalty be tied to a specific flag or a political theory. Why not to those who are under the boot?

I even felt sympathy for the WWII German armies (to some extent) ONCE they had their backs to the wall within Germany's own borders, and were defending their own families, homes and cities. I can't help but feel for people in such a circumstance. In that case, however, they were under the command of a regime so terrible, committing such awful crimes against its prisoners (Jews and others) that although I might sympathize with the German soldier as an individual fighting on his home ground, I could not in good conscience support his political cause. That government had to be brought down.

As far as I'm concerned, the Angels, to put it strictly symbolically if I may, are beside the man who fights to defend his own home, and not the man who is trying to break down the door.

For the same reason, when I read stuff about Sherman's march through Georgia, my heart cannot help but be with the South. Not for slavery. Just for people defending their own homes, that's all.

Underdogs. I love 'em. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: GUEST,robomatic
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 01:57 AM

The computer just ate my response so I'm going all over again:


LH: Did you ever see the Monty Python episode with "Dennis Moore" the highwayman who robbed from the rich to give to the poor, after some time the once rich were destitute and the erstwhile poor were now fat, happy, ungrateful and demanding. He ended up stopping coaches and re-distributing the property among the passengers.



Some famous underdogs through history:

Confederate States of America
Nazi Germany
Finland
Japanese Empire versus Gt. Britain and USA
Chinese warlords versus Japanese Empire
Pakistan versus India
India versus China
North Korea

In the game of GO, it may take an expert to tell who the underdog is.

The last Star Wars episode I went to, I rooted for the Empire because I knew they were the true underdog: the scriptwriter was agin' 'em!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: skarpi
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 02:23 PM

oh my ...........

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 04:04 PM

Matter of fact, robomatic, I do believe in a pretty much equal sharing of material wealth (but not decision-making authority in a hierarchical sense), so I guess I am rather in sympathy with the Robin Hood concept. ;-)

What I mean is, I would favour a society organized along the lines shown in the Federation of Planets in "Star Trek Next Generation". Everyone in that whole society had totally equal access to the material things of life...so there was no poverty, no rich and poor diversities, no lack of health care or housing for anyone. Their motivation to get ahead was based on securing more interesting and challenging roles in society by studying and working and excelling at what they did...the reward being in this case not a material one, but an experiential one. If you had the smarts and the drive to excell in that society, you could rise to a command position of great responsibility and enjoy the challenges and prestige that came with it. If you had little or no drive, you could end up sweeping halls or oiling sprockets and being a person of little importance in the greater society. In either case, you would eat well, be well clothed, and have absolutely everything you needed in a material sense.

I think that's brilliant, and I wish our society thought more in those terms, because we would have no poverty, no greed factor, no desperate underclass, and very little crime as well. Some people are strongly motivated to get ahead, and they should...but it's unwise to set things up so that the weakly motivated starve or end up homeless or in ghettos. Starving people can be quite dangerous, as has been demonstrated time and again. That's where your bandits and drug dealers find their recruits...and the bulk of their customers, in the latter case.

Underdogs in history? The Nazis, I would suggest, were not underdogs at all in the beginning....not until after the Stalingrad campaign. They proved that a bully, if he upsets far too many people, can find himself in deep shit after awhile. I believe that the USA and Israel will similarly find themselves in deep shit eventually. Saddam Hussein certainly did. He was another bully who got a bit carried away with bullying people, to say the least, and eventually paid for it. I do not necessarily switch sides and favor such bullies when they fall. Not by any means! I just feel sorry for the ordinary citizens under them who get caught in the debacle. I feel sorry for ordinary Iraqis. I would have felt sorry for the ordinary German soldiers fighting and dying in the shattered streets of their cities and towns in '45...but NOT for their criminal government! It deserved to be totally defeated.

Yeah, I know what you mean about the Star Wars films... (smile) I hate seeing an obviously rigged script where you always just know the "bad guy" is going to lose bigtime every time. This is why I detested the Roadrunner and rooted for Wile E. Coyote, for example. It just got sickening after awhile. I wanted to see that Roadrunner obliterated. His only purpose in life, clearly, was to taunt and tantalize the wretched coyote who was totally at the mercy of a repetitive formulaic script. Thus I did not side with the blasted Roadrunner, despite the fact that I was being prompted to, seemingly.

The South? Yeah, they were a true underdog. No question about it. If Jefferson Davis had been a little wiser, he would have done his own Emancipation Proclamation before Lincoln ever did and spiked the guns of the North's great moral crusade good and proper. He could have had plenty of black soldiers willingly serving the Southern cause in such a case...but it would have taken a leap of imagination that he was not capable of to do that. Nor, I suspect, was the rest of his administration capable of it. Slavery was on the way out in any case, for economic reasons. Even without the Civil War it would still not have lasted much longer. Therefore, it was very foolish of the South to fight a war ostensibly to maintain it. Their pride got in the way, and it led them to their downfall.

I think the more basic cause of that war was the growing economic and population disparity between the North and South. The South felt they were losing their political voice in Congress, becoming disenfranchised, and they were. Their primarily agrarian society did not have the clout or the votes to match the North's industrial society. That's why they fought the war. That's why they lost it. It was a no-win situation for the South.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 09:50 PM

Your list of atrocious acts committed by Israelis is much shorter than your list of atrocious acts committed by Palestinians in your 18 Mar 06 - 10:14 PM post, robomatic. But that just shows your own bias in this regard, since the statistics (even those kept by Jewish Israeli human rights groups) prove that the situation is completely the other way around. Approximately three Palestinian children killed for every Jewish Israeli child killed, for instance. Approximately three Palestinian non-combatants of any description killed for every Jewish Israeli non-combatant. Tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees killed by Israel in places like Lebanon and Egypt over the last several decades, the vast majority of them non-combantants. Very few Israelis killed by Palestinians of any kind in Israel by comparison.

You might not recognise it as such, but while you are pointing fingers at others for having a bias, it is your own bias that is the most telling.

And I don't always root for the underdog. But I do however, feel a responsibility to speak up for those who need it. Because I know what it is like to need someone to speak up for me when no one would.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 10:44 PM

I have always been less concerned, Robo, about isolated atrocious acts committed by scattered individuals or little clandestine bands of terrorists as compared to wide-ranging atrocious acts (such as pre-emptive war) that affect millions of people...acts orchestrated on a much bigger scale by national governments through their quasi-legal mechanisms such as armies, air forces, and police. The latter kind of well-organized and government-sponsored atrocious acts kill a great many more people than violence by individuals, and they are equally atrocious, perhaps more so, because governments ought to be able show more mature moral responsibility than some unbalanced fanatic who blows himself up in a marketplace. That is how I am parsing it...not by comparing the few incidents of violence by private Israeli citizens against Muslims vs the many incidents of violence by Palestinians against Israelis, etc., as you suggested.

That's your parsing, not mine.

An invasion of a country kills a lot more people than does the bombing of a marketplace or a schoolbus or a synagogue or a mosque. The great crimes in this world are usually the ones committed by the great military and financial powers of this world.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: GUEST,robomatic
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 03:08 AM

CarolC:

My listing was not claimed to be complete, but there has been a clear lack of Israeli/ Jewish suicide bombers killing RANDOM Palestinians in civilian activities, and engaging in these activities on other continents.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Carol, your previous internet authorities have often if not entirely been from biased sources so I take your Palestinian Israeli kill ratio with heavy grain of salt.

It is true that Palestinian friends, neighbors, relatives of various targetted terror targets get killed. That does not make them 'entirely innocent'. And I doubt your numbers.

Your take has been to deliberately miss the point being made and muddy the waters with your own claims, thus rendering both sides equivalently dirty. Your hypocrisy consists in your attempt to appear even handed when in fact your arguments and website references are ludicrously one-sided.

LH, you seem to be very credulous to the appearance of things. The fact that the terrorist actions that have caught the attention of the world in New York, London, and Madrid were carried out by small groups of people does not mean they were not well directed, organized, and financed by powers that seek to control by any means necessary and will hide behind national states or indeed obtain their assistance.

The fact that the so-called Palestinians are seeking to kill and displace Israelis by seemingly primitive or small scale means does not mean they will not themselves form an organized machine of conquest if the opportunity arises, indeed it is certain they will.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: skarpi
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 04:40 AM

oh Dear ............................

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 11:47 AM

You constantly point the finger at others for being biased, robomatic, but you are one of the most biased people there is. So your posts on this subject are given the merit they deserve by those of us who value objectivity, which is to say, none at all.

And I really don't see any point in making a distinction between someone who kills innocent people and him or her self in the process, and someone who kills innocent people while staying safe him or herself, except to try to make excuses for the killing of innocents. Which is what you do when you defend the actions of the Israeli government.

And you're really not qualified to psychoanalyze those who criticize Israel, so your assessments of the motives and underlying attitudes of those with whom you debate are just as worthless as your "facts".

I saw a post from you a while back, in which you said in a different context that you had rooted for the "Empire" in the Star Wars movies, but the reason you gave then was different from the one you gave on this thread. Back then, you said you liked that the structure that was offered by the Empire, and that was why you rooted for them. If I were to engage in your kind of pop psychology, I might suggest that you are someone who fantasizes about power and you root for those through whom you can vicariously experience a feeling of power and invincibility. I might further suggest that you do this because of some sense of inadequacy on your part. And I might suggest that you root for Israel because you know, as well as we do, that Israel is the country that holds all the power in the Middle East, and you want to be on the "winning side".

But I'm not really any more qualified to make those kinds of assessments of others than you are, so I won't engage in that sort of charlatanism.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: skarpi
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 12:05 PM

now we are out of " space "
all thebest Skarpi ICeland.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 01:43 PM

on another note
As I post this Mr Bush is now speaking in Cleveland to put more positive spin on our ongoing failures, deaths and vast quantities of money lost during the last 3 years.

Explaining failures as success in disguise and reviseing illegal actions as both legal and necessary is a desperate attempt to buy more time.

Time has run out on the neocons. Recently many neocon rats have been jumping off the sinking ship.

Despite the similar drum beat to war heard before the invasion of Iraq and John Bolton now starting to give ultimatums to Iran, I believe that ading another battle front will lead to political martyrdom of the President...

or the kind that illuded Adolf when a briefcase exploded.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 02:38 PM

Robo, you are absolutely right that Palestinians and other Muslim fighters against Israel will "themselves form an organized machine of conquest if the opportunity arises, indeed it is certain they will." Of course. However, they have not been able to do so yet, and I can't see much chance of them doing so at this time. Accordingly, I consider them a less serious problem in the matter of killing people and destroying stuff en masse than I do the Israelis...the Americans...the Chinese...or the Russians.

