News Compassion versus Military Action - Which Will End Global Terrorism?

[pattylou]

Hey kat,

I still don't have an axe to grind, but I saw a report that I found really chilling just now and it applies directly to you comment about an attack on Iran:

It's pretty farfetched. Do I really need to waste time outlining the differences between Iraq and Iran...hello?

Check the link.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050802&articleId=791

I thought I would post it for anyone's interest that is following along. I don't know how reliable the assertion is, that Cheney is asking for attack plans, and I don't know how reliable the group is that reported this.

Of course there is the argument that we need to have plans ready for any contingency... But the subtext of the report sounds a lot more ominous than that. Why is a nuclear response on Tehran being proposed a priori for another terrorist attack from any comer? Wouldn't we analyze a terrorist attack afterwards, and best decide how to respond, depending on who perpetrated the attack, for example?

I hesitated posting this, because I don't want to "get into it." But then, I am frankly curious for your honest reaction to the report. Take off your conservative hat for a minute and just read the report as a human being. How does it strike you? Anyone else?

(Also see here: http://news.baou.com/main.php?action=recent&rid=20383 )

 

[Antiphon]

Why is a nuclear response on Tehran being proposed a priori for another terrorist attack from any comer?

Wouldn't we analyze a terrorist attack afterwards, and best decide how to respond, depending on who perpetrated the attack, for example?

The very meaning of preemption is at the heart of your question.
For some of us, it's a foregone conclusion that Iranian Mullahs with
nuclear weapons will permit their use against Israel and/or the US.

Also, don't forget that there are intense negotiations underway there
now. You are seeing the stick being brandished as a part of those
negotiations.

 

[pattylou]

The very meaning of preemption is at the heart of your question.

I have been mulling this over today. I think *also* at the heart of the question is what "terror" is.

It may well be that a full half the country has had their terror alleviated - really and truly lessened - by what I consider an insane and reckless course. You'd be in this group if you support Bush's foreign policy.

I can certainly vouch that my part of the demographic (me and my peers of similar political persuasion) have *never* been more afraid than we are at present, due directly to US foreign policy. 9/11 was horrendous, but it didn't lead me to living in fear the way I am currently. My fear that we are (and have been) on a course through hell, by our own choosing, pervades everything. Bush is the epitome, to me, of the abusive father figure. I won't go through the laundry list of costs of this war, you know the list.

So I am curious: Would you say you feel less terror today because of our foreign policy? Do you truly think you would feel *more* terror again if we took a less aggressive (more cooperative) stance?

I think this may be at the heart of the divide on this issue, in this country. What do you think?

Also, is your terror level (and that of other like minded folks) more valuable than the lives of "collateral" civilian casualties in other countries? (We're responsible for 10X more deaths than what occurred on 9/11; a good many of those are civilians.)

For some of us, it's a foregone conclusion that Iranian Mullahs with
nuclear weapons will permit their use against Israel and/or the US.

I think that is a separate issue. I certainly agree that they might well. But given a choice between acting pre-emptively and acting in response to an incident, the choice seems clear.

If you act in response to the incident, you have the *entire world* with you. If you act pre-emptively, especially with the course Cheney is asking and with our recent history, you have the entire world *against you.*

You may think you are protecting lives by acting pre-emptively, but psychologically you are only screwing your standing in the world, and as Iraq shows, whether you save lives or not is a real gamble. You might not, at all.

I am sure the stick argument plays some part in this. I hope it explains the whole story.

 

[Antiphon]

So I am curious: Would you say you feel less terror today because of our foreign policy? Do you truly think you would feel *more* terror again if we took a less aggressive (more cooperative) stance?

I think this may be at the heart of the divide on this issue, in this country. What do you think?

Between 9/11 and now, I have never felt terror. My fiancee insists that
there is a male-female divide at work in this issue. Maybe. But as a man
I can assure you that I am not terrorized.

Pattylou, I really like you because we are on opposite sides of only
a political fence. I can tell that we would agree on the basics of life.
Let me try to show you how a conservative person approaches this thing.

What I am is utterly determined- to see to it that people who think
that they can expand the Islamic sphere of influence though violence are
made to give it up. And the best way to make them give it up is twofold.

First, they must be made understand that they are weaker than the West.
In the Arabic culture that gave rise to Islamic thinking shame is worse than
death, and victory in battle (regardless of the methods) is validation of
the cause. If they understand that they are weaker by being denied
even the smallest of victories, this takes the wind out of their sails on
a whole host of levels.

Second, the larger cultural support system of the Jihadis must be weakened.
The best way to do this is for the rank and file citizens of the Nation of
Islam to realize that siding with the West is siding with the winner. They
can relate to this, especially if they benefit by acqiring a new stake in
their own governence (i.e. democratization.)

Also, is your terror level (and that of other like minded folks) more valuable than the lives of "collateral" civilian casualties in other countries? (We're responsible for 10X more deaths than what occurred on 9/11; a good many of those are civilians.)

Remember, this fight is not about my fear or about casualties. This is
about your great-grandaughter not being forced to wear a Burka and
being allowed to read. War always kills good people too and this is
regretable. But I don't regret our having killed a single Muslim who has
taken up the sword against Western civilzation. Not in Andelusia
(.i.e. Spain which they lost because Western civilzation fought, killed,
or Christianized every Muslim on the peninsula), not in the Crusades
(which they eventually won because the West didn't maintain good
logistics across thousands of miles), and not in New York City where
they will loose (because the West will permanently alter the couse
of their societal evolution).

I think that is a separate issue. I certainly agree that they might well. But given a choice between acting pre-emptively and acting in response to an incident, the choice seems clear.

I'm glad we agree. To not act premptively is to seal the death warrents
of our fellow citizens- an unthinkable course of action.

If you act in response to the incident, you have the *entire world* with you. If you act pre-emptively, especially with the course Cheney is asking and with our recent history, you have the entire world *against you.*

Oops- you are against preemption?? Now, if your most important
goal is hosting the next Olympic games then I agree that having the
entire world against you will probably preclude success. But we have a
different goal.

