Considering a war with Iran - Page 35

Bluesman · 02-12-2008, 19:12 PM

I almost NEVER uncork like that on somebody with a merely differing opinion. But this creep was an insufferable, snide, doofus that thought WAY too much of himself. I just told him where to get off, is all.

And it was FUN, too!

Deltacamelately · 02-13-2008, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluesman

I almost NEVER uncork like that on somebody with a merely differing opinion. But this creep was an insufferable, snide, doofus that thought WAY too much of himself. I just told him where to get off, is all.

And it was FUN, too!

Creep...you child molester.

That Know ALL I'm sure is not going to appear again on the WAB even if I offer him A.Q.Khan...in a Valentines Gift Wrapper.

Deltacamelately · 02-13-2008, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

WAB, and our moderation, is a constant work in progress

and everything is subject to change. We've now asked Blues to return to what he does best, which is post devastatingly convincing arguments. It's been fun to read back through it all though

I am sure Blues is now ready enough to appear in X-Men-WAB Edition

He sure mutates Big Time.

Bel · 03-24-2008, 19:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TTL

The point that I disagree with most of you is that Islam is an intrinsically brutal or evil religion. Quran, like bible preaches peace and its teachings are mostly beneficial to society. However it is still a book that was written in 6th century and therefore should be interpreted correctly and taking into account the modern world view. (In Turkish, interpreted versions of Quran are called ''Meal'' and included in many published versions, so it is not against Islamic law to speculate on Quran). Fanatics, extreme right organizations and terrorists using Quran (and other religions) to promote their own goals have nothing to do with Islam. And those who want to discuss historical events should remember the crusades which caused much devastation to both Muslims and Christians alike was also in the name of god.

I am not against other religions and therefore happily accept Christianity is as good as Islam as a religion. And there are millions of people like me who want and believe in peaceful coexistence of different religions, so I think you should be able to differentiate moderate people from extremists.

The differences as I see it is that modern Christianity is open to interpretation whereas the Quran is not. One cannot criticize any part of the 'holy book'.

Of course you can prove me wrong by taking a particulary nasty part of the Quran and dismissing it here on these very boards.

Zinja · 03-25-2008, 13:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TTL

The point that I disagree with most of you is that Islam is an intrinsically brutal or evil religion. Quran, like bible preaches peace and its teachings are mostly beneficial to society. However it is still a book that was written in 6th century and therefore should be interpreted correctly and taking into account the modern world view. (In Turkish, interpreted versions of Quran are called ''Meal'' and included in many published versions, so it is not against Islamic law to speculate on Quran). Fanatics, extreme right organizations and terrorists using Quran (and other religions) to promote their own goals have nothing to do with Islam. And those who want to discuss historical events should remember the crusades which caused much devastation to both Muslims and Christians alike was also in the name of god.

I am not against other religions and therefore happily accept Christianity is as good as Islam as a religion. And there are millions of people like me who want and believe in peaceful coexistence of different religions, so I think you should be able to differentiate moderate people from extremists.

YouTube - Wafa Sultan-Terrorism and Islam (New)

YouTube - Wafa Sultan speaks up

Ray · 03-25-2008, 14:22 PM

Most religions have some aspect of aggressive exhortation in their scriptures.

Possibly it was the requirement of the times.

If one is not biased then one cannot say that it is only Islam that is aggressive in intent.

What differentiate Islam with other religions, is that while the adherents of the other religions have downplayed and practically wiped off from their mind the aggressive content, the adherent of Islam still use it as a weapon to further their mission of the moment.

I would appreciate to be corrected if I am wrong.

Zinja · 03-25-2008, 17:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

Most religions have some aspect of aggressive exhortation in their scriptures.

Possibly it was the requirement of the times.

If one is not biased then one cannot say that it is only Islam that is aggressive in intent.

What differentiate Islam with other religions, is that while the adherents of the other religions have downplayed and practically wiped off from their mind the aggressive content, the adherent of Islam still use it as a weapon to further their mission of the moment.

I would appreciate to be corrected if I am wrong.

Whilst i agree with your general statement, however i can say for Christianity you would search in vain in the NT for any hint of aggression whatsoever. The Christian religion itself and its teaching are truely peaceful in every sense of it, but from the snipets of the quorun i have heard, one would be had pressed to say the same of the scripture.

Generally speaking the NT teaching never authorises aggression by its followers, even when wronged. Its philosophy is vengeance is God's not man's.

JAD_333 · 03-25-2008, 17:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

Most religions have some aspect of aggressive exhortation in their scriptures.

...or can be interpreted by agressive elements when the occasion demands. The Crusades have always seemed to me to be utterly out of sync with
basic Christian values.

Quote:

If one is not biased then one cannot say that it is only Islam that is aggressive in intent.