It's the guy with the really BIG stick and the willingness to use it on other countries whenever he feels like it that bothers me the most...and that guy is Israel, or the USA, or Putin's Russian, or China, for example.

The Palestinians right now are almost powerless. They're full of malice, but they can't do much with it. Israel can invade a neighbour, smash its armies, and destroy its cities any time they decide to. Even more so can the USA do that, and has. That is why I am more bothered by Israel and the USA at present than I am by the Palestinians. I resent BIG crime bosses more than little criminals, because big crime bosses cause a lot more harm to humanity.

When the Palestinians become as powerful as Israel, if they ever do, THEN I will be bothered about them to a comparable extent.

You see, it's not a question of "good guys" and "bad guys" to me...but I believe it is to you. I consider both the Israelis and the Palestinians to be equally prejudiced and bloody-minded toward each other, but I do not consider the Palestinians to be anywhere near as capable of doing damage to their enemies, that's all. And that's why I am more disturbed about the policies of Israel in this case.

You know, it's always been the same. The mighty of this world don't launch suicide missions. They don't have to. They send in bombers and tanks and kill 100 or 1000 people for every man they lose themselves. The poorly armed of this world can't afford to do that, aren't strong enough to, so they strike from the shadows, clandestinely, and kill a few people...or very rarely, as in the case of 911, quite a few people...and they very often give up their own lives to do it.

In either case, the same will is there, the will to dominate and destroy other human beings who are "different" in some way, and take their land and resources.

That will is equally evil in both cases. I find it totally hypocritical that the mighty of this world hide behind a flag and a uniform and pretend that it is more legitimate and legal to kill people with B-52 bombers or cruise missiles or sanctions than with a hidden bomb in a marketplace. It is equally illegitimate and wrong in both cases. It's murder, in both cases, and when the mighty murder they do it on a very much larger scale. Why? Because they CAN. They are no better intentioned than the people they are fighting.

Mr Bush's War on Terror IS the organized application of terror, by the nation best equipped to terrorize people. And most of the world knows that full well.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 02:44 PM

LH,

You have set a moral equivalance between someone who walks into a party, and blows up civilians who have done nothing to him but whose existance seems a threat, and the soldier who attacks a clearly military target and kills innocent civilians because that target was ( against the Geneva convention) located in the midst of a civilian area.

Just want your clear comment on this.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 02:50 PM

CarolC,

Source of your figures? ( serious question)

"Approximately three Palestinian children killed for every Jewish Israeli child killed, for instance. Approximately three Palestinian non-combatants of any description killed for every Jewish Israeli non-combatant. Tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees killed by Israel in places like Lebanon and Egypt over the last several decades, the vast majority of them non-combantants. Very few Israelis killed by Palestinians of any kind in Israel by comparison."

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 03:27 PM

Little Hawk - 20 Mar 06 - 02:38 PM

"The Palestinians right now are almost powerless. They're full of malice, but they can't do much with it. Israel can invade a neighbour, smash its armies, and destroy its cities any time they decide to."

More complete and utter twaddle from Little Hawk.

The Palestinians right now Little Hawk are fighting amongst themselves in Gaza, that's how powerless they are. The reason for the stramash being that the former part time Palestinian Police and Members of the Security Services who moonlighted as Al Aqsa Brigade "heroes" under the guiding hand of that lying, thieving coniving prat, otherwise known as Tosser Arafat. Have been made redundant since the recent Hamas political victory. You see one gang of terrorist thugs doesn't want members of another gang of terrorist thugs joining the police force, irrespective of the magnificent service rendered by such stalwarts under the previous regime.

So LH, Israel can invade a neighbour, smash its armies, and destroy its cities any time they decide to, can they. To what purpose? The only time that they have ever done so in the past it was in the face of intolerable provocation (UN's summation LH not mine). In the instances that they have acted, they have generally been very circumspect with regard to causing civilian casualties. Little hint Little Hawk, for Israel to act the way you suggest, it has to be a Little War, no longer than three weeks. Now maybe either yourself or your pal Foolestroupe can explain why. I won't, in the vague hope that it may prompt either one or the other of you to do a bit of reading.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 04:03 PM

They are far less powerful than Israel, T. Far less. That's why they can't fight Israel with a conventional army and air force. As for "intolerable provocation"...LOL! BOTH Israel and the Palestinians and other Muslim zealots have inflicted intolerable provocation on each other mutually since a long time ago...and I'm sure they will both continue to do so whenever they want to. You only consider a provocation "intolerable" when it's against Israel, I guess...because you are pro-Israeli through and through. You are, I would assume, incapable of seeing any Israeli action against anyone else as a provocation, and cannot grasp why it might be deemed "intolerable" by the recipients. Well, it must be nice knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt who has God on his side. ;-) It makes things sooooo simple.

BB - Hi. Wondered when you'd show up. You say, "You have set a moral equivalance between someone who walks into a party, and blows up civilians who have done nothing to him but whose existance seems a threat, and the soldier who attacks a clearly military target and kills innocent civilians because that target was ( against the Geneva convention) located in the midst of a civilian area."

No, I set a moral equivalence between leaders who make the decision to have their fighters attack someone, using ordinary soldiers or foolish young men willing to commit suicide to do their dirty work for them. It is the leadership, those who make the plan and issue the commands, whom I am drawing a moral equivalency between.

A soldier normally believes he is doing the right thing when he follows those orders. So does a young Islamic fanatic such as the fellow you suggest who walks into the party.

I regard the young Islamic fellow to have been ill-informed all his life about very basic things. In his innocence, he believes he is defending God! I regard most soldiers to be similarly ill-informed. In their innocence they believe they are defending "freedom" or some such nebulous concept.

I do agree that it takes a greater degree of psychological disassociation to willingly blow people up in a party than to follow military orders that result in a firefight that kills civilians. Definitely. It requires even more rigorous brainwashing than most soldiers are subjected to in basic training.

Happy now? ;-)

It does not change the fact that I am bothered more by the organized military violence of great powers than I am by the scattered terrorist efforts of suicide bombers. The reason? War kills far more people. It creates far more destruction. It encourages further terrorism. It gives the terrorists better targets to vent themselves upon. Note how many US servicemen have been killed since "Mission Accomplished". A lengthy occupation is far more costly than the quick defeat of a 3rd rate air force and army. And it's far less glorious. It can get downright discouraging, in fact, can't it? Just wait. It will probably get more discouraging soon enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: number 6
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 04:05 PM

Good post Teribus ... I agree.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 04:13 PM

The statistics page of this website has the numbers of Palestinian and Israeli civilians killed since during specific time periods...

http://www.btselem.org/English/index.asp

I have read in various places that even the Israeli government uses the statistics compiled by the B'Tselem organization.

I don't have the other figures immediately to hand, but I'll get them for you when I get a chance, beardbruce.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 04:15 PM

LH

"War kills far more people. It creates far more destruction."

I think not...

There will be far more people killed over the next 20 years in SE Asia by the asbestos being shipped by Canada, to preserve about 1000 mining jobs, than have been killed on all sides in the Middle East- INCLUDING the Iran/Iraq war- over the LAST 20 years.

So, your moral judgement?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 04:23 PM

You may well be right about that, BB. First I've heard about it.    If so, I condemn it. I am not "Canada". I'm a human being living in Canada. I do not automatically support everything that emanates from Canada, and I hope you do not automatically support everything that emanates from wherever it is that you live.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 04:30 PM

LH,

I have brought this up before, but any comment that does not bash the US or Bush drops off the bottom...

I do not support everything my government does- But I do not assume it is wrong without looking at the facts.

3 million asians to die early over the next 30 years from asbestos- from Canada in violation of international rulings.... Yet I hear only that the US is so evil for an invasion that, looking at the FACTS as known by the UN, was intirely justified- IMO.

Tell me why those 3 million have to die, to employ the 1000 or so miners in Canada?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 04:41 PM

Also, beardedbruce, I challenge you to read the testimonies of these members and former members of the IDF who have served in the Palestinian occupied areas. They say that the practices of the Israeli government that people like Little Hawk and I are criticizing are not are also not isolated incidents. And they are not justified by the excuses you have given about Palestinians placing fighters in civilian areas. In fact, they have no justification whatever. Here's some of what they have to say about it...


"We began to investigate, interview and document hundreds of former combat soldiers. All this was done under guarantee of full confidentiality to all those who contact us in order to testify. The amount of testimonies we have gathered proves time and again that it is not a matter of 'exceptional cases' or 'stray weeds'. It is a dangerous phenomenon growing from day to day. Things that were once exceptional have become the norm. Israeli society must know the price it is paying for every soldier serving in the occupied territories. Israeli society must realize the trap we are caught in, because while the army is trying to deal with the threat posed by terror, it is creating a disaster.

We are discharged soldiers who have decided not to keep silent. To stop keeping to ourselves everything we've been through in the past 3 years. So far, hundreds of discharged combat soldiers have decided to break the silence and every day more people follow.

During our combat service we've handled many different missions. We have one mission left: to talk, tell and not keep anything hidden.

'Breaking The Silence' ('Shovrim Shtika' in Hebrew) should serve as a warning sign to Israeli society. We are alerting about irreversible corruption."

http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/how_we_are_en.asp

Here are some of the testimonies they have collected...

http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/testimony_en.asp


I anticipate that someone will come along and try to make a point that the fact that Israeli soldiers are coming forward in this way proves that Israelis are better than Palestinians (people have done precisely this in the past when I have posted links to these testimonies). But that's exactly the problem. The attitude that Israelis are better than Palestinians is the real root of the problem. When apologists for the Israeli government stop seeing Israelis as being better than Palestinians, that's when we will start seeing the first steps toward an equitable solution to an otherwise unsolvable problem (unsolvable by any means other than ethnic cleansing or genocide).

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 04:48 PM

CarolC,

The source for your figures, earlier? Please?

I will be reading your latest post clickies.

And your comment on the FACT that ANY attack using nuclear weapons on Israel will destroy the entire Palestinian people? PLEASE look at the fallout patterns, then tell me how the other Arab countries will take in all the Palestinians, for the several hundred years it will take for the land to become usable. Like they did in 1948...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 04:58 PM

BB, I'm very interested in finding more out about the asbestos thing you mention. If it is as you say, then the reason for it is simple: someone stands to make a profit. I think it's probably being done more for the sake of the owners than the miners...that would be my guess. Who ever gave a shit about the welfare of miners? And that is the reason behind the vast majority of harmful things that are happening all over this planet, that and people's unwillingness to live and let live, share and share alike.

I know you support the invasion of Iraq and consider it to have been justified. I don't. I think it was unwise, illegal, ill-conceived, and unjustified. So do a lot of other people. I doubt that any further arguing or presentation of evidence between you and me is going to alter our differing opinions on that matter.