All the goodwill the world can muster won't help the dead and dying New
Yorkers under the mushroom cloud of an Iranian-built fission bomb. I'm much
more concerned about them than about what the world thinks of us.

You may think you are protecting lives by acting pre-emptively, but psychologically you are only screwing your standing in the world,

There is a lot in here to unpack.
1) Our standing in the world is not in the same leauge as our obligation
to protect our cities from nuclear attack.
2) Our standing in the world is secondary to victory. Achive victory
and the standing will follow, especially in the Arabic world but everywhere
else as well.

and as Iraq shows, whether you save lives or not is a real gamble. You might not, at all.

I'm not really following you here. Democratizing Iraq is not about minimizing
net casualties this year or the next few years. It's about altering the course
of Islamic civilization to avoid a greater clash that could claim millions of
lives down the road.

 

[pattylou]

A hasty response:

I've only heard the "Islamists trying to spread Islam" and "you'd have to wear a burka" from the likes of Bush.

Zawahiri's tape certainly did not express anything beyond a desire to have the middle east *left alone.*

THe Iranian revolution had something like 98% support for adopting a religious constitution including wearing the veil. (I would not have been in that 98%.)

So - what I see is a religious state saying "we like it this way, leave us alone," and a secular state saying "we have to wipe out any religious tendencies before they religisize *us.*"

I am absolutely against pre-emption. I would have opposed it in any event. The facts coming to light that "intelligence was fixed" and naysayers were punished, in the president' rush to war, illustrates only too clearly how screwed up pre-emption can become.

But I would have opposed even "righteous" pre-emption because somewhere I internalized the American value of "innocent until proven guilty."

All the goodwill the world can muster won't help the dead and dying New
Yorkers under the mushroom cloud of an Iranian-built fission bomb. I'm much
more concerned about them than about what the world thinks of us.

What is your concern for the ten fold more that have been killed in Iraq than in the trade center attack?

Are you aware that the best intelligence puts the 2015 as the earliest that Iran *could* develop a nuclear weapon? I don't believe they have the capability to launch it at the US even then, nor the motivation to do so. The Iranian government is not a terrorist regime.

You say you feel no fear, but your post hints you have plenty of it, and you are coping by taking the bully stance. You are also painting a doomsday scenario presiumably to frighten *me.* Leave Iran alone. Or better, foster a cooperative relationship with them. My god, this isn't rocket science.

Had I been in the trade centers dying, I would not have wanted my government to use my death to lie to my friends and family and invade a country that had nothing to do with the event.

I wouldn't have wanted the government to declare a war on terrorism either. I would have thought: 'So, this is how I die.' I would have hoped that the world would learn to be more caring as a result of my death, not more vicious.

 

[vanesch]

My fiancee insists that
there is a male-female divide at work in this issue.

Wasn't she optimised to raise children and keep the house ? So what does her insistence matter here ?

First, they must be made understand that they are weaker than the West.
In the Arabic culture that gave rise to Islamic thinking shame is worse than
death, and victory in battle (regardless of the methods) is validation of
the cause. If they understand that they are weaker by being denied
even the smallest of victories, this takes the wind out of their sails on
a whole host of levels.

Well, for the moment, it goes the other way around, isn't it ? The US is losing money, image, lives, and is now planning to retract slowly from Iraq - something that clearly will be interpreted as a victory on the Islamic side. Moreover, a secular dictature where there was not much room for Islamism is on the way of being changed in an Islamic theocracy (cfr the new constitution of Iraq). The Spanish have been terrorised and as a result retracted from the "coalition of the willing" (again whose victory ?) and now the British are terrorized. Tell me, your action clearly brought a deafening blow to the slightest sentiment of victory on the Islamic side. You showed clearly the Western superiority.
Yes, you guys are clearly taking the wind out of the sails. On the other hand, although initially a blow was given to the Islamic support in Afghanistan, the tide is turning there, and you have no muscle left to do much about it. OBL is STILL running.
And Iran is now really really scared about an invasion, they are doing in their pants. They is so scared, that they just tell you to piss off with your seals on their uranium enrichment plants and laugh in your face.

So if victory is the validation of the cause in Islamic thinking, then they just got quite a lot of validation from your side!

Second, the larger cultural support system of the Jihadis must be weakened.
The best way to do this is for the rank and file citizens of the Nation of
Islam to realize that siding with the West is siding with the winner. They
can relate to this, especially if they benefit by acqiring a new stake in
their own governence (i.e. democratization.)

As we all see, yes, the West is winning, hahahaha. Islamic republics vote for more secularisation, the newly liberated people write liberty of religion in their constitution, what a blow to the Islamists. They must feel quite defeated !

Remember, this fight is not about my fear or about casualties. This is
about your great-grandaughter not being forced to wear a Burka and
being allowed to read.

Or free about their sexual and reproductive decisions, and not obliged to read the Bible ?

But I don't regret our having killed a single Muslim who has
taken up the sword against Western civilzation. Not in Andelusia
(.i.e. Spain which they lost because Western civilzation fought, killed,
or Christianized every Muslim on the peninsula), not in the Crusades
(which they eventually won because the West didn't maintain good
logistics across thousands of miles), and not in New York City where
they will loose (because the West will permanently alter the couse
of their societal evolution).

Well, they probably think now that it is their turn. Only fair.

All the goodwill the world can muster won't help the dead and dying New
Yorkers under the mushroom cloud of an Iranian-built fission bomb. I'm much
more concerned about them than about what the world thinks of us.

Ah, and indeed, now they are scared like hell ! After the success with the neighbours, they surely are affraid of an invasion. Especially because you will be able to count on all the friends you've made in the neighbourhood to give you a hand. Come on ! You're PUSHING Iran into making nuclear weapons ! The Islamic reaction against the West, inspired by your activities over there, brought a hardliner in power in Iran, and you've lost all credibility of a military retaliation because you've shot all the ammo on the neighbour.
You behaved like an excited cowboy emptying his guns onto a bystander, and now that you don't have any bullets left, the guy in front of you is slowly loading his gun. Talk about a defeat.

Achive victory and the standing will follow, especially in the Arabic world but everywhere else as well.