Islam is a little more prone to violent interpretation...infidels and such figuring so prominently, but misinterpretations of scriptures are usually due to failure to understand the spiritual meaning in them.

Quote:

What differentiate Islam with other religions, is that while the adherents of the other religions have downplayed and practically wiped off from their mind the aggressive content, the adherent of Islam still use it as a weapon to further their mission of the moment.

That's a good point, but I think if the occasion demanded most religious scriptures could be adapted to justify aggression.

Ray · 03-26-2008, 14:37 PM

The Devil can cite the scripture for his own purpose!

Zemco · 03-29-2008, 14:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by captain

A little research showed me that he was originaly a leftist but has now swung to the right side of politics and the left refer to him as an extreme Neocon.

He's still a leftist.

The Social Democrats were Welfare Liberals, but their foreign policy was always markedly 100% Conservative. They broke with the Conservatives by adding the platform of pre-emptive war to Conservative Doctrine in the early 1970s, I would say about 1974 if you go back and read their essays, "white papers" and other papers presented at conferences and symposiums or published in journals like Foreign Affairs. Thus, the term Neo-Conservative was born around 1976 or so, at least that's about the first time you start seeing the term in heavy usage in print.

Based on your comments, I think your knowledge of Neo-Conservatism comes from media pundits, instead of directly from the mouths of Neo-Conservatives. It's not a criticism, just an observation.

It was Irving Kristol, the "god-father" of Neo-Conservatism who said, "Capitalism deserves two cheers, but not three." Should you be so inclined, you can read that in a book titled Two Cheers for Capitalism,, Kristol, Irving, Basic Books, 1978.

Want to know more about Neo-Conservatives? Read the economic guru of Neo-Conservatism Daniel Bell's The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, Basic Books, 1976.

So, yeah, contrary to the media pundits, Bush and Cheney did not invent Neo-Conservatism. It's been around for a long, long while. Can you identify the proto-Neo-Conservatives in the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations? I bet you could do it if you thought about it long enough.

The point is that the majority of Americans are so caught up in "liberal" or "conservative" that they cannot see the forest through the trees. In terms of economics, I'm a flaming liberal, for social and domestic policy, I'm a staunch ultra-conservative, so far to the right I make Bush look like Eugene Debs, as a matter of foreign policy and geo-strategy, I am not a Conservative, nor am I a Liberal, nor am I a Neo-Conservative, nor am I a Neo-Liberal Institutionalist (like Bush and his daddy and both of the Clintoons), rather I'm a Constructivist (although I do believe that the Radicals can make a good showing with respect to unique situations and certain countries).

I just identified for you the six most commonly held foreign policy/geo-strategy belief systems. Career government bureaucrats, foreign policy/geo-strategy analysts, university professors, think-tankers and a select group of authors and journalists (who actually have a clue) will subscribe to one of those six belief systems, or perhaps "doctrines" is a better word to use.

Anyway, the Neo-Conservatives were born in Marxism and their philosophy and entire history is rooted in Marxism. Make no mistake about it: They are Marxists (or "leftists" as you prefer).

There's definitely pump priming here and Podhoretz has written an article that employs nearly every type of fallacious argument one could possibly use. If I didn't know better, I'd say Podhoretz must have hired a medium to have the spirit of Josef Göbbels guide him.

I'll just point out the fallacious arguments Podhoretz makes:

Quote:

The reason for this near-universal consensus was that Iran, with its vast reserves of oil and natural gas, had no need for nuclear energy, and that in any case, the very nature of its program contradicted the protestations.

Quote:

long before, be it noted, the radical Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had replaced the putatively moderate Mohamed Khatami as president

Quote:

On a visit last month to Tehran, International Atomic Energy Agency director Mohamed ElBaradei announced he had discovered that Iran was constructing a facility to enrich uranium--a key component of advanced nuclear weapons--near Natanz.

Quote:

The sources say work on the plant is "extremely advanced" and involves "hundreds" of gas centrifuges ready to produce enriched uranium and "the parts for a thousand others ready to be assembled."

Quote:

So, too, the Federation of American Scientists about a year later:

It is generally believed that Iran's efforts are focused on uranium enrichment, though there are some indications of work on a parallel plutonium effort.

Quote:

Iran appears to have spread their nuclear activities around a number of sites to reduce the risk of detection or attack.

Quote:

To begin with, Iran was (as certified even by the doves of the State Department) the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world, and it was therefore reasonable to fear that it would transfer nuclear technology to terrorists who would be only too happy to use it against us.

Quote:

Moreover, since Iran evidently aspired to become the hegemon of the Middle East, its drive for a nuclear capability could result (as, according to the New York Times, no fewer than 21 governments in and around the region were warning) in "a grave and destructive nuclear-arms race."