I doubt that the Arabs and Israelis are going to decide to live in peace side by side either. It's unfortunate. They could do so the moment they both decided to. They lack the will to treat each other decently and equitably.

That's what happened in Yugoslavia after Tito was gone too. Those people could have continued living together in one country and prospering together, but they lacked the will (or the maturity) to treat each other decently, and they lacked leaders with enough vision to encourage them to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: bobad
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 05:14 PM

LH

As many other political decisions made in Canada the two solitudes factor comes into play. The vast majority of asbestos mining takes place in Quebec and if the federal government were to ban it's export, Quebec would scream that English Canada is once again robbing Quebec of it's right to determine it's own destiny thus giving it another excuse to separate.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 05:30 PM

Ah... Well, that figures, doesn't it? Politics wins out once again.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 09:06 PM

beardedbruce, I already posted the source for some of them. Why haven't you looked at that source (B'Tselem)?

The rest will have to wait a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 09:10 PM

And your comment on the FACT that ANY attack using nuclear weapons on Israel will destroy the entire Palestinian people?

The above from you is a part of my argument against the notion that Iran will wage a first strike nuclear attack on Israel. Another (much bigger) argument is that any first strike nuclear attack on anyone from Iran will guarantee Iran's complete and total destruction. They may be crazy but they're not stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Peace
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 09:12 PM

"Tell me why those 3 million have to die, to employ the 1000 or so miners in Canada?"

It's wrong on Canada's part. NO question. But the kind of sleight-of-hand you're trying does not take the light away from the issue here. The issue HERE is the US stuff in Iraq. Nice try.

Start a thread on Canadian asbestos and deal with it there. The two issues have no connection.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 10:53 AM

No, Peace, this thread is about Iran. So Canada is as fair game as Iraq, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 10:55 AM

W had his press conference today.

Poor George has had another one of his total meltdowns and went into tantrum mode.

He defined war for us stupid people so we can understand what its all about. He got testy rude arrogant and stubborn in his attempt to look tough.

He was in his mind a manly man. There are rednecks in this country who probably do see George as a man's man but he looked so pathetic and small to me today.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 02:10 PM

CarolC - 20 Mar 06 - 04:41 PM

Now that post was a joke wasn't it:

"Here's some of what they have to say about it..." Now that all depends on who "they" are, but let's hear it


"We began to investigate, interview and document hundreds of former combat soldiers. All this was done under guarantee of full confidentiality to all those who contact us in order to testify."

OK so some crowd whose point of view you share, tell all these stories, and state that they all came from "hundreds of former combat soldiers". Now how on earth do you know that? Because they say so?

"We are discharged soldiers who have decided not to keep silent."

Well we have absolutely no way at all of knowing that have we

"We have one mission left: to talk, tell and not keep anything hidden."

Really? The only thing that would lend any sort of credance to that last statement would be if these outraged souls, stepped up to the plate and blew the whistle loud and clear. Stand up and name names of Commanding Officers who gave what appear to be unlawful orders. Otherwise it's just another unsubstantiated fairytale.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 02:18 PM

If you don't like it, just deny it. That's standard routine.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 02:40 PM

Skarpi.

The master plan is for Bush to go into Iran. It's the agenda of the New World Order. It's his Sudatenland as is Iraq. Bush is crazy enough to do it. Iran is not crazy enough to respond with nuclear weapons. however. Why? They have a civilized culture that goes back thousands of years. The Mullahs and Ayatollahs have little sway with the Iranian people. However, the Christian Taliban in the U.S. is powerful.

As to Hamas, the essential question to be asked is what kind of person would blow himself up for his/her ideals? To dismiss this as just "fanaticism" is begging the question. Until this question is legitmately answered, there will be no peace in the Middle East.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 04:29 PM

GUEST,Frank Hamilton,

Thank you for your post of the 21st March 06 - 02:40 PM. That without any shadow of a doubt is the best laugh I have had all month. Only slightly worrying detail is that you, or someone else might actually believe it.

"The master plan is for Bush to go into Iran." - He'd best get a move on then as he is running out of time.

"It's the agenda of the New World Order." - Oh, alright then, that explains everything, the "New World Order" for what by the way, bacon, beans and chips, Chinese, I've never heard of an Iranian take-away.

"It's his Sudatenland as is Iraq." Huh? does anyone in the US think that either Iraq or Iran are former areas of the United States of America filled to the brim with american-english speaking people with deep cultural and historic ties to their "Homeland" and who were wrenched away to make some lame duck enterprise economically viable under the terms of a repressive and unjust treaty. No didn't think so.

"Bush is crazy enough to do it." - This I take it is stated on the premise that it takes one to know one, eh Frank?.

"Iran is not crazy enough to respond with nuclear weapons. however. Why?" - At present Frank I would have thought that that would be fairly easy to answer. They haven't got any.

"They have a civilized culture that goes back thousands of years." - Indeed they do Frank, one that allows them to cut off peoples hands, or heads. It allows them to stone people to death. A convicted murderer is taken out for his extremely public execution and is hung by being hoisted up suspended from the bucket of an excavator, he doesn't break his neck as would happen on a gallows, he chokes to death. The assembled crowd with his victim's relatives in pride of place are at liberty to do unto this poor wretch whatever they like, as he swings there slowly choking to death, quietly praying that one of those bastards down below stabbing away hits something vital and put him out of his misery.

"The Mullahs and Ayatollahs have little sway with the Iranian people." - They do however tell them (the Iranian people) who can represent them, what laws, etc, that legislative body can, or can not, enact. They tell the Iranian media what it can say. They tell their people what they can wear. No, no sway at all Frank.

"However, the Christian Taliban in the U.S. is powerful." - Absolutely Frank, did you know that in the United States of America under the Christian Taliban, people can think what they like, say what they like, print what they like, draw what cartoons they like, wear what they like, vote for who they like, live how they like, etc, etc. Absolutely shameful isn't it Frank.

"As to Hamas, the essential question to be asked is what kind of person would blow himself up for his/her ideals?" - Do Hamas, or members of Hamas blow themselves up for their ideals? Or do Hamas just brainwash some weak, impressionable, ignorant kid, fill his head full of a whole rake of lies, shove him out the door to blow himself to smithereens, then bung his parents a few dollars for the funeral such as it may be.

"To dismiss this as just "fanaticism" is begging the question." - Oh I wouldn't say that it was fanaticism - bloody stupidity more like, it certainly hasn't got them very far with respect to there being peace in the Middle East. But there again Frank, according to Hamas, there only ever will be peace in the Middle East after the Jewish State of Israel and it's entire population have been obliterated from the face of the earth. They really are quite sincere about that Frank.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 11:41 PM

Why don't you contact the organization and ask them your questions, Teribus? Without any evidence to the contrary, we don't have any reason to expect that the people in that website are anything other than what they say they are.

beardedbruce, every time I go on a fact checking mission in answer to questions like yours, I end up learning far more than I wanted to know on whatever subject I'm researching. This time is no different. My earlier comment was based on about four years worth of reading on the subject, but I never bothered to save links for much of what I read on the subject of Lebanon and Egypt, mostly because I found it so disturbing, and because I felt the issue of the occupied Palestinian areas was a far more pressing one for my attention.

I have spent a lot of time today (and part of yesterday evening) looking for documentation of the things I said in my previous post, and I have found quite a lot of it. It is all very disturbing. I don't have any easy ways to provide the sources. It will require a lot of compilation of information from many sources. I will chip away at this task as time allows, but I can't do it quickly. I actually have other things to do with my time besides this.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 06:15 AM

CarolC,

I will await whatever you can send me. As far as I have found, the numbers of NON-combatants does not reflect what you have stated- but I do not claim to have all sources, and will gladly look at any I have not yet seen.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 09:10 AM

Just interpret it all subjectively as you go through the available evidence. Sift it into what you consider reasonable and what you don't. The conclusions you will come to will support your established view of the matter. I can guaran-damn-tee it. This is the way it normally works with human beings. ;-P

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 09:37 AM

LH,

Who were you calling NOT a human being - CarolC or myself?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 09:45 AM

Frank,

As for Hamas,

"[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith,"


And Hamas has DEFINED Palestine as the ENTIRE region, including all of Israel.


Hamas Charter

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 10:19 AM

You are both human beings, BB. I think so, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 11:16 AM

Just interpret it all subjectively as you go through the available evidence. Sift it into what you consider reasonable and what you don't. The conclusions you will come to will support your established view of the matter. I can guaran-damn-tee it. This is the way it normally works with human beings. ;-P

George, my "established view of the matter" prior to the spring of 2002 was not so different from beardedbruce's, so you couldn't possibly be more wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 11:23 AM

So, CarolC, there may be hope for me yet!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 11:34 AM

Here's something to start with. This is from a former Israeli soldier (who has identified himself) who served in Lebanon during Israel's invasion of that country. The figures he gives for Lebanese and Palestinian civilians killed in both Israeli invasions of Lebanon is between 15,000 and 20,000. These numbers are consistant with the numbers I've been seeing from many other sources. Except that most sources also say that these numbers are probably vastly underreported simply by virtue of the fact that many, many bodies were never recovered from under all the rubble and destruction. The Israelis were herding Palestinian refugees from the camps into west Beirut (using bombs), and most of the destruction was done to civilian areas in west Beirut. So we can reasonably expect that a significant percentage of the civilians killed were Palestinian refugees.

But I'll get more for you as time allows.

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/jron.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 11:37 AM

So, CarolC, there may be hope for me yet!

Indeed, bb!

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Wolfgang
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 04:16 AM

Watch out, this 'lame duck' president has nothing to lose

Niall Ferguson (Professor of history at Harvard) predicts:

The United States is going to ask the UN Security Council to impose sanctions if Iran does not halt its programme of uranium enrichment. The other permanent members won't agree. And then… Well, when those missiles slam into the Iranian nuclear facilities, don't say I didn't warn you.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: GUEST,robomatic
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 10:08 AM

So Skarpi, found out anything?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 05:44 PM

I told yer mate! Ask the Russians...

And the USA will be russian to be your friends again...

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 07:19 PM

to those using statistics as major points of debate:

The number of the 'enemy' killed or injured hardly defines who is good or evil, right or wrong, just or unjust..etc. I'm sure you would agree, but sometimes it sounds as if lots of casualties gives one side a moral superiority. The Israelis have more & bigger weapons, so the Palestinians do their...ummm...best...with other means. NONE of the tactics employed are genteel, reasonable or practical.

EVERY group has hate, rancor, grudges and claims...all of which are real; and **who started it** just depends on how far back you go and what your first premises are about the history and demographics of the region.