What victory ? Where ?

I'm not really following you here. Democratizing Iraq is not about minimizing
net casualties this year or the next few years. It's about altering the course
of Islamic civilization to avoid a greater clash that could claim millions of
lives down the road.

Yes, changing a secular dictatorship into an Islamic theocracy shows the way!
Great work. The West is clearly superior ! Give me a break.

 

[BobG]

I'm not really following you here. Democratizing Iraq is not about minimizing
net casualties this year or the next few years. It's about altering the course
of Islamic civilization to avoid a greater clash that could claim millions of
lives down the road.

The idea that democratizing Iraq, or the entire Middle East, will alter the course of Islamic civilization is a little simplistic. Kuwait and Yemen give two examples of how democracy has progressed in the Middle East - both have had problems with the transition, especially Yemen where they are trying to unify a previously separated country in addition to transitioning to democracy.

Yemen does officially recognize freedom of religion, but that freedom is extremely limited (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Yemen). Islam is still the state religion and only Islamic citizens can hold office. Yemen's democratization efforts haven't meant approval for the US either (http://www.arab.de/arabinfo/yemen-government.htm). Yemen also is a prime recruiting region for terrorist groups - reforms also mean some folks disgusted enough at the reforms to abandon the 'new' version of their country.

Kuwait's road to democracy has been a little problematic, as well, but has now progressed so far as to allow women to vote (http://www.kuwait-info.org/democratization.html). They haven't yet, because they are still working out the details of how to allow women to vote without violating Islamic law. Kuwait would have more reason to support the US, but government support for the US hasn't been all that popular with Kuwaitis. In fact, Kuwait has become a major recruiting region for terrorist groups (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61476-2005Apr17.html - the article also talks about democratization efforts in Morocco - the part that talks about Kuwait is further down the page). Once again, with any reform comes folks disillusioned by changes in their country.

The issue of how the Middle East finds a balance between the traditions of ancient Islamic law and the modern world have little to do with whether the country is democratic or not - at least not in the short term. In fact, forcing faster reforms just increases the current crop of prospects for terrorists where a slower pace of change might prevent pressure from ever buidling up high enough to reach the level of terrorism.

 

[Antiphon]

A hasty response:
I've only heard the "Islamists trying to spread Islam" and "you'd have to wear a burka" from the likes of Bush.

Then you haven't heard much from those who are well informed about the history
of Islam. The Arabian peninsula was Roman Catholic before it was Muslim. So was Constantinople
before Muslims sacked it and renamed it Istanbul. Their next goal is Europe, to be followed by the US.

Zawahiri's tape certainly did not express anything beyond a desire to have the middle east *left alone.*

A tactical statement from a field tactician. The strategists are the Imams
of Saudi Arabia who are still ticked about the loss of the Islamic Caliphate
in 1922.

THe Iranian revolution had something like 98% support for adopting a religious constitution including wearing the veil. (I would not have been in that 98%.)

That great for them. It's not what I want for my kids.

So - what I see is a religious state saying "we like it this way, leave us alone," and a secular state saying "we have to wipe out any religious tendencies before they religisize *us.*"

I'm sorry you see this. I see an aggressive expansionist religion whose violent
advocates justify any means to achive it's expansion and have sworn to
obliterate all of Western civilzation because it stands in their way.

I am absolutely against pre-emption. I would have opposed it in any event. The facts coming to light that "intelligence was fixed" and naysayers were punished, in the president' rush to war, illustrates only too clearly how screwed up pre-emption can become.

Of course you need to base your pre-emption on good intelligence. But
not even the Iranian Mullahs are denying that they are making weapons-grade
uranium- they only deny that they are making bombs out of it. I don't need the CIA's
analysts to tell me what this will become if we don't stop it first.

But I would have opposed even "righteous" pre-emption because somewhere I internalized the American value of "innocent until proven guilty."

The methods of civil and criminal law don't work well on the battlefield. This
is plain. On 9/11, NYC became a battlefield. And furthermore, to the Nation of
Islam, the battlefield is everyplace that is not ruled by Islamic law. That includes your house, Pattylou.

What is your concern for the ten fold more that have been killed in Iraq than in the trade center attack?

I'd need to know who they were before I rendered a specific judgment about
them. The loss of innocnet life is greivous. The loss of Jihadi fighters is
a numerical and strategic success.

Are you aware that the best intelligence puts the 2015 as the earliest that Iran *could* develop a nuclear weapon? I don't believe they have the capability to launch it at the US even then, nor the motivation to do so. The Iranian government is not a terrorist regime.

I'm dissapointed to see you skewer your own argument above about relying
on bad intelligence. Apparently it's ok for you to rely on it when it tells you
what you want to hear.

You say you feel no fear, but your post hints you have plenty of it, and you are coping by taking the bully stance. You are also painting a doomsday scenario presiumably to frighten *me.*

Fear is different from knowing the score and spelling it out like it is. It
doesn't matter to me whether I am killed by a heart attack or an Iranian
nuke. But it matters greatly to me that the world not be taken over by
that particular death-cult.

Pattylou, I honestly don't want to frighten you. I would have expected
that when your civilization is under assault, you would feel safer knowing that
it's fighting back hard rather than lying down and hoping for the best.

Leave Iran alone. Or better, foster a cooperative relationship with them. My god, this isn't rocket science

Time and time again, the clarion call of the frightened has been to sue
for peace in the face of agression. This is a losing strategy. I will not
leave the Iranian government alone. It is trying to destroy my way of life.
I don't know why I should interpret a goverment-sponsored poster saying
"Death to America" in any other way. And no, it isn't rocket science.
It's the crossroads between politics, human survival, and history.

Had I been in the trade centers dying, I would not have wanted my government to use my death to lie to my friends and family and invade a country that had nothing to do with the event.

Pattylou, you are reverting to the micro picture. Remember this isn't about
Iraq being "invaded bcause of 9/11". This is about altering the future course
of Islamic history. Iraq is only the beginning and it will NOT be the last
country to experience a US-led leadership change in that part of the world.