Quote:

would give the mullahs to realize their evil dream of (in the words of Mr. Ahmadinejad) "wiping Israel off the map."

Quote:

Dedicated as the mullahs clearly were to furthering the transformation of Europe into a continent where Muslim law and practice would more and more prevail, they were bound to use nuclear intimidation and blackmail in pursuit of this goal as well.

Quote:

When these in turn failed, the United States, realizing that the Russians and the Chinese would veto stronger medicine, unilaterally imposed a new series of economic sanctions--which fared no better than the multilateral measures that had preceded them.

Quote:

To the surprise of many who had ceased thinking of France as an ally because of Jacques Chirac's relentless opposition to the policies of the Bush administration

Quote:

To start with the most spectacular recent instance, the CIA had failed to anticipate 9/11.

Quote:

The CIA was established in 1947 in large measure to avoid another surprise attack like the one the U.S. had suffered on December 7, 1941 at Pearl Harbor.

Quote:

But only three years after its founding, the fledgling agency missed the outbreak of the Korean war.

Quote:

In September 1962, the CIA issued an NIE which stated that the "Soviets would not introduce offensive missiles in Cuba"; in short order, the USSR did precisely that.

Quote:

In 1968 it failed to foresee the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia.

Quote:

It did not inform Jimmy Carter that the Soviet Union would invade Afghanistan in 1979.

Quote:

the fiasco, known as the Bay of Pigs, produced by the CIA's wildly misplaced confidence that an invasion of Cuba by the army of exiles it had assembled and trained would set off a popular uprising against the Castro regime.

Quote:

This startling 180-degree turn was arrived at from new intelligence, offered by the new NIE with "high confidence": namely, that "in fall 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear-weapons program." The new NIE was also confident--though only moderately so--that "Tehran had not restarted its nuclear-weapons program as of mid-2007." And in the most sweeping of its new conclusions, it was even "moderately confident" that "the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear-weapons program."

Quote:

For the purposes of this Estimate, by "nuclear-weapons program" we mean Iran's nuclear-weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work; we do not mean Iran's declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment.
Since only an expert could grasp the significance of this cunning little masterpiece of incomprehensible jargon, the damage had been done by the time its dishonesty was exposed.

Quote:

Two other experts, Valerie Lincy, the editor of Iranwatch.org, and Gary Milhollin, the director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control,

Quote:

In response, I argued that deterrence could not be relied upon with a regime ruled by Islamo-fascist revolutionaries who not only were ready to die for their beliefs but cared less about protecting their people than about the spread of their ideology and their power. If the mullahs got the bomb, I said, it was not they who would be deterred, but we.

Quote:

. For unless Iran could be stopped before acquiring a nuclear capability, the Israelis would be faced with only two choices: either strike first, or pray that the fear of retaliation would deter the Iranians from beating them to the punch.

Quote:

MAD, mutual assured destruction, [was effective] right through the cold war. Both sides had nuclear weapons. Neither side used them, because both sides knew the other would retaliate in kind. This will not work with a religious fanatic [like Mr. Ahmadinejad]. For him, mutual assured destruction is not a deterrent, it is an inducement. We know already that [the mullahs ruling Iran] do not give a damn about killing their own people in great numbers. We have seen it again and again.

Quote:

What would happen then? In a recently released study, Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies argues that Mr. Rafsanjani had it wrong. In the grisly scenario Mr. Cordesman draws, tens of millions would indeed die, but Israel--despite the decimation of its civilian population and the destruction of its major cities--would survive, even if just barely, as a functioning society.

Quote:

But this still does not answer the question of who should do the bombing. Tempting as it must be for George Bush to sit back and let the Israelis do the job, there are considerations that should give him pause. One is that no matter what he would say, the whole world would regard the Israelis as a surrogate for the United States, and we would become as much the target of the ensuing recriminations both at home and abroad as we would if we had done the job ourselves.

Quote:

In 1938, as Winston Churchill later said, Hitler could still have been stopped at a relatively low price and many millions of lives could have been saved if England and France had not deceived themselves about the realities of their situation.

JAD_333 · 03-30-2008, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zemco

Thus, the term Neo-Conservative was born around 1976 or so, at least that's about the first time you start seeing the term in heavy usage in print.

You're right. 1976 was around the low point in US military spending, part of the fallout from the Vietnam war. It was also a time when the Soviets were living up to their promise to catch up and surpass the US in all areas of weapons development. The alarm was sounded by a group of liberals who had access to intelligence on what the Soviets were up to. Because they were liberal on domestic policies, but hawks on national security, they were dubbed neo-conservatives. Most were democrats.