   There's plenty of blame to go around on BOTH sides, and even for some who are not officially on either side.

But regarding the **original** point of the thread (you do remember what Skarpi asked?)...It is much easier to see various scenarios developing that suggest that Resident Bush is seriously considering doing 'something' to/in Iran....all his rhetoric is too similar to what he used to setup the Iraq debacle.

Remember, he still has 3 years to create more awkward messes for his successor to clean up.....I wonder how many ***BILLIONS*** he expends to spend pounding the world into his demented notion of democracy?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: robomatic
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 10:57 PM

And we're not going to have President Bartlett to fall back on!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 03:47 PM

Yes, he wants to go into Iran. It's part of the New World Order.

Wag the Bush.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 10:13 AM

I don't want to start a new thread so I just use one of the threads with Iran in the title. Some comments on Iran by Iranians living in exile (mostly my translation):

Ferdos Mirabardi: The only groups protesting openly against the regime are women and students...Women in Iran have lost so much under the mullahs that they defend each little piece of freedom...Each islamic regime is basically hostile to women.

Simin Afschar: Iranians are much more progressive than the reactionary picture of human rights the mullahs have...Ninety percent of the population are held in leash by ten percent, the mullahs and their goons.

Hamid Tafazoli: voices for a change of regime have to come from within the country itself

Hessam Vossoughi. Once the resistance against the Shah has been propagated as 'antiimperialism'..., but behind this 'left' propaganda quickly the antimodern impetus could be seen.

Maryam Namazie: The situation of women living in Islam-stricken societies and under Islamic laws is the outrage of the 21st century. Burqa-clad and veiled women and girls, beheadings, stoning to death, floggings, child sexual abuse in the name of marriage and sexual apartheid are only the most brutal and visible aspects of women's rightlessness and third class citizen status in the Middle East

Lest you get the wrong impression why I quote these voices in this thread: All of them have declared explicitely that they do not at all approve of a military attack upon Iran. What they want they say would actually suffer a set-back by any attack.

But have human rights ever meant anything else to Bush except a good excuse for an action he had already planned for a completely different reason?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 01:10 PM

But have human rights ever meant anything else to Bush except a good excuse for an action he had already planned for a completely different reason?

No, they have not. Human rights mean absolutely nothing to Bush. As governor of Texas, he oversaw the execution of people who were mentally handicapped and people who were minors at the time of their crimes.


"Not by a criminal grand jury, and not for any laws that he may have broken during his time in the White House. But make no mistake about it -- the Supreme Court's landmark 5-4 ruling that bars the execution of people who were 17 or younger when they commited their crimes was nothing less than an indictment of Bush's actions as the governor of Texas, actions that even America's highest court now concedes were contrary to international law.

Three young men who were convicted of committing murders when they were just 17 were killed by lethal injection during Bush's tenure as governor, which ran from 1995 through the end of 2000. Two of the three execution victims each had suffered severe head injuries as children -- one the result of alleged extreme child abuse -- and were judged by experts to be mentally impaired or retarded. The third was sentenced to die by a jury because -- according to his defense lawyer -- "he was a black man who killed a white woman, and he was very very gay."

When that third murder convict, Glen McGinnis, was executed on Jan. 25, 2000 (the week that Bush was running in the New Hampshire GOP primary) that made him only the seventh under-18 offender put to death in the entire world from 1990 to 2000, according to Amnesty International. Three of those seven were at the hands of then Gov. Bush. Three more were in the state of Virginia.

The other was in Iran."

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/001520.html


http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/newab020/index.html


On the other hand, there have never really been any presidents (or even very many politicians of any sort) in the US who were genuinely interested in human rights. The US has pretty much always used 'human rights' as an excuse to promote agendas that violate human rights more than they uphold them.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 03:49 AM

CarolC,

From your post:

"sentenced to die by a jury"

Does that mean anything at all to you?

Also not on single word from you in your post regarding the victims of these murderers, nor for their families and loved ones.

Now the Supreme Court's landmark 5-4 ruling that the person who wrote in your first link hails as being, "nothing less than an indictment of Bush's actions as the governor of Texas", tell me CarolC would that be the same Supreme Court that would have been involved in the inevitable appeal process associated with these three cases? Would that be the same Supreme Court that turned down those appeals, thereby letting stand sentences arrived at in accordance with State and Federal Law? And you say it was Bush who killed those three teenagers? - Hardly, they were sentenced to death as a result of due process of law, none denied the murders they were accused of. All the Governor of the State did was to let the convictions and sentences stand, nothing more, nothing less.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 05:59 AM

Well I think Bush SHOULD go into Iran.

On a trolley, bound hand and foot, so the Ayatollas would have the chance to take out their ire on the man who most deserves it.

Oh, BTW, we should have Tony B. Liar pushing the trolley.

The world would somehow be a cleaner, safer place.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 12:42 PM

It is against international human rights laws to execute the mentally handicapped and people who are minors when they commite their crimes, Teribus. That's a fact.

Note that the only other country that executed someone who was a minor at the time of his or her crime during the years of 1990 to 2000 was Iran. Hmmm...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 12:46 PM

And you're reading, comprehension, and retention skills are atrocious, Teribus. I didn't say Bush killed them. I said this:

As governor of Texas, he oversaw the execution of people who were mentally handicapped and people who were minors at the time of their crimes.

...which is, of course, the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 07:31 PM

Unfortunately CarolC - "international human rights laws" have absolutely no standing whatsoever when compared to the laws and conventions of Sovereign States. And don't duck the question, was the Supreme Court that so indicted Bush's actions as Governor of Texas, the same Supreme Court that allowed both verdict and sentence to stand on appeal. Now if the answer to that question is yes, then my comment would be that the Supreme Court of the United States of America is a collection of the most hypocritical SOB's ever encountered. My reason for saying that is that when presented with the perfect opportunity to intervene they did nothing, then roundly berated someone else for doing exactly the same thing.

But there again what is being discussed is LAW not JUSTICE, those sentenced were GUILTY, they did not deny their crimes (taking of a completely innocent party's live for financial gain). For this they were sentenced to death. If you wish to apportion blame, do not lay it entirely at the door of the very last link in the chain that may have reprieved them, far better lay it at the door of the US Supreme Court, they after all are the professionals.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 08:01 PM

So...how does the state-sponsored execution (murder) of a murderer help the murderer's victims and those victims' families, Teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 10:05 PM

I knew it. Teribus is a Texan.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 10:10 PM

But quite obviously a Texan who knows nothing about the Supreme Court or the appeals process.

I'm going to let you try to figure this one out on your own, Teribus. There is a huge flaw in your "reasoning", which it appears you don't know enough about the legal system in this country to be able to spot. I think I'll just let you dangle there for a while and wonder about what it might be.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 02:26 AM

Opinions of the US Supreme Court:

BROWN V. SANDERS, No. 04-980
Decided, January 11, 2006
The U.S. Supreme Court re-instated the death sentence of Ronald Sanders in a 5-4 ruling overturning a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Bradshaw v. Richey, No. 05-101
In a per curiam opinion issued without oral argument, the Court granted the State's petition for a writ of certiorari, unanimously vacated the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, and remanded the case for further consideration. Kenneth Richey, a citizen of both the U.S. and Great Britain, had been convicted in 1987 in Ohio of aggravated murder in the course of a felony, namely setting fire to a house. The state had shown that although his intended victims escaped, another person was killed in the fire, and by the state doctrine of "transferred intent" he was guilty of capital murder and he was sentenced to death. The Sixth Circuit granted him habeas relief, holding that transferred intent was not a permissible theory for aggravated felony murder under Ohio law, and that he had been given inadequate representation. The Supreme Court held that the Sixth Circuit erred in interpreting the Ohio law of transferred intent, and that it failed to adequately consider whether Richey's ineffectiveness of counsel claims were procedurally barred. (Decided Nov. 28, 2005) (See also Associated Press, Nov. 28, 2005).

CarolC,
It would appear to a foreigner like myself, reading the above that the Supreme Court does involve itself in the appeals process. In the two cases above the Supreme Court intervened and overturned successful appeal court decisions to reinstate the original death penalty verdicts.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 11:00 AM

Well I think Bush SHOULD go into Iran.

On a trolley, bound hand and foot, so the Ayatollas would have the chance to take out their ire on the man who most deserves it. Don T.)

It is against international human rights laws to execute the mentally handicapped (Carol's first words in the immediately following post)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 02:01 PM

So, Don T. is advocating a violation of international human rights...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 02:12 PM

That's OK, Wolfgang-- if the Iranians adhere to international human rights conventions, Bush (bound hand and foot) will have no problem. Right?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 03:33 PM

Well, let's hope not, Ron. ;-) I have always been in favor of taking politicians who launch wars and parachuting them directly into the hands of those on whom they ordered the attack.

If this were done without fail, I predict that soon no more wars would be launched by politicians. Very soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 03:37 PM

It would appear to a foreigner like myself, reading the above that the Supreme Court does involve itself in the appeals process. In the two cases above the Supreme Court intervened and overturned successful appeal court decisions to reinstate the original death penalty verdicts.

Nope. That's not the flaw in your "reasoning" that I was talking about. Try again.


Also (but not related to the matter of the Supreme Court) -

Unfortunately CarolC - "international human rights laws" have absolutely no standing whatsoever when compared to the laws and conventions of Sovereign States.

Tell that to Saddam Hussien.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 03:49 PM

The ego is utterly unscrupulous when debating. It will happily use on others tactics that it would regard as completely illegitimate when used upon itself. It will demand of others what it would never accept as a legitimate demand upon itself. It will, in Teribus' case, excuse and even exonerate Mr Blair or Mr Bush for things it would not dream of excusing a great many other politicians for.

And that's typical of the human ego. Always has been, always shall be. The only thing the ego really believes in is winning.

"He worships at the altar of a stagnant pool, and when he sees his reflection, he's fullfilled. Man is opposed to fair play. He wants it all, and he wants it his way. But there's a woman on my block, she just sits there, while the night grows still, she says 'Who's gonna take away his license to kill?' " - Bob Dylan

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 05:12 PM

CarolC, as the ultimate and final court in the land was it in the Supreme Courts gift to conduct a Judiciary Review and comute the sentances of the three examples you quoted. As you seem to be rather hesitant in responding to this question I will give you the answer - Yes it was the Supreme Court could have intervened but it did not, by it's own inaction it sanctioned the verdicts reached by the court - Nothing to do with the Governor of the State of Texas at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 05:42 PM

Nope. That's not it. Try again.

BTW, you don't fool me with that "a foreigner like myself" language, since most Texans consider Texas to be a separate country from the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 05:52 PM

You continue to dodge the question - noted.