I wouldn't have wanted the government to declare a war on terrorism either. I would have thought: 'So, this is how I die.' I would have hoped that the world would learn to be more caring as a result of my death, not more vicious.

This is what makes you a beautiful person worth fighting and dying for.
It's also why your death at the hands of those murderous primitives must
be prevented, even at the cost of them losing their own lives.

Your life, Pattylou, is much more important to me than that of someone
who convinces other idealistic young people to strap on bombs and go kill
ordinary people like you and me.


Edit:

Yes, changing a secular dictatorship into an Islamic theocracy shows the way!
Great work. The West is clearly superior ! Give me a break.

I still don't think you're getting it Vanesch. We're giving that civilzation a chance to
change for the better and to cooexist with the West peacfully.
But if it doesn't work out, if most people there do not want the way of peace,
then the gloves will have to come off. If it's Jihad that they really want they'll get it-
but in a form that they're not accustomed to seeing in modern times.

This time around the Crusaders have a logistical system based on the methods of
UPS and Fedex. Saladin wouldn't stand a chance today.

 

[pattylou]

This is what makes you a beautiful person worth fighting and dying for.
It's also why your death at the hands of those murderous primitives must
be prevented,

LOL. You kinda missed the point there, then. I'd rather have Jesus beside me, *dying* alongside me asking for God's forgiveness of our fellow human beings, than your (or anyones) defense of me through aggression. A hundred times over. I don't want that type of help; it is an insult to everything I believe. In my opinion, it is sinful. (And I'm a woman of the left. )

We all die, kiddo. I've seen it a hell of a lot more closely than a lot of people my age, particularly Americans. The only "free will" we have is in how we conduct our lives.

My advice, not that you asked, is to practice compassion for your enemies. Not only do *you* come out on top, but your enemies tend to melt away in that kind of warm regard. Start practicing it small, see what you find. You don't even have to tell anybody - just do a little experiment for your own interest. It's better this way, for everyone.

(LOL, sorry for the soapboxing. I really don't have any comments about your other feedback.)

 

[Smurf]

Then you haven't heard much from those who are well informed about the history
of Islam. The Arabian peninsula was Roman Catholic before it was Muslim. So was Constantinople
before Muslims sacked it and renamed it Istanbul. Their next goal is Europe, to be followed by the US.

1. No form of christianity was ever a majority in any part of the Aabian Peninsula.
2. Constantinople was first and formost Orthodox Christian, it only became Roman Catholic after it was taken from Byzantine during the Fourth Crusade.
3. The only time Constantinople was 'sacked' was during the fourth Crusade(i.e. Roman Catholic Crusaders).
4. Islam is not a unified body with unified goals (i.e. Invading europe and the US)

A tactical statement from a field tactician. The strategists are the Imamsof Saudi Arabia who are still ticked about the loss of the Islamic Caliphate in 1922.

The Caliphate was abolished in 1924. The Ottoman Sultanate was abolished two years prior. They are not synonymous. Real power laid with the Sultanate, the title of Caliph was started in 1517, at the time many others claimed the same title. The Caliph's only power was given to it the Ottoman Empire, and as the Empire became stronger, so the Ottoman Caliph was given more Authority over the other Caliphs, until it was the only one left.

That great for them. It's not what I want for my kids.

Then don't move to Iran.

I'm sorry you see this. I see an aggressive expansionist religion whose violent advocates justify any means to achive it's expansion and have sworn to obliterate all of Western civilzation because it stands in their way.

http://www.sumeria.net/politics/usa.html
Expansionist
Violent Advocates
http://thomasmc.com/0722mw.htm
sworn to obliterate
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0504-06.htm

Of course you need to base your pre-emption on good intelligence. But not even the Iranian Mullahs are denying that they are making weapons-grade uranium- they only deny that they are making bombs out of it. I don't need the CIA's analysts to tell me what this will become if we don't stop it first.

Pre-Emption? Don't you mean Pre-emptive?
Pre-Emptive is defined as "[A pre-emptive attack/war] is waged in an attempt to repel or defeat an imminent offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (usually unavoidable) war."
The Iran situation does not suit this definition, unless you believe that should Iran get nuclear reactors they will unavoidably use them to go to war with the US?
Should you use military action to stop Iran it will be Preventive war.

The methods of civil and criminal law don't work well on the battlefield. This is plain. On 9/11, NYC became a battlefield. And furthermore, to the Nation of Islam, the battlefield is everyplace that is not ruled by Islamic law. That includes your house, Pattylou.

Islam is not a nation.

I'd need to know who they were before I rendered a specific judgment about them. The loss of innocnet life is greivous. The loss of Jihadi fighters is a numerical and strategic success.

That's rather sad, I consider any loss of life greivous.

I'm dissapointed to see you skewer your own argument above about relying on bad intelligence. Apparently it's ok for you to rely on it when it tells you what you want to hear.

What makes that intelligence 'bad'? Why is it wrong do rely on it, and why do you think Pattylou is doing so just because it is saying what she wants to hear? Do you have a better source for a different figure?

Fear is different from knowing the score and spelling it out like it is. It
doesn't matter to me whether I am killed by a heart attack or an Iranian
nuke. But it matters greatly to me that the world not be taken over by
that particular death-cult.

Death Cult? Iran specifically? Or all of islam?

Pattylou, you are reverting to the micro picture. Remember this isn't about Iraq being "invaded bcause of 9/11". This is about altering the future course of Islamic history. Iraq is only the beginning and it will NOT be the last
country to experience a US-led leadership change in that part of the world.

What gives the US the right to intervene to change their way of life, when you claim you do not want them to change yours either?

I still don't think you're getting it Vanesch. We're giving that civilzation a chance to change for the better and to cooexist with the West peacfully. But if it doesn't work out, if most people there do not want the way of peace,then the gloves will have to come off. If it's Jihad that they really want they'll get it- but in a form that they're not accustomed to seeing in modern times.

What you're saying is: you're either with us or against us, correct?

This time around the Crusaders have a logistical system based on the methods of UPS and Fedex. Saladin wouldn't stand a chance today.

Saladin didn't win by disrupting Crusader logistics, he won on the battlefield.

