Somethin's Happenin' Here

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Iran has shown themselves to be a very, very pragmatic country. They agitate on the edges, use proxies instead of doing it themselves, and do not go so far as to incite a full blown war against them.

Yeah, I guess taking American hostages from an embassy and holding them for over a year is a "very, very pragmatic" act. It was an act of war that Carter didn't know how to deal with.

Is "allowing" the elected leaders to state as the country's official policy the destruction of a neighboring country "very, very pragmatic" diplomacy? It seems provocative to me.

You're right, let them build nukes and continue to test ever-improving delivery systems because they are "very, very pragmatic." Couple that with a premature withdrawl from Iraq so they can fill the void and control the worlds oil supply. Add the belief that God, not the president or whatever, decreed it. Now that's a recipe for success.

----

Seriously. Does any of this at all sound familiar?

War weary powers not willing to face an obvious threat because of stagnant economies and lack of popular support. The leaders of the obvious threat write books and give speeches declaring their goal to be world domination while they alternate negotiating and testing the will of the war weary powers. Ultimately arriving at the conclusion that they are weak.

No Big Deal.

Let them break international arms agreements. - It isn't worth the fight.

Let them move into, control and launch military activites from neighboring sympathetic areas. - It isn't worth the fight.

Let them promote a cult of the leader over the individual. - It's not our country.

Let them openly single out Jews and other minorities for extinction. - EHHHM Gotta just look the other way on that one because we can't even really think of a good excuse to ignore that one..

All we have to do is make a deal and everything will be OK. They don't want war they just want what was taken from them.

Well in the 30's we were talking about tanks and prop planes. Now we are talking about nuclear weapons and ICBM's. I don't really think we can afford to make a mistake this time and come back for the victory later.

But go ahead. Send them the piece of paper. I want "Peace in our time."

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
I wonder if anyone ever considered that ONE (one of many) of the reasons for going into Iraq was so that if/when we had to face Iran we would have a military force trained and acclimated on the western border.

If it becomes necessary to put serious pressure on Iran, I would rather have veteran troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Israel and Saudi Arabia along with a navy in the Persian Gulf than nothing in the region.

I also don't mind the idea that the Iranians believe that Bush might attack if they continue to insist on building a nuclear arsenal, test long-range missles and have a stated policy that Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth . Ironically, the strength of his lame duck status is that he can engage Iran if necessary without fear of not being re-relected.

I somewhat disagree.
For example, right now Iran is being very agressive because they know that US can't do anything about it, being so busy in Iraq.

Similarly, peace and disarm talk with NK were doing fine until Bush put them on the Axis of Evil and showed what happens to THOSE countries....

Then NK hardlined it's position and tested nukes.

[Kuciwalker]

Similarly, peace and disarm talk with NK were doing fine

Except, of course, that NK actually was pursuing a nuclear program at the time.

[Arrian]

Yeah, the "agreed framework" was a failure. NK had absolutely no intention of honoring any deals to quit making nukes. That doesn't mean we should've invaded them, but it also means that talking more wouldn't have done ****. IMO, of course.

-Arrian

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
65 signatures. Well, it's a done deal now.

Man, sometimes it must hurt being you...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
First quotation mark indicates that I quoted this from another source

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, if he ever became the supreme decision maker in his country, would

Second embedded quote indicates this is the beginning of Ahmadinejad's quote along with an end quote indicating the nd of HIS statement.

"sacrifice half of Iran for the sake of eliminating Israel,"

Final end quote indicates the end of the source I quoted.

Giora Eiland, Israel's former national security adviser, told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday."

This portion:

"sacrifice half of Iran for the sake of eliminating Israel,"

is what HE SAID.

They must not teach reading comprehension where you are from. The quote was quite obviously from the Isreali national security advisor. Read your article again, please:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, if he ever became the supreme decision maker in his country, would "sacrifice half of Iran for the sake of eliminating Israel," Giora Eiland, Israel's former national security adviser, told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.

Quotations, followed by 'Giora Eiland'. That means what was said was by Giora Eiland. There is no attribution of that quote to Ahmadinejad at all. There is no "Ahmadinejad said...".

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Yeah, I guess taking American hostages from an embassy and holding them for over a year is a "very, very pragmatic" act. It was an act of war that Carter didn't know how to deal with.

Is "allowing" the elected leaders to state as the country's official policy the destruction of a neighboring country "very, very pragmatic" diplomacy? It seems provocative to me.

You're right, let them build nukes and continue to test ever-improving delivery systems because they are "very, very pragmatic." Couple that with a premature withdrawl from Iraq so they can fill the void and control the worlds oil supply. Add the belief that God, not the president or whatever, decreed it. Now that's a recipe for success.

Has Iran been invaded by the US? or Isreal? or anyone else? Yeah, I'd imagine all of that has been fairly pragmatic. They push up to the limit, but don't go past the line. They antagonize up to the point, beyond which military action may result.

Oh, and pssst... they already have filled the void in Iraq with us there! Maliki is friendly with Sadr and depends on Sadr for his support... Sadr is friendly with Iran.