By the way I am definitely not from the United States of America, nor am I from Texas, if there is indeed any difference, perceived or otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 07:04 PM

Still worshipping at the stagnant pool, I see...

Man, if the Biblical Paul had had your fanatical zeal and persistence, Teribus, Rome would have either converted to Christianity a century or two sooner...or they'd have killed him. ;-)

Well, most likely the latter.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 07:43 PM

Well, I sho nuff ain't read every post in this thread but back to the original question about Bush crankin' up yet another war...

Hey, he's allready losing the two wars he's started so what's one more... Hey, after a while who's counting???

Now back to whatever academic trap WylieCoyoteTeribus is setting for RoadRunnerCarolC...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 08:50 PM

No, I'll answer it eventually, Teribus. But I thought I would give you ample opportunity to try to figure it out for yourself before I do.

Have you given up already?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 06:37 AM

"Under Texas law the governor can issue a 30-day stay of execution by himself but can only commute a sentence if the Board of Pardons and Paroles recommends it"

Most death penalty states that specify a minimum age for the death penalty set the minimum at age 18, but there are exceptions.

Death Penalty States where there is no specified minimum age:
Arizona; Idaho; Louisianna; Montana; Pennsylvania; South Carolina; South Dakota.

Death Penalty States where age is set as being 16 years or younger:
Alabama; Arkansas (14 years); Delaware; Federal (Military); Florida; Indiana; Kentucky; Mississippi; Missouri; Nevada; Oklahoma; Utah (14 years); Virginia (14 years); Wyoming.

Death Penalty States where age is set at 17 years:
Georgia; New Hampshire; North Carolina; Texas.

Death Penalty States where age is set at 18 years:
California; Colorado; Connecticut; Federal (civilian); Illinois; Kansas; Maryland; Nebraska; New Jersey; New Mexico; New York; Ohio; Oregon; Tennessee; Washington.

At year-end 2000, throughout the entire United States of America, 73 offenders were under sentence of death for under-18 crimes

Of the 73 offenders under sentence of death on December 31, 2000, for crimes committed at age 17 or younger, 55 were age 17 at the time of their offense and the remaining 18 were 16.

Nearly half of these offenders (33 of 73) were not juveniles at the time of their offense—they were legally adults because they were older than their state's upper age of original juvenile court jurisdiction.

The majority of these (26 of 33) were 17-year-olds from Texas, where original juvenile court jurisdiction ends at age 16.

International Convention on Civil and Political Rights:
The USA, ratified the ICCPR in 1992 with a reservation reserving for itself the right to use the death penalty against child offenders.

In 1988 and 1989 the US Supreme Court ruled that the execution of people who were under 16 at the time of the crime was contrary to the US Constitution but that the execution of people aged 16 or 17 at the time of the crime was not.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 01:19 PM

This is not in answer to your question (that will come later), but what have you to say on the subject of executing the mentally handicapped, Teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 01:43 PM

CarolC, coming from a country that abolished the Death Penalty quite a long time ago I am against the Death Penalty and have been since first hearing a song called "The Ballad of Timothy Evans". I think I was about fifteen years old at the time as I said a long time ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 02:09 PM

And why are you against the death penalty, Teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 02:50 PM

On the subject of a US attack on Iran - here is some recent discussion on this issue in the Washington Post...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040801082.html

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 07:43 PM

Hmmmmmmm? Executing folks who most likely, but not always, guilty is something that T-Bird is against yet droppin' bombs on innocent kids, women and old folks don't seem to bother him much???

I must have missed a couple things here...

Nevermind... Now bacl to the T-CarolC cat 'n mouse game... My money is on CarolC... Plus, though I ain't seen the T, I'm sure that CarolC is a lot easier on the eyes...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 01:24 AM

Why am I against the death penalty?

Simple, because if the legal system gets it wrong you can correct the mistake. With the death penalty you can't, as in the case of Timothy Evans.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 08:28 AM

The NYT says that we are now already in Iran with regular Army troops whose job it is to paint Iranian targets with lasers for our nuclear weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 01:40 PM

"Plus, though I ain't seen the T, I'm sure that CarolC is a lot easier on the eyes... "

Something I can agree with Bobert on...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 11:30 PM

(thnx, guys)


Ahem...

First of all, this is what Bush was empowered to do as governor of Texas -

"To distance himself from his legal and moral responsibility for executions, Bush often cited a Texas statute that says a governor may do nothing more than grant a thirty-day reprieve to an inmate unless the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles has recommended a broader grant of clemency. But any time he wanted to, Bush could have commuted a sentence or stopped an execution. By the end of his governorship Bush had appointed all eighteen members of the board of pardons. He could easily have ordered a thirty-day reprieve and gotten word to the board that he had doubts about the fairness of a case and wanted an investigation and hearings. But the Texas pardons board has been a farce. In my home state the Louisiana Board of Pardons and Paroles meets and holds hearings. True, they routinely deny clemency, but they at least give the appearance of being a real, working board. The full Texas pardons board never meets to consider a death sentence. A few of them talk to one another on the phone. Sometimes. No one knows whether the clemency appeals are even read. As governor, Bush did nothing to reform the board's procedures.

In the Henry Lee Lucas case in 1998, Bush showed where the real power lay. He intervened with the Texas pardons board before they had a chance to make a recommendation, and after his intervention, the board handed him the decision he wanted: a 17�1 vote for commutation of Lucas's death sentence. The Henry Lee Lucas case gained national attention when it came to light that Lucas had been condemned to death for a Texas murder he couldn't possibly have committed, since he wasn't in the state at the time. Additionally, it was clear that Lucas would never be a threat to society because he was already serving six life sentences for other murders, which he may or may not have committed, since on a fairly regular basis he confessed falsely to hundreds of murders. Bush pointed out that jurors at his trial "did not know" certain facts that later came to light."

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17670


Second, the Supreme Court has a different mandate. They are charged with interpreting law and the US Constitution (and establishing precedent). If they have determined that the case before them is not a violation of the Constitution, they decide against the one seeking redress through that court. In the case of the juvenile death penalty, their earlier decisions reflected the science that was known at the time of those decisions. Their later decision; that juvenile death penalties are unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, is a reflection of new science and new attitudes that are, in part, based on that science...

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,994126,00.html

"...What Giedd's long-term studies have documented is that there is a second wave of proliferation and pruning that occurs later in childhood and that the final, critical part of this second wave, affecting some of our highest mental functions, occurs in the late teens. Unlike the prenatal changes, this neural waxing and waning alters not the number of nerve cells but the number of connections, or synapses, between them. When a child is between the ages of 6 and 12, the neurons grow bushier, each making dozens of connections to other neurons and creating new pathways for nerve signals.

The thickening of all this gray matter--the neurons and their branchlike dendrites--peaks when girls are about 11 and boys 12 1/2, at which point a serious round of pruning is under way. Gray matter is thinned out at a rate of about 0.7% a year, tapering off in the early 20s. At the same time, the brain's white matter thickens. The white matter is composed of fatty myelin sheaths that encase axons and, like insulation on a wire, make nerve-signal transmissions faster and more efficient. With each passing year (maybe even up to age 40) myelin sheaths thicken, much like tree rings. During adolescence, says Giedd, summing up the process, "you get fewer but faster connections in the brain." The brain becomes a more efficient machine, but there is a trade-off: it is probably losing some of its raw potential for learning and its ability to recover from trauma.

..."Scientists and the general public had attributed the bad decisions teens make to hormonal changes," says Elizabeth Sowell, a UCLA neuroscientist who has done seminal MRI work on the developing brain. "But once we started mapping where and when the brain changes were happening, we could say, Aha, the part of the brain that makes teenagers more responsible is not finished maturing yet."

...In light of what has been learned, it seems almost arbitrary that our society has decided that a young American is ready to drive a car at 16, to vote and serve in the Army at 18 and to drink alcohol at 21. Giedd says the best estimate for when the brain is truly mature is 25, the age at which you can rent a car. "Avis must have some pretty sophisticated neuroscientists," he jokes. Now that we have scientific evidence that the adolescent brain is not quite up to scratch, some legal scholars and child advocates argue that minors should never be tried as adults and should be spared the death penalty. Last year, in an official statement that summarized current research on the adolescent brain, the American Bar Association urged all state legislatures to ban the death penalty for juveniles. "For social and biological reasons," it read, "teens have increased difficulty making mature decisions and understanding the consequences of their actions.""


Third -

Also not on single word from you in your post regarding the victims of these murderers, nor for their families and loved ones.

Wolfgang asked specifically whether or not human rights has ever "meant anything else to Bush except a good excuse for an action he had already planned for a completely different reason". And I gave my answer to that question.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Apr 06 - 01:07 AM

It would appear CarolC that I had answered the question in my post of 09 Apr 06 - 06:37 AM

Under Texas law the governor can issue a 30-day stay of execution by himself but can only commute a sentence if the Board of Pardons and Paroles recommends it.

That is the fact of the matter, the rest of what you quoted on this point is merely opinion. In Texas juvenile court jurisdiction ends at age 16, looks as though the laws of the State of Texas have to be changed, but at the time it would appear that the Governor and the legal process was working within the law. But please note CarolC that according to the law at no time ever has George W Bush, as governor of Texas, overseen the execution of people who were minors at the time of their crimes ( As you stated in your post of 06 Apr 06 - 01:10 PM ).

No calls of condemnation with regard to the other states where convicted prisoners under the age of 18 have been executed.

Your second point with regard to the mandate of the Supreme Court:

In 1988 and 1989 the US Supreme Court ruled that the execution of people who were under 16 at the time of the crime was contrary to the US Constitution but that the execution of people aged 16 or 17 at the time of the crime was not.

On 28th February 2005 the US Supreme Court changed it's mind and shifted the height of the bar to 18 years old, better had they banned it altogether, but at least they appear to be moving in the right direction. It was an indictment of nothing, to say so was just fanciful journalistic rubbish, and the Supreme Court of the United States of American does not give a fig about International Law, nor should it. With the state the legal system of the US is in they have enough on their plate just looking at their own back yard.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Apr 06 - 01:41 AM

Oh no, they were minors. They couldn't vote or drink alcohol (legally). They were minors in every legal sense of the word (legal according to US laws). But they were minors who got the death penalty.

Under Texas law the governor can issue a 30-day stay of execution by himself but can only commute a sentence if the Board of Pardons and Paroles recommends it.

So what? This means nothing in terms of your point and in terms of question of whether or not "human rights" mean anything to Bush other than for purposes of political expediency. If he has the power to influence the board (and it is proven that he did have that power), and if he doesn't make any effort to know the relevant facts of each execution before it takes place, and if he signs off on the executions anyway, and if the executions are a miscarriage of justice, and he doesn't make the attempt to get a recommendation from the board to commute, he bears ultimate responsibility. He is, in the cases that come before him for his signature, the final artiber.