 

[vanesch]

But not even the Iranian Mullahs are denying that they are making weapons-grade uranium- they only deny that they are making bombs out of it. I don't need the CIA's analysts to tell me what this will become if we don't stop it first.

Problem: you won't be able to stop it. There was a way, and you blew it. The way was: slow reintegration of Iran in the international community, try to make them see that they don't win anything in develloping their bomb and that they are not at risk. Because WHY do you think Iran wants to make a bomb ? TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AGAINST THE US !
After all, if Saddam had a bomb, you wouldn't have invaded, would you.

On 9/11, NYC became a battlefield. And furthermore, to the Nation of
Islam, the battlefield is everyplace that is not ruled by Islamic law. That includes your house, Pattylou.

On 9/11, a smart Islamist of which the world didn't know much played a trick on the US, in the hope that the US would get nervous and do nasty things to innocent Muslims, so that he could further his cause. Indeed, he was a bit idle. He had been at war against the Russians in Afghanistan and that had helped him to be a small hero amongst his small army of Islamist fighters, but now the Russians were gone, and he was looking for another cause, but the only source of aggression on which he could thrive was the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and that lacked the former grandeur. He had difficulties recruiting people for his ideas. So he set out on a cunning plan: he was going to organize a world-wide war between Islam and the West. There was not so very much appeal, at that moment, for such an idea. There were small terrrorist groups (mainly originated from two sources: the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and the several ex-nationalist movements that got rid of the old colonizing nations like France, the UK...) who'd like to participate, but there was not a large support at all for such an idea in the Muslim world.
So he needed to do something to mobilise the Muslim masses, to get them out of their moderateness, and to radicalise the Muslim public opinion. He was a man who wanted to show to other Muslims that they must defend themselves against Western aggression and arrogance, and hence needed to provoke such visible aggression. I think he got more than he hoped for in his wildest dreams after 9/11. The US administration jumped so vigorously in this trap he set up for them that I have difficulties to believe that they were not on OLB's payroll.

The loss of Jihadi fighters is a numerical and strategic success.

And a gain of Jihadi fighters ? If for every Jihadi fighter killed, 3 Muslims decide to become one ?

Fear is different from knowing the score and spelling it out like it is. It
doesn't matter to me whether I am killed by a heart attack or an Iranian
nuke. But it matters greatly to me that the world not be taken over by
that particular death-cult.

Then why do you guys do everything to further that cult ?

Time and time again, the clarion call of the frightened has been to sue
for peace in the face of agression. This is a losing strategy. I will not
leave the Iranian government alone. It is trying to destroy my way of life.

You can't, anymore.

This is about altering the future course
of Islamic history. Iraq is only the beginning and it will NOT be the last
country to experience a US-led leadership change in that part of the world.

Iraq's fiasco was the beginning and is the end of the US-led leadership change in that part of the world. All US influence is gone there now. A military action ? This is entirely impossible in the next few years. You've shot your ammo and you haven't gotten any left. Even purely technically-military, you'd have some difficulties, but politically and economically, this became totally impossible for the US. Even a Rumsfeld wouldn't dream of it anymore.
An invasion of Iran, let me laugh. Where would you base your army before the attack ? In Iraq ? Pakistan ? Turkey ?
I don't know if you realize this, but the war in Iraq has taken away all POSSIBILITY for the US to perform a major military intervention anywhere in the world - even if this one is necessary. You'd never get it sold to your public opinion. What will you say ? They have WMD ? They are going to throw the Big Bad Bomb on our head ? We have to "liberate them" ? It will take between 6 weeks and 6 months ?

So the only option you've left now, is to wait for the Iranian nuke, and to retalliate. Like in the good old days, when the commies were going to nuke the US, and when they were going to take over the world too, and change your way of life.

 

[SOS2008]

Wasn't she optimised to raise children and keep the house ? So what does her insistence matter here ?

Us left-leaning women are just grateful not to be corralled into second-class conditions.

My advice, not that you asked, is to practice compassion for your enemies. Not only do *you* come out on top, but your enemies tend to melt away in that kind of warm regard.

I think this was mentioned elsewhere, but a good example of this is Spain. There must be tolerance of other beliefs and lifestyles before people can live harmoniously in the world.

Other than that, I agree with BobG's post. We could add Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and a few other countries in the Middle East in reviewing success of democracy. Um, how are we doing in Afghanistan?

 

[Antiphon]

1. No form of christianity was ever a majority in any part of the Aabian Peninsula.

It was a major cultural force. Mohammed himself was raised (though never
baptized) Catholic.

2. Constantinople was first and formost Orthodox Christian, it only became Roman Catholic after it was taken from Byzantine during the Fourth Crusade.

Correct you are.

3. The only time Constantinople was 'sacked' was during the fourth Crusade(i.e. Roman Catholic Crusaders).

Not correct. The abomnidable desecration of Hya Sofia stands to this very day.

4. Islam is not a unified body with unified goals

Didn't say it was.

The Caliphate was abolished in 1924. The Ottoman Sultanate was abolished two years prior. They are not synonymous. Real power laid with the Sultanate, the title of Caliph was started in 1517, at the time many others claimed the same title. The Caliph's only power was given to it the Ottoman Empire, and as the Empire became stronger, so the Ottoman Caliph was given more Authority over the other Caliphs, until it was the only one left.

It's a bit disturbing to see someone such as yourself with an impressive command of the facts but no grasp whatsoever on the trends and implications for today.

Then don't move to Iran.

No such plans are in the works. As you well know, I'm rather more concerned
with the unchecked expansion of violent Islam across the globe.

Pre-Emption? Don't you mean Pre-emptive?

Yes.

The Iran situation does not suit this definition, unless you believe that should Iran get nuclear reactors they will unavoidably use them to go to war with the US?

This is just plain hyperbolic. You know quite well they will allow their nukes to be used on the West if they get them.

Should you use military action to stop Iran it will be Preventive war.

Maybe today. But tomorrow who knows?

Islam is not a nation.

I'm referring to the "umma". You're pretty handy with a search engine- look it up.