And if I'm not mistaken, Iraq doesn't mean "Iraq and Saudi Arabia" if we are talking about controling the world's oil supply.

Seriously. Does any of this at all sound familiar?

War weary powers not willing to face an obvious threat because of stagnant economies and lack of popular support. The leaders of the obvious threat write books and give speeches declaring their goal to be world domination while they alternate negotiating and testing the will of the war weary powers. Ultimately arriving at the conclusion that they are weak.

No Big Deal.

Let them break international arms agreements. - It isn't worth the fight.

Let them move into, control and launch military activites from neighboring sympathetic areas. - It isn't worth the fight.

Let them promote a cult of the leader over the individual. - It's not our country.

Let them openly single out Jews and other minorities for extinction. - EHHHM Gotta just look the other way on that one because we can't even really think of a good excuse to ignore that one..

All we have to do is make a deal and everything will be OK. They don't want war they just want what was taken from them.

Well in the 30's we were talking about tanks and prop planes. Now we are talking about nuclear weapons and ICBM's. I don't really think we can afford to make a mistake this time and come back for the victory later.

But go ahead. Send them the piece of paper. I want "Peace in our time."

Btw, you ever heard of Godwin's Law? Thanks for playing though...

Or Chicken Little would work too. If Saddam is like Hitler and Iran is like Hitler, it kind of loses the 'punch' you'd want it to have, huh?

[Ramo]

First off, did you notice those little things called quotation marks. That indicates that she repeated what HE SAID he would do, not what SHE THOUGHT he would do. I cited this source because it was the first one that came up on google.

Here's what the article says:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, if he ever became the supreme decision maker in his country, would "sacrifice half of Iran for the sake of eliminating Israel," Giora Eiland, Israel's former national security adviser, told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.

There's only one set of quotes, and there is only one person being quoted. And that's Eiland, not Ahmedinejad. This is an interview of Eiland, and the journalist is quoting verbatim what Eiland thought Ahmedinejad would do.

Seriously, how can you not realize this? The quote is directly attributed to Eiland in the very sentence.

[Ramo]

Oh, and pssst... they already have filled the void in Iraq with us there! Maliki is friendly with Sadr and depends on Sadr for his support... Sadr is friendly with Iran.

Strictly speaking, Sadr is too much of a nationalist and a loose-cannon for Tehran's preferences. They're much closer to Da'wa's other major coalition partner, SCIRI (Hakim's party).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
Strictly speaking, Sadr is too much of a nationalist and a loose-cannon for Tehran's preferences. They're much closer to Da'wa's other major coalition partner, SCIRI (Hakim's party).

I guess that's true.. but both are pretty friendly with Iran, even though Sadr is just a marriage of convenience at this point.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Has anyone looked to see who owns these supposed Military newspapers. Why don't you Wiki it n00b.

And BTW I knew I would get no resposne from Che on the truly important point. With people like him, it is either the same old talking points from the 60's (BTW I love the 60's), an insult, or avoidance of the subject.

Sorry Deity I don't buy the "look who owns them arguement" anymore than I buy Che's(?) arguement that the MSM is not overwhelmingly liberally biased. (given the 4-5 to 1 liberal vs. conservative MSM reporter and editor makeup, He argued that they were being told what to run by corporate heads and advertisers. Not buying it then not buying it now)

Owners have little if any impact on day in day out news stories other than to the extent of who they hire to report and run the news departments. Other than that the editors and reporters are the ones telling the story.

The only time they stick their nose into daily affairs are when the stories overreach and threaten the brands equity. Case and point CBS National Guard false memo stories.

No if these publications have a history of conservative views (and I don't know that they do or don't) then there is very little that you could do to convince me that all of a sudden Gannett corporrate heads would dictate a story being run to smear teh Rumsfeld/Bush.

No I seriously doubt many tears will be shed within the armed forces seeing Rummy go. Its an American tradition for the grunts on the front to be critical of command.

[Barnabas]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Iran is doing it? ****, we better get on that...

they also allow sex change surgeries

Homosexuality is forbidden, but if you have a sex change surgery, I think you can even marry a man then.

In the words of ayatollah khomeini

"If somebody wants to undergo a sex change because he feels trapped inside someone else's body, he has the right to get rid of this body and transform into the other sex, and he is also entitled to new identification documents, in order to put an end to his plight. According to Khomeini, the issue of sex change does not run counter to Islamic law. Therefore, there is no convincing argument against this operation.

[Cort Haus]

Iran's enthusiasm for progressive technology doesn't make them any less likely to want to destroy the whole of Israel.

In fact, in some respects Islam has a more forward-looking approach to science than Christianity, but that has nothing to do with the willingness or otherwise to nuke Israel.

[Arrian]

Khomeini is teh LIBERAL! Activist ayatollah alert!



-Arrian

[Dr Strangelove]

I think that it is possible that at some point someone in the hierarchy of Iran, maybe even Ahmdinejad, might consider that the nuclear destruction of Israel would simultaneously destroy Palestine, the very people they supposedly want to liberate.