On 28th February 2005 the US Supreme Court changed it's mind and shifted the height of the bar to 18 years old, better had they banned it altogether, but at least they appear to be moving in the right direction. It was an indictment of nothing, to say so was just fanciful journalistic rubbish, and the Supreme Court of the United States of American does not give a fig about International Law, nor should it. With the state the legal system of the US is in they have enough on their plate just looking at their own back yard.

If you want to quarrel with the use of the word "indictment", I don't have any problem with that. That changes nothing, however.

No calls of condemnation with regard to the other states where convicted prisoners under the age of 18 have been executed.

That's not the subject of this discussion. Yes, I do condemn it. I condemn all cases of capital punishment for the same reason you do. But this is not a discussion of capital punishment. It's a discussion of George Bush's track record with regard to human rights.

Nice obfuscatory attempt, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Apr 06 - 02:10 AM

"Oh no, they were minors. They couldn't vote or drink alcohol (legally). They were minors in every legal sense of the word (legal according to US laws). But they were minors who got the death penalty."

Sorry CarolC according to the laws of the State of Texas the age of criminal responsibility at the point where the courts treat you as an adult is from the point you reach your 17th birthday. The Supreme Court rulings of 1988 and 1989 also state that the execution of people aged 16 or 17 at the time of the crime was not contrary to the US Constitution.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Apr 06 - 02:39 AM

Ok. I'll conceed on that point.

However, there's still this:

"Bush even had the gall to declare, "We should never execute anyone who is mentally retarded." Of course, as governor of Texas, Bush opposed legislation that banned executions of the mentally handicapped. He signed off on the execution of six prisoners with IQs below 70 (the general threshold measuring mental retardation) -- one-sixth of the number of mentally handicapped individuals who have been executed since 1976."

(from my earlier link)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Apr 06 - 08:04 AM

Mr T is potentially British, as he claimed to have worked with the SAS... :-)

Of course Australia also has a SAS... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Apr 06 - 10:05 AM

"The NYT says that we are now already in Iran with regular Army troops whose job it is to paint Iranian targets with lasers for our nuclear weapons." (Donuel - 10 Apr 06 - 08:28 AM)

Did the NYT explain why Donuel? I would rather of thought that it would, because that is a damned expensive way of doing things. Go and read up on JDAMS, does exactly the same thing at a quarter of the cost and does not rely on having to have anybody on the ground "painting" the target.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 09:43 AM

So why has the USA surreptiously invaded Iran? An Act of War, you see...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 10:07 AM

Has the USA surreptiously invaded Iran?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 08:12 PM

From: Teribus
Date: 11 Apr 06 - 10:05 AM

"The NYT says that we are now already in Iran with regular Army troops whose job it is to paint Iranian targets with lasers for our nuclear weapons." (Donuel - 10 Apr 06 - 08:28 AM)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 08:31 AM

Foolestroupe,

Are you answering a question, or trying to clarify a point raised?

You actually quoting me quoting a post of Donuel's seems to do neither.

My question to Donuel is why would there be any US Troops regular, or otherwise in Iran at present, it would appear that we only have the NYT's say so.

Now judging from past experience, should I quote as source material the NYT it is instantly dismissed as a biased right wing rag in the pocket of the current US Administration (It's not of course but that is the line taken) How ever when it is quoted by the anti-war, anti-Bush, left as a source of information it becomes the totally objective, impeccable, fount of all knowledge, completely and utterly beyond reproach.

The munitions requiring target illumination cost approximately $45,000 per shot and require the following circumstances to exist before they can work:
- Target illumination teams in place with their equipment
- Good weather or at least no overcast

JDAM's cost approximately $10,000 per shot and require none of the above being an all-weather 'blind' system. So I ask again, what are all those US Regular Troops doing in Iran Donuel?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 09:46 AM

Don't ask him, ask George, or perhaps better yet, the NYT?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 12:14 PM

The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009 (link to a GUARDIAN article)

May 7 2009 will surely go down in history alongside September 11 2001. "5/7", as it inevitably became known, saw massive suicide bombings in Tel Aviv, London and New York, as well as simultaneous attacks on the remaining western troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Total casualties were estimated at around 10,000 dead and many more wounded. The attacks, which included the explosion of a so-called dirty bomb in London, were orchestrated by a Tehran-based organisation for "martyrdom-seeking operations" established in 2004. "5/7" was the Islamic Republic of Iran's response to the bombing of its nuclear facilities, which President Hillary Clinton had ordered in March 2009.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 01:50 PM

Very prescient.


Alternative (and in my opinion, better) version...

A majority of Israelis decide they've had enough of empire building and force their government to remove occupying forces and settlements from the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. As a result of popular pressure, the government recognizes the Palestinian people, and sits down with their democratically elected representatives and together they establish a mutually acceptable border between Israel and the newly formed Independent Palestine.

New initiatives in cooperation between the two countries results in an economic boom for both countries, and they experience a cultural and entrepreneurial renaissance, which spreads throughout the whole Middle East. Even countries like Iran cannot withstand the tide of change. As a result of the Iranian government no longer being able to recruit willing fighters in the name of liberating Palestine from the Western invaders, it is forced to adopt a new strategy.

Following China's example, it begins to institute a liberalization of its policies, with a resulting dimishment of power of the Mullahs in favor of policy makers who have the expertise to take advantage of the new economic climate in the region.

Western oil-driven countries, as a result of market pressures making oil too expensive, and through innovations in technology, have established a non-petroleum dependent energy economy, resulting in a loss of interest in dominating and controling the oil producing parts of the world.

Peace ensues.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: gnu
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 02:19 PM

Do you suppose Garge will employ a nuke(s) in Iran to "nip that problem neatly in the bud" and, at the same time, to demonstrate to N. Korea that they are next, if..... ?

BTW. I ain't SAYIN nothin, so don't jump to conclusions or on my back... I'm just askin.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 07:36 AM

A link to a comment in the GUARDIAN:
Iran does pose a threat in every way Iraq did not

That the Iraqi peril was a phantom, all but the pro-war diehards now concede....an alarming picture: a state galloping towards a nuclear bomb, led by a messianist bent on destroying a nearby nation. Undenied, too, are Iran's links with terrorist organisations beyond its borders. For every way in which Iraq did not pose a threat, there is one in which Iran does.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: ard mhacha
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 07:46 AM

The biggest threat to the world and the thousands of innocents that they have been sent to their doom, comes from the USA. A fact beyond dispute.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 01:07 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus - PM
Teribus,

The pipelines are an agenda. It's not crap. How else can the US get a "fix" on its "habit"? If you don't believe the Bushies have an oil agenda, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. Remember that Bush is first and foremost a failed oilman. He bankrupted his business in Texas and made a lot of money from it. It's called "corporate crime" in my book.

But the most potent export that Afghanistan has now is not just oil but its poppy fields.

Factual matters have nothing to do with going to war for the Bushies.
They are looking to Armageddon to solve their problems. The New World Order is not a "pipedream" but a specific political orientation.

Frank Hamilton



Date: 16 Mar 06 - 08:22 PM

CarolC - 16 Mar 06 - 12:56 PM

"They have no problem with destroying a country for oil,.....Just look at Afghanistan (where we have an oil agenda in the form of pipelines)."

Really CarolC? what pipelines are they - quick give Don F a shake and he can tell us all about the TAP Pipeline that the US has absolutely sod all to do with and which is as far away from being constructed now as it was twenty years ago. But according to CarolC the US "has an agenda" - Utter crap, if you are going to peddle fairytales at least try and hang them on a framework with a bit of credibility

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 02:16 PM

Stringsinger,

Top five oil exporters to the US are:
Mexico 1.774 million barrels per day
Canada 1.7 million barrels per day
Saudi Arabia 1.4 million barrels per day
Nigeria 1.3 million barrels per day
Venezuela 1.1 million barrels per day

Iraq comes way, way down the list with 444,000 barrels per day

Now what was that "agenda" again? And I cannot for the life of me see how pipelines that do not exist, and who nobody seems to want to build enter the picture at all, let alone serve as an example of how the US sets out to destroy countries to acquire their assets and natural resources.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:23 PM

Oh, goody. More bitching and more opinions and more statistics. More efforts to "win" the argument. You know what? If we all wait a little while, we will find out the answers to all this speculation, won't we?

Hopefully, anyway. ;-) They ARE still arguing about who shot John Kennedy...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 09:45 AM

Open letter to Bush regarding Iran by several former foreign ministers

...find disturbing the reports that the Bush administration may be actively planning to launch military strikes soon against possible nuclear weapons facilities in Iran.

Such reports, though denied by the administration, raise alarms nevertheless. Similar reports, and similar denials, preceded the administration's decision in 2003 to invade Iraq.

...a unilateral use of force by Washington would find little support within Europe

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:49 PM

To Wolfgang and to Madeleine Albright of the United States, Joschka Fischer of Germany, Jozias van Aartsen of the Netherlands, Bronislaw Geremek of Poland, Hubert Védrine of France and Lydia Polfer of Luxembourg. Based upon the article linked to "Talk to Iran, President Bush" I would ask the following:

1. Iran has been engaged in dialogue and negotiation now for quite a number of years - What has been the result? What would be the anticipated result of further dialogue? Why would this be considered any more likely to succeed than any past negotiation?

2. While disturbed about unconfirmed reports that the current US Administration "may be" actively planning to launch military strikes against possible nuclear weapons facilities in Iran, not one of the above voices the slightest concern regarding the declared intent on the part of France to respond to any attack involving the use of WMD with nuclear weapons on what ever nations France believes to be involved. Can anyone on this forum explain why one approach is OK and that the one reportedly adopted by the US is so completely beyond the pale?

3. With regard to Iraq, the former Foreign Ministers ignore the fact that it was entirely in the hands of Saddam Hussein what happened.

4. In their acceptance of Iran's legitimate right to pursue civilian nuclear power with appropriate international safeguards. Can this group of former Foreign Ministers explain why they believe that Iran having developed much of their nuclear programme in secret would pay the slightest attention to what they believe to be the "appropriate international safeguards". If what Iran says is true, why do they need P2 centrifuges as opposed to the P1 type normally used in the manufacture of nuclear fuel? Why are they investigating the design of nuclear warheads? Why are they designing long range missiles to carry nuclear warheads? All these are questions that Mohammed El Baradei the head of the IAEA has raised as a direct result of what HIS inspectors have discovered.