That's rather sad, I consider any loss of life greivous.

Any? Perhaps you've ceased to perform any substantial moral reasoning.
It's the disease of the Age. Pacifism is the logical extension of your
view and it not a tenable view in my judgement.

What makes that intelligence 'bad'? Why is it wrong do rely on it, and why do you think Pattylou is doing so just because it is saying what she wants to hear? Do you have a better source for a different figure?

I never questioned the inteligence. I questioned the one-sided skepticism
of folks who only rely on it when it suits them.

Death Cult? Iran specifically? Or all of islam?

I refer to the hatred which spews unabted from much of the Islamic world
and is supported spiritually and financially in large part by Iran and
Saudi Arabia.
Others today often refer to it as "terrorism". You can't deny that there is a
glorification of violence, death and suicide going on today in the Islamic world.

What gives the US the right to intervene to change their way of life, when you claim you do not want them to change yours either?

The exportation of their violence and intolerance around the globe gives me the right.

What you're saying is: you're either with us or against us, correct?

No. I'm saying they're either going to join us (and stop their ongoing
disruption of our Civilization) or they will not make it into the Year of Our
Lord 2100. That will come across like blustering to some, but it's not
meant to be that. It's an expression of the optimism that no matter how
spineless the actions of the West appear to be, we're every bit as mean
today as we have been in the past. On that I think you'd agree, no?

Saladin didn't win by disrupting Crusader logistics, he won on the battlefield.

I didn't say he disrupted anything. (Why do you keep hearing things that
I'm not saying?) By the time Crusaders typically made the arduous
trek to the middle east, they were a mere shadow of the numbers that
usually started out. As non-professional Christian soldiers intent on liberating
the Holy Lands, Crusaders didn't display anything like the military
competence of the Roman Legions who predated them. Saladin would
have been crucified by the Romans for sure, probably on the very
battlefield on which he defeated Crusaders.

 

[Smurf]

It was a major cultural force. Mohammed himself was raised (though never baptized) Catholic.

I've never heard anything about that, Mohammad was raised in the Tribe of Quraish was he not? A Muslim Tribe no? If you have a source I'd like to see it.

Regardless, I'd hardly classify the Arabian Peninsula as 'christian'.

Not correct. The abomnidable desecration of Hya Sofia stands to this very day.

What? I've never even heard of a 'Hya Sofia'. Googled it, didn't find anything. Certainly nothing about any desecration.

Didn't say it was.

You did say that it plans to invade Europe and then the US. This implies that Islam has such desires as a unified goal.

It's a bit disturbing to see someone such as yourself with an impressive command of the facts but no grasp whatsoever on the trends and implications for today.

Then educate me, if you please.

No such plans are in the works. As you well know, I'm rather more concerned with the unchecked expansion of violent Islam across the globe.

One could just as easily say that Violent capitalism is expanding across the globe.

This is just plain hyperbolic. You know quite well they will allow their nukes to be used on the West if they get them.

I don't believe that at all. I don't believe any nation, for any reason, would risk nuking the US (or China, Britain, France, Russia, ect., for that matter) because it would mean they themselves will be destroyed by far more efficient weapons.
If their goal is to conquer the west, why would they; a. Use nukes to destroy what they want to conquer, b. provoke the west into obliterating their homeland completely.

Nukes arn't the real threat anyways. Iran can build all the nukes they want and they still can't attack America with them, they need ICBMs for that, or Long Range bombers, or some delivery system. Not only that, a delivery system that will get beyond US defences (so long range bombers won't do it will they) and that is currently (and in the forseeable future) beyond their capability. This is not about defence of the US.

I'm referring to the "umma". You're pretty handy with a search engine- look it up.

Ah yes, the infamous University of Michigan Museum of Art. They have it out for Pattylou you say? Well, that's reasonable.
(sorry, couldn't resist)

So, you're saying that the "totality of all muslims" has it out for pattylou and was behind 9/11?

Any? Perhaps you've ceased to perform any substantial moral reasoning. It's the disease of the Age. Pacifism is the logical extension of your view and it not a tenable view in my judgement.

I'm not pacifist, I'm a green anarchist. Why don't you find my views tenable? I see no reason why force is ever necessary nor acceptable, with few exceptions.

I never questioned the inteligence. I questioned the one-sided skepticism of folks who only rely on it when it suits them.

I don't really see a reason to question it unless you have a conflicting source.

I refer to the hatred which spews unabted from much of the Islamic world and is supported spiritually and financially in large part by Iran and Saudi Arabia. Others today often refer to it as "terrorism". You can't deny that there is a glorification of violence, death and suicide going on today in the Islamic world.

I think there is a glorification of violence and death in parts of the Islam world. I also see glorification of violence in the US, and many other parts of the west. What makes them any different?

The exportation of their violence and intolerance around the globe gives me the right.

Same as above. What makes your violence and intolerance any different from theirs.

No. I'm saying they're either going to join us (and stop their ongoing disruption of our Civilization) or they will not make it into the Year of Our Lord 2100. That will come across like blustering to some, but it's not meant to be that. It's an expression of the optimism that no matter how spineless the actions of the West appear to be, we're every bit as mean today as we have been in the past. On that I think you'd agree, no?

Now you're just sounding like you think 'Might is Right' and that the US and other countries arn't doing enough violence. That's ridiculous. You do not have the right to kill, and you never bloody will.

I didn't say he disrupted anything. (Why do you keep hearing things that I'm not saying?) By the time Crusaders typically made the arduous
trek to the middle east, they were a mere shadow of the numbers that usually started out. As non-professional Christian soldiers intent on liberating the Holy Lands, Crusaders didn't display anything like the military
competence of the Roman Legions who predated them. Saladin would
have been crucified by the Romans for sure, probably on the very
battlefield on which he defeated Crusaders.

That's all irrelevant, my point was that Logistics didn't have any significant influence on Saladin's victory. The first crusade was already over and the Kingdom of Jerusalem was established. When Saladin went to war with them and re-took Jerusalem it was almost 100 years after the first crusade and Jerusalem had a standing army that didn't need any Arduous Trek. Saladin obliterated their Army quite efficiently in a single battle. Oh, and the Christians started that war.