You are right that the media and some politicians toss the term neo-con around indiscriminately. Cheney, for example, is no neo-con. He's all con...that is, conservative republican. Same for Bush, Rumsfeld and other republicans hawks. The term has become a political slur because of Iraq. Anyone who opposes the war tags its supporters as a neo-con.

The majority of Americans are not well enough informed on the nuances of politics to grasp terms beyond liberal and conservative. And with our two-party system, all the political schools are subsumed into them unlike in some European countries that have upwards of 5-6 parties, each formed around
one or two basic issues--designer parties.

Quote:

Anyway, the Neo-Conservatives were born in Marxism and their philosophy and entire history is rooted in Marxism. Make no mistake about it: They are Marxists (or "leftists" as you prefer).

That doesn't square with the facts. Do you have any authoritative independent historical source to support that claim.

Quote:

There's definitely pump priming here and Podhoretz has written an article that employs nearly every type of fallacious argument one could possibly use. If I didn't know better, I'd say Podhoretz must have hired a medium to have the spirit of Josef Göbbels guide him.

Why? You're just repeating the quotes without giving us your reasons for calling them fallacious.

yoda9999 · 04-01-2008, 20:00 PM

It is wrong to say neo conservatism came out of Marxism or that neocons are Marxists, or were all originally Marxists. However, it is true that early neocons evolved from socialism. Early neocons were basically Jewish northeastern liberals who realized the welfare state was not working, and the dangers of communism were real. Many were ex-communists/socialists, etc. It is not unreasonable to say that, among conservatives, neocons are the most willing to use government power and spending to solve problems, possibly because they have leftist origins.

As for the main topic of this thread, I think a war with Iran is unlikely (mainly because of committments in Iraq and Afghanistan), but a series of attacks on nuclear facilities is not unlikely. Also action against Iran will depend on us and Israel being in synch. We have to defenses in Israel in place prior to any significant action. A lot of posturing helps. Star Wars was a way posturing, albeit expensive, that brought down the USSR. A similar effort can change Iran. I also wonder if and how we can fund insurrections within Iran.

02-12-2008, 19:12 PM	#511 (permalink)
Bluesman WAB Bartender *Defense Professional* *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-24-04 Location: Vacaville, CA. Posts: 7,387 Country:	I almost NEVER uncork like that on somebody with a merely differing opinion. But this creep was an insufferable, snide, doofus that thought WAY too much of himself. I just told him where to get off, is all. And it was FUN, too! __________________ "The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory." - George Orwell

03-25-2008, 14:22 PM	#516 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 26,144 Country:	Most religions have some aspect of aggressive exhortation in their scriptures. Possibly it was the requirement of the times. If one is not biased then one cannot say that it is only Islam that is aggressive in intent. What differentiate Islam with other religions, is that while the adherents of the other religions have downplayed and practically wiped off from their mind the aggressive content, the adherent of Islam still use it as a weapon to further their mission of the moment. I would appreciate to be corrected if I am wrong. __________________ "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination." I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to. HAKUNA MATATA

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
‘US had designs on Iran before Iraq invasion’	Ray	The Iranian Question	10	05-01-2008 12:29 PM
Candidates, How would you grapple with Iran's nuclear drive?	FibrillatorD	2008 US Presidential Election	36	08-16-2007 11:11 AM
Israel works on Iran N-strike	Ray	Political Discussions	30	01-14-2007 15:54 PM
Indian Army transformation	Ray	South Asian Defense Topics	36	12-22-2005 02:00 AM
An Article worthy of Lull.....	MIKEMUN	Political Discussions	2	03-18-2005 20:04 PM

03-26-2008, 14:37 PM	#519 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 26,144 Country:	The Devil can cite the scripture for his own purpose!

04-01-2008, 20:00 PM	#522 (permalink)
yoda9999 Regular Join Date: 05-22-07 Location: California Posts: 43 Country:	It is wrong to say neo conservatism came out of Marxism or that neocons are Marxists, or were all originally Marxists. However, it is true that early neocons evolved from socialism. Early neocons were basically Jewish northeastern liberals who realized the welfare state was not working, and the dangers of communism were real. Many were ex-communists/socialists, etc. It is not unreasonable to say that, among conservatives, neocons are the most willing to use government power and spending to solve problems, possibly because they have leftist origins. As for the main topic of this thread, I think a war with Iran is unlikely (mainly because of committments in Iraq and Afghanistan), but a series of attacks on nuclear facilities is not unlikely. Also action against Iran will depend on us and Israel being in synch. We have to defenses in Israel in place prior to any significant action. A lot of posturing helps. Star Wars was a way posturing, albeit expensive, that brought down the USSR. A similar effort can change Iran. I also wonder if and how we can fund insurrections within Iran.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)