5. While the threatening and outrageous rhetoric of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has evoked understandable concern in Israel and other countries about Iranian intentions. Israel also has legitimate security concerns about Tehran's growing military capabilities. The former Foreign Ministers see their way forward in castigating the current US Administration for what it is not doing, while quietly choosing to ignore the root cause of a very real and growing threat. To the Head of State of a sovereign country and a member of the United Nations, who has openly and publicly threatened another sovereign state and member of the United Nation with annihilation what the entire body of that organisation (UN) should be saying very clearly to Iran is this, "By all means proceed with, and advance, your programme to obtain nuclear power for the generation of electricity. Do so in such a way that your progress and development is completely transparent in accordance with the Treaty to which your country is a signatory. Make any attempt to produce a nuclear weapon, then the world as a body will ensure that Iran as a nation ceases to exist." That would be a credible threat that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the members of the Iranian Ruling Council would have to pay attention to. The world has already tried to bribe and buy their way out of this crisis and failed spectacularly, high time now for extremely plain speaking, unfortunately everyone must be singing in unison on this and that is unlikely to happen.

6. To attribute the current international security environment to the actions of the USA and the UK, plus the 38 other countries that acted in 2003, is patently ridiculous. Muslim terrorists have been conducting attacks on an international basis for the past 34 years, it did not start as retaliation for America's response to 911.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:58 PM

While disturbed about unconfirmed reports that the current US Administration "may be" actively planning to launch military strikes against possible nuclear weapons facilities in Iran, not one of the above voices the slightest concern regarding the declared intent on the part of France to respond to any attack involving the use of WMD with nuclear weapons on what ever nations France believes to be involved.

You have quoted "France" as saying it would respond to an attack involving WMD that has already occurred. What the US is talking about doing is attacking another country before the government of that other country has made any attacks (using WMD) on anyone. This is a huge difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 01:41 PM

My apologies CarolC you are of course correct - here is what President Jacques Chirac did say:

"The leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us, as well as those who would envision using . . . weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to a firm and fitting response on our part. This response could be a conventional one. It could also be of a different kind. Against a regional power, our choice is not between inaction and destruction. The flexibility and reaction of our strategic forces allow us to respond directly against the centers of power. . . . All of our nuclear forces have been configured in this spirit"

All of the above from the mouth of President Jacques Chirac of France. Clearly stated in Paris, on the 19th January. He also went on to say:

"....that France was prepared to launch a nuclear strike against any country that sponsors a terrorist attack against French interests. He said his country's nuclear arsenal had been reconfigured to include the ability to make a tactical strike in retaliation for terrorism. President Chirac says France's nuclear arsenal could deliver a targeted strike. The French president said his country had reduced the number of nuclear warheads on some missiles deployed on France's four nuclear submarines in order to target specific points rather than risk wide-scale destruction. At the same time, he condemned "the temptation by certain countries to obtain nuclear capabilities in contravention of treaties." (i.e. Iran)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 04:44 AM

Who is the terrorist?
The USA has been actively involved in acts of terrorism in the Middle East for decades.It plotted to bring down the Mossadeg govt in Iran in 1953 and installed the shah in his place.Why?Oil!
The shah then set up the Savak secret police ,trained by the west and Israel to conduct a reign of torture and terror against the Iraqi people which was to last until his downfall in 1978.
Amnesty International published reports which stated that the shah's regime was among the worst in terms of torture and human rights abuses the world has seen.
This US malignant interference in Iran led to the ride of the fundamentalists.
To deal with the fundamentalists the US to attack Iran in 1981.The US supplied Iraq with finance,weapons,machine tools,intelligence and training.Dick Chenney was a welcome visitor to Bagdhad at this time.The war ended with a million war dead and both countries in economic exhaustion.
One Iranian civil airliner was shoot down out of the sky by a US destroyer with a huge loss of life.
Reports have been published recently that the US has been financing opposition groups ....imagine if Iran had been found to fund the democratic party in the USA !
Oil is the basis of US policy in the Middle East and it has used its huge wealth,economic power and military strength to trample on democratic rights and national rights in order to secure this oil for the US energy companies.
Ifor

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 07:30 AM

sorry about the several typo errors in the above posting
...the shah's secret police cinducted a reign of terror and torture against the iranian people not iraqi!!
The US encouraged the Iraqis to attack Iran in 1981.
I hope that clarifies my previous posting!!!
ifor

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: skarpi
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 11:55 AM

ahh have you all looked in the book - Nostradamus ?
" it will start in the middle east where as he saw it a prince
rules over his country and that country will start the WW3 "
they will fight against the vestern nations and russia
will fight with them and they will go into the middle eroupe
there they will be stopped and in the end the russian army
will fight against them to . this is what i remember what
in the book " Nostradamus " this may not be qoted right
word by word but as I said I remember this .

So is this the first step into WW3 ????

I am just wandering ,..................

All the best Skarpi Iceland.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 10:02 PM

Quite possibly, skarpi, it is. Regardless of Nostradamus. It's mostly about oil, and that oil is absolutely vital to the interests of America, Russia, China, and every other industrial nation. This is the kind of thing that major wars end up being fought over.

Of course, we could all agree to share the oil in an equal manner, couldn't we...?

But since when has there been the will among major powers to do something as sane and agreeable as that when they saw a chance to just take what they wanted by force? Since never.

The USA, at present, is just taking what it wants, and positioning itself to take more. That is what makes a major war very likely. It will not be a war about terrorism or democracy. It will be a war about who gets to control the oil. Other issues are brought forward as red herrings to fool the public into supporting national policy and volunteering their children's lives on the front lines, but it's about oil.

Here's an interesting link which proposes an "exit strategy" for the USA in Iraq. Very interesting. The Billy Jack movies were terrible, but Tom Laughlin's ideas for an exit strategy in Iraq make a great deal of sense. Read it and see...

http://www.billyjack.com/index.php?menuID=Page&pid=39

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 06:25 AM

The Exit Plan
An Exit Plan that brings stability and democracy to Iraq, brings our troops home immediately by replacing them with a coalition from Russia, China, France etc., none of whom are as hated as the "demon/Satan" Americans.

OK can the author of this "Exit Plan" explain why one set of foreign occupiers would be more welcome than another? Can the author of this "Exit Plan" provide examples where any of his suggested replacements have EVER worked in concert with one another as a "coalition" and achieved anything?

Now let's see,of the potential participants proposed, at the momen:
-        Russia is having a hard enough job reconstructing herself and due to potential problems with muslin populations within her own borders would not want to get involved.
-        China is too busy making money and juggling state capitalism while trying to maintain its credentials as a Socialist Communist State.
-        France just cannot afford it financially or politically.

All we have to do to get these countries to take over the reconstruction of Iraq is give them back the oil leases Bush stole from them when Bush invaded. (Russia had the West Qurnah oil field, China had the Rumaylah Reserve, and France had two of Iraq's largest fields, the Majnoon and Nahr Bin Omar.)

OK can the author of this "Exit Plan" detail what oil leases were stolen. Current records show the following leases are still operative:
West Qurna Phase 2 - Lukoil – Russian
Majnoon - Total – French
Bin Umar - Zarubezhneft – Russian
Nasiriya - Eni – Italian and Repsol – Spanish
Halfaya - BHP – Australian and a South Korean consortium, CNPC - Chinese, Agip – Italian
Ratawi - Shell – Netherlands
Tuba - ONGC – Indian and Sonatrach – BVI
Suba-Luhais - Slavneft – Russian
Gharaf - TPAO – Turkey and Japex – Japan
Al-Ahdab - CNPC – Chinese
Amara – PetroVietnam – Vietnam
Western Desert – Consortium comprising, ONGC - Indian, Pertamina - Indonesia, Stroitransgaz – Russian and Tatneft – Russian.
Tawke 1 – DNO – Norwegian.

Can the Author of this "Exit Plan" detail what oil in Iraq is owned by Halliburton?

Iraq's oil has always been Iraq's and that continues to be the case today, it cannot be taken, it cannot be given away, ALL oil and natural gas in Iraq is owned by the Iraq National Oil Company, those detailed above extract it under licence. The premise that the newly elected Government of Iraq would divest the country of it's natural resources which form the sole basis for their country's economy and give them to foreign powers who would "rush to take over and get the oil" is patently ridiculous.

The Governments of Russia, China and France would not touch this proposal with a bargepole

Now this bit of the Article is priceless:

"This Plan is a Godsend to the Iraqi people and a Godsend to our Troops, at the same time it strengthens America's position as the world's premier military superpower, and covers America with honor and the respect of the entire world as she resumes her position of moral authority – the premier moral superpower in the world -- ushering in a new era of international cooperation essential to successfully defeating terrorism in every corner of the world"

The Author of the "Exit Plan" doesn't elaborate on any of these statements and clearly hasn't thought through just exactly how implantation of this "Exit Plan" would be viewed by the various interested parties:
-        It definitely would not be a godsend to the people of Iraq
-        It definitely would not be a godsend to the armed forces of the United States of America
-        It would seriously weaken if not totally destroy America's position as the world's premier military superpower
-        Implementation of this "Exit Plan" would cover no-one with honour or respect, and irrespective of what the Author of this article states, there are many in this world who are totally convinced that the United States of America has no position to resume, and that the United States of America has never held a position of moral authority. I actually suspect the Author of this article is counted amongst this number going by remarks made later in the article.

Two reasons are given as to why the Coalition Invasion of Iraq in March 2003 (A Coalition of more countries than were involved in the 1991 campaign that ousted Saddam from Kuwait) cannot suceed:

Reason 1 – Oil
Well that cannot be sustained, as Iraq still owns the oil, those who previously had oil concessions in Iraq still have them, no major US oil company has been given any oil, Halliburton does not own or has not taken any Iraqi oil. And where does the United States of America get it's oil from (February 2006 figures):

Mexico 1.774 million barrels per day
Canada 1.7 million barrels per day
Saudi Arabia 1.4 million barrels per day
Nigeria 1.3 million barrels per day
Venezuela 1.1 million barrels per day

Iraq comes way, way down the list with 444,000 barrels per day

Reason 2 - Profound – incredibly profound -- ignorance of the psychology, religion and spirituality of the Arab and Islamic Cultures.

The supporters of current American Policy are asked two questions by the Author of the "Exit Plan".

Question 1 - Can you name one goal – just one – that staying and/or escalating in Iraq achieves that isn't better achieved – far better and far quicker – by this Exit Plan that gives back the oil to the Iraqis to lease to whomever the choose, and replaces our troops with a plethora of international forces and money immediately – something staying or escalating can never do?