 

[Informal Logic]

In reference to terrorism and the bombing in Madrid, Spain is an excellent example. I believe there will be no more terrorist attacks there.

 

[rachmaninoff]

What? I've never even heard of a 'Hya Sofia'. Googled it, didn't find anything. Certainly nothing about any desecration.

Ayasofia = Hagia Sophia.

 

[kat]

Hey kat,

I still don't have an axe to grind,

Well, good...grinding axes gets so messy ...

I hesitated posting this, because I don't want to "get into it." But then, I am frankly curious for your honest reaction to the report.

Alright...My first reaction was...This guy must have had or has a book that's about to hit the shelves.

My second was that it's their job to

have plans ready for any contingency...

in fact it's their job to have multiple plans.

But the subtext of the report sounds a lot more ominous than that.

I haven't seen the text of the report...much less the "subtext" I've only listened to other people tell me what they think is in the report... Let's find some direct quotes or at least a partial text first...
everything else after this is supposition and thus not something I'm going to comment further on without the actual report to base a discussion upon.Thanks for sharing though.


Oh...one last thing

Take off your conservative hat for a minute and just read the report as a human being.

I'm not a conservative. I'm just disgusted with the fanactics that seem to have usurped the left I used to know and love...You know the one...that supported human rights, Hated tyranny...fought for women's rights...
Instead the left that's usurped my left is so caught up in anti-bushism and anti-americanism and jew bashing that it would rather see tyrants remain in power and genocide continueing in places like darfur and well...Iraq under Saddam. It cries louder about a Bolton appointment then U.N. forces raping and pillaging those it should be protecting. *shrug*

 

[Smurf]

Ayasofia = Hagia Sophia.

Ah, well in that case the 'abominable' desecration of Ayasofya was, as I stated, performed by Crusaders in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade, the only time Constantinople was sacked.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Mohammad was raised in the Tribe of Quraish was he not? A Muslim Tribe no?

Before Mohammad began his ministry, at or after the age of 40, there were no Muslims. If the Tribe of Quaraish became Muslim, it was after they were finished raising him.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Before Mohammad began his ministry, at or after the age of 40, there were no Muslims. If the Tribe of Quaraish became Muslim, it was after they were finished raising him.

I found an interesting site that states Mohammed http://www.roadtopeace.org/history/human_history/human_history_islam.html

* 610: Mohammed receives first revelations in a cave on the summit of Mount Hira just outside Mecca. He adopts the name of "Prophet" and prepares to convert the Quaraish to monotheism.

which sort of indicates that they were 'pagan' by nature and worshipped multiple deities.

This is also similarly stated on this site: http://eawc.evansville.edu/chronology/ispage.htm

610 CE: Early Islam - Originally adhering to a polytheistic notion of the divine, Muhammad has a religious experience that changes not only his life, but the history of a large part of the world. He hears a divine voice, later believed to be the angel Gabriel of the Christian religion, tell him that Allah is the only god. He receives further instructions to adopt the name of "Prophet" and convert the Quaraish to accept the monotheism.

.

 

[Smurf]

If you look just above your first quote in the link you see it stated much more plainly.

Mohammed: circa 570 to 632. Born a polytheist, he is considered by Muslims to be God's last and greatest prophet.

Not really sure what they mean by 'born' a polytheist, but they indicate he was not Christian, Jewish or Islamic (I thought Islam did exist before Mohammed, or was at least 'in the works')

 

[Entropy]

which sort of indicates that they were 'pagan' by nature and worshipped multiple deities.

Interesting fact, the word "Allah" was also the name of the cheif god they worshipped.

Not really sure what they mean by 'born' a polytheist

It means he worshipped multiple gods.

 

[russ_watters]

I didn't read all the posts because it seems the discussion is waaaay off topic, but there isn't much specific in that link in the OP and there is no substantiation whatsoever. Since that site is pretty much just a conspiracy theory site and the assertion made is pretty far outside what would be normal/acceptable, I'm not inclined to believe it is true (or, at least, accurately reported).

 

[pattylou]

I didn't read all the posts because it seems the discussion is waaaay off topic, but there isn't much specific in that link in the OP and there is no substantiation whatsoever. Since that site is pretty much just a conspiracy theory site and the assertion made is pretty far outside what would be normal/acceptable, I'm not inclined to believe it is true (or, at least, accurately reported).

I haven't followed the thread either. (I became shy when the note I tried to quietly pass under my desk got me called up to the front of the room. Mean Evo. Mean, mean Evo. )

But you know, "outside what would be normal/acceptable" is part of my basic beef so let's go with that for a minute and I'll cross my fingers that this doesn't get turned into a new thread.

Weren't pre-emptive invasion, carrying mini-nukes as a matter of course, manufacturing landmines, and (possibly) fixing intelligence to upset a sovereign nation... all "outside what would be normal/acceptable?"

Don't we do all these things now, and hasn't our country changed in these ways in the last ten years, and isn't the step to a nuclear response on Iran a *smaller* step (from where we are *now*/that is, relatively speaking) than the invasion of Iraq?

 

[pattylou]

I'm not a conservative. I'm just disgusted with the fanactics that seem to have usurped the left I used to know and love...You know the one...that supported human rights, Hated tyranny...fought for women's rights...
Instead the left that's usurped my left is so caught up in anti-bushism and anti-americanism and jew bashing that it would rather see tyrants remain in power and genocide continueing in places like darfur and well...Iraq under Saddam. It cries louder about a Bolton appointment then U.N. forces raping and pillaging those it should be protecting. *shrug*

Wow. Thank you, I appreciate that.

The extreme left email groups have equated Bolton with a nuclear conflict, period. That is the basis for hysteria. * Should this hysteria prove to be based on an ultimate outcome of the current string of events from DC, then I'd say it's equally as outrageous as any crimes perpetrated by the UN or other groups.