For a start the Author ignores the fact that foreign troops comprising the Multi-National Force currently present in Iraq are there at the specific request of the former Iraq Transitional Government and remain there at the specific request of the newly elected members of the Iraqi Parliament. The MNF troops are present in Iraq under duly sanctioned UN Mandate. Now France, Russia and China are all UN members, all of whom have oil companies far more involved in the affairs of Iraq than any US or British Oil Company, has anybody heard anything that remotely indicates that if the MNF troops pulled out they would replaced with, "…a plethora of international forces and money immediately". Wishfull thinking of the highest order that defies logic and reality. As in the case of Darfur – there would be NO takers from the international community willing to step in.

As for goals, I can think of the following, Leiberman came up with quite a few more after his visit:

-        By staying the newly elected members of the Iraqi Parliament are given a breathing space to get up and running.
-        Iraq is no longer a sponsor of terrorist organizations, if any doubt that, take a look at the marked drop in terrorist attacks on Israel post March 2003, compared to the three previous years.
-        The unresolved matters relating to Iraq's WMD programmes detailed by UNSCOM in their Report to the UN Security Council in January 1999 have now been settled.

Here is what the Author of the "Exit Plan" thinks it would achieve IMMEDIATELY:

•        Immediately brings real peace, stability and democracy to Iraq in a way the hated "Satan" American occupiers will never be able to do.

Absolutely no grounds given as to why this would be the case. Most experts, especially those opposed to the intervention, would disagree with this prediction. Most believe that if the MNF troops left Iraq would descend into civil war, that would seriously destabilise the entire region.

•        Stops the daily slaughter and permanent crippling of our beautiful American troops who are human beings, not just numbers -- and who had a future, and their orphaned children had a future.

No it would not, the US, US interests and US citizens world-wide would still remain as much targets as they were throughout the 1980's and 1990's.

•        Immediately replace all American troops in Iraq with coalition forces, and cancel the activation of the 120,000 Reservists, National Guard and regular Army troops, and instead immediately send to Afghanistan 40,000 troops led by 15,000 American Special Operation Forces and 25,000 coalition forces to restore the all-out aggressive war on terrorism that Bush abandoned to invade Iraq for oil.

What coalition forces? I have not heard of one single country that would be prepared to intervene in Iraq, even at the specific request of the Iraqi Government or the United Nations. No mention of the time it would take to put this "plethora of the unwilling but financially motivated" together, or how the difficulties would be overcome in order that this hotchpotch could operate effectively together. Remember the Author of the "Exit Plan" described these achievements as being of IMMEDIATE effect – Hardly.

•        By sending 40,000 troops to Afghanistan, we enormously increase our ability to win the war on terrorism by refocusing our military strength and intelligence on the real war on terrorism, starting in Afghanistan, which has become a virtual state of anarchy since we broke all of our promises and abandoned it, allowing the drug warlords to take over the north, the Taliban back in control in the south, openly running training camps for Al Qaeda and other terrorists.

True, but it would be far better to send troops and commanders who have some idea of the concept and application of a "Hearts and Minds" policy. This rules out US troops who have never bothered to get to grips with understanding what this was about.

•         By replacing our troops under this Plan, instead of making America weaker, we make America an even stronger and more powerful military superpower because we will also restore America to its position as a "superpower" of moral authority.

As stated previously there are many in this world who have never seen the United States of America as having any moral authority, who view the United States of America as being primarily concerned with self-interest before all other considerations. The US is not alone in this respect, throughout history the worst offender in this respect was France - What is right for France is right for the World.

•        Create a new Morality-driven Foreign Policy that brings an end to the unprecedented chaos and instability destroying the world today.

I do not believe that any one country on this planet's foreign policy, morality driven, or otherwise, is solely responsible for the, "unprecedented chaos and instability destroying the world today". To suggest that just by the USA adopting such a stance the ills of the world would be cured IMMEDIATELY, is a ridiculous assertion.

•         By giving back the oil and renouncing The Bush Doctrine of regional domination, we instantly create a far more effective pro-American international community of nations we desperately need to win the war on worldwide Terrorism, poverty and disease.

Eh – No oil was taken, so what is there to give back?

•        Take a giant step towards bringing peace and stability to the Middle East.

Following the Author's "Exit Plan" the exact opposite would be the case.

•        By spending the $160 billion Iraq has already cost and at least another $200 billion Iraq will cost in the next two years – and like Vietnam, that's just the beginning of what our occupation will cost -- we can immediately rebuild our schools, our hospitals, our power grids, our entire economy at home, saving the lives of tens of millions of suffering Americans and their children.

Were this true, why was it not done before March 2003, before September 2001, before December 1998, before January 1991? The Government of the United States of America and the individual State Governments have always had the means to do all this, why hasn't it been done before? Why is it down to the current Administration to do it, when it's predecessors have not?

The Second Question:
This question goes to the heart and soul of the motivations of what these people are fighting for, and it has nothing to do with the absurd White House spin that these are people loyal to Hussein, criminals, foreigners, etc. Only when you can answer this two-part question, will you begin to remotely understand what is going on in Iraq.

1.        Can you find one beautiful 27-year-old woman lawyer in Washington or any city in the US, with a glorious future in front of her, who will strap explosives to her body and blow herself up in some bus or in some restaurant for the cause she believes in?

2.            Do you understand – and can you explain – why a 27-year-old woman who has worked so hard all her life to become a lawyer, and has spent her whole life helping people, would gladly end it and give up her future and her family because killing the Americans and the Jews is so much more important than her life?   Can you explain what is this Supreme Value that motivates her to kill even innocent people, something she would never otherwise do?

The answer to both may rest in something mentioned earlier in this article:

"every child is taught from their first days in school (that America) is the "Great Satan"

To the first part in particular, I would rather hope that the answer would be none. I would rather hope that that particular woman along with her fellow citizens was far too intelligent to go along with that sort of means of achieving her ends. Suicide bombing has been around for a long time now. It has never been particularly effective or successful. As the late King Hussain of Jordan's brother commented at the height of the Abu-Graib revelations, "In any town market place throughout the Arab nations if you were to set up two stalls, one for enlisting to fight in the jihad against the United States and the other for visa's to enter the United States of America to live and work there. For every person in line at the first stall, there would be hundreds if not thousands at the second."

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 06:36 AM

Oh Skarpi,

If you believe such twaddle:

According to Nostradamus, what he hinted at as being the Third World War originating in the middle east was supposed to have started in 1999 and ends in 2034 with the West as the victors. The world thereafter lives in peace until it's destruction sometime in 3473.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: skarpi
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 08:12 AM

well , not if we change in anyhow the road this matter is in .
Teribus I believe what ever I wanna believe my friend and nothing in this live suprise me anymore , ofcourse is this about the oil
has been from the start when Bush older went into Iraq, but he did a mistake then and that was to finish what he started .

I think Us would not be were they are now if they had finish that war.

about Nostradamus : many of the things that have happen in the history
has come true and what was to start in 1999 can start today or tomorrow
the human´s are the most evil being on this earth .

I am sorry but I have to say that the to make a terrorits you
have to be one , and Mr Bush junior is a terrorist the highest
of them all.Change the man on Bridge people otherwise US
and the rest of the Western world is going to be the shit for a long time . Get him out of the Whitehouse .............but maybe you just get another ( Bush ) ?


Iceland is not going to be one of the Nation who will support
a attack on Iran , our priminester told us that in news the other
day , sorry but we did a huge mistake by support the attack
on Iraq.

Usally I don´t talk or think about polotik but this time I am worry
and we should all be,
I coult be wrong about everything I wrote, but this is how I feel .

well my friends I am not gonna say or write anything more about this
I have other things on my mind, like music and my familiy .

All the best Skarpi Iceland.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Leadfingers
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 10:21 AM

I hate to see threads stuck at 198 !!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Leadfingers
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 10:21 AM

So 200 !!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 May 06 - 09:23 AM

Teribus,

I have not written that letter only linked to it so I'm not in a position to respond for the authors. But as I see it:

They are right to state that the support for a war from Europe will be close to nonexistent.
You see (in my eyes) the dichotomy war-useless talking when there are far more alternatives. The Mullahs (some of them) seem to be more rational than Ahmadinejad. There is a lot of internal dissatisfaction with the regime why stop that movement by a war?

The problem I have with the threat of force in this case is not a general problem I would have with waging war. I'm not a pacifist. I think it has not been thought through:
- will the outcome of a war prevent what it means to prevent (for a considerable time?
- are there not better methods to achieve the wished outcome (see above)?
- If one considers it likely that a war achieves what it means to, what are the negative consequences?

I'm afraid that the US government started the threats without a clear plan (the Bush administration doesn't look really thoughtful in their past actions) and that at some moment in time the dynamics and rhetorics of the situation will leave the US government with only the choice between war and losing face. They might then start a war that achieves its objective only for a quite short period, has a lot of negative consequences for the USA and other allies and threatens the long term security more than any Iranian WMDs could. Or they might paddle back and the next villain will openly laugh at them and their hugh arsenal of useless weapons.

In the new asymmetric warfare of the present century the USA have much less power than their superior arsenal seems to give them.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: freda underhill
Date: 03 May 06 - 10:08 AM

Published on Tuesday, May 2, 2006 by the New York Times
Iran Urges United Nations to Oppose American 'Threats'
by Warren Hoge

UNITED NATIONS - Iran asked the United Nations on Monday to take a stand against American threats that it said included possible nuclear strikes on its territory and that were "in total contempt of international law." In a letter to Secretary General Kofi Annan, Javad Zarif, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, pointed to recent comments by President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on ways to halt Iran's nuclear program and to news reports of Pentagon planning for possible nuclear attacks on nuclear facilities in Iran.

He said the comments by the United States were "matters of extreme gravity that require an urgent, concerted and resolute response on the part of the United Nations, and particularly the Security Council."
Mr. Zarif also faulted the United Nations for remaining silent on "these illegal and inexcusable threats" and said the lack of action had "emboldened senior United States officials to go further and even consider the use of nuclear weapons as 'an option on the table.' "

American officials have said they are pursuing a diplomatic solution to the dispute over Iran's nuclear program, but they have repeatedly said that all options, including military ones, are being considered. Iran says its nuclear program is only for producing energy, but the United States and its European allies contend that Iran is preparing to build weapons.

Mr. Bush, asked at the White House on April 18 if the United States was considering military action against Iran, said, "All options are on the table."

Two days later, Ms. Rice echoed the president in a speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. In his letter, Mr. Jarif made specific mention of both comments.

..

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mr Bush going into Iran?from SkarpiIc
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 May 06 - 01:23 PM

So, let me see...

Iran says it wants to destroy another nation, and that is ok...

The US refuses to rule out the use of force if diplomacy fails, and that is wrong....


NOW I understand.