-Patty

* Well, that, and the fact that he (1) illustrates that bush has no interest in compromise which is not news and (2) inflames anti-US sentiment abroad.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm actually not really sure what you're talking about there. Could you elaborate? Ie:

"Weren't pre-emptive invasion" - You mean before Iraq? Yes. But how far outside the norm is it really? (Yes, that's a complicated one)

"manufacturing landmines" - Huh? Landmines have been around for about a hundred years.

"carrying mini-nukes as a matter of course" - Huh? Who carries mini-nukes and for what purpose? I don't know what you are referring to.

"fixing intelligence to upset a sovereign nation" - An assertion of fact that I don't accept, however, manipulation of the facts is politics 101 and if Bush is the star pupil, then Bill Clinton would have to be the professor.

Don't we do all these things now

I'm not sure - I don't understand some of what you were talking about...

...and hasn't our country changed in these ways in the last ten years,

Yes, naturally, our country has changed in the past four years. But given what happened 4 years ago, it damn well needed to. The specifics of those changes are, of course, open to debate.

...and isn't the step to a nuclear response on Iran a *smaller* step (from where we are *now*/that is, relatively speaking) than the invasion of Iraq?

No. Not hardly. Nuclear weapons are a never, ever weapon. And while threats and posturing are par for the course with nuclear deterrence (that is, of course, the point of deterrrence), to actually use them would be a huge deal. And I think you probably know that - take foreign opinion of the US now and extrapolate how it would change if the US nuked Iran for no reason in particular.

 

[The Smoking Man]

"carrying mini-nukes as a matter of course" - Huh? Who carries mini-nukes and for what purpose? I don't know what you are referring to.

I suggest you take a look at the 'Reduced Collateral Damage' arsenal planned by congress then. (http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=slv5-&p=mini nukes&ei=UTF-8)

You'll notice that most of the sites reporting this are from OUTSIDE the USA!?

"fixing intelligence to upset a sovereign nation" - An assertion of fact that I don't accept, however, manipulation of the facts is politics 101 and if Bush is the star pupil, then Bill Clinton would have to be the professor. I'm not sure - I don't understand some of what you were talking about... Yes, naturally, our country has changed in the past four years. But given what happened 4 years ago, it damn well needed to. The specifics of those changes are, of course, open to debate. No. Not hardly. Nuclear weapons are a never, ever weapon. And while threats and posturing are par for the course with nuclear deterrence (that is, of course, the point of deterrrence), to actually use them would be a huge deal. And I think you probably know that - take foreign opinion of the US now and extrapolate how it would change if the US nuked Iran for no reason in particular.

I know the Republicans in the USA seem to favour this line of reasoning however, Clinton never actually invaded a country.

However, Bush HAS invaded a country with cooked evidence AND taken it one step further, to the kidnapping of people in other sovereign nations (Italy).

Now, you decry the use of Nukes ... but then we all were against invasions prior to the Bush ascention into power. Then he supplied the justification for invasion.

Now he seeks the use of 'Mini-Nukes'.

Tell me Russ. Do you know of any situation in the war on terror that a 'mini-nuke' can address?

Will it stop a suicide bomber?

Will it help in cases like Fallujiah? Will you nuke a town and make it uninhabitable for some generations?

Will more powerful weapons and less laws make it easier to fight terror?

The USA has shown a dozen times over that it can win a war and lose the peace.

So, what is it to be: Nukes or Negotiation?

Do you really want the equivalent of Judge Roy Bean deciding the fate of your children.

What happens if a few of these mini-nukes go missing?

 

[sid_galt]

I hesitated posting this, because I don't want to "get into it." But then, I am frankly curious for your honest reaction to the report. Take off your conservative hat for a minute and just read the report as a human being. How does it strike you? Anyone else?

(Also see here: http://news.baou.com/main.php?action=recent&rid=20383 )

My reaction? It has come to late. The US has borne Iranian theocracy too long. The same goes for the Iranians.

Honestly I can't see why anyone would oppose an attack on Iran even if it is nuclear.

1. Iran is a threat to the world.
2. Iran is a theocratic dictatorship. A dictatorship can have no rights.

 

[pattylou]

Pre-emptive invasion: Agreed, a complicated question. For my generation, who had not lived through the Cuban missile crisis and so on, but had grown up on the idea that the US promoted peace and tolerance (I recall one issue after another - Watergate, the Iran hostage crisis, etc) being dealt with honorably - or at least the attempt to do so. Anyway, for me (and I assume others) the act of preemption (ultimately shown to be ill conceived) obliterated what it meant to be an American. I felt very grieved for years, as I realized the American Identity was being forced into a new mold.

But certainly in history there were times when pre-emptive acts were considered --- although never acted upon.


Mininukes:

My husband said that these are being carried, and he is a reliable moderate so I accepted that at face valu without checking. (edit: He just called home for something, and I asked what he meant and he thinks I misheard him. Possible.)

I can't find a source however, but here is information that is current about *developing* mininukes:

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/Stories/0,1413,206~11851~2966924,00.html

Also (from today's paper):

President Kennedy was pressured by Senate leaders and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to order pre-emptive strikes against Cuba, followed by invasion.

Fortunately he said "no," for optimistic intelligence estimates were proven wrong. Russian crews had, in fact, already mounted megaton warheads on Cuban SS-4 missiles poised for launch against Washington and Southeastern U.S. cities -- and, completely unexpectedly, nine Russian tactical nuclear missiles covered approaches to potential invasion beaches.

"Never before or since," writes historian Donald Kagan, "has the world been brought so close to nuclear war."

Unlike Kennedy, President George W. Bush did not say "no."

In March 2003, reacting to unverified (and inappropriate) intelligence reports, he initiated his pre-emptive invasion of Iraq.

The previous year, he had withdrawn the United States from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty with Russia after releasing a "Nuclear Posture Review" that considered pre-emptive nuclear strikes and potential development of new "mininukes" for use against deeply buried bunkers -- despite U.S. endorsement of the Nuclear Anti-Proliferation Treaty.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/12325362.htm

If you search 'google news' with the key word "bunker busters" (another name for small nuclear arms) you will see lots of hits. Please do this. The UK and the US are moving in this direction, and the senate approved a 4 million dollar (I forget the word... package?) to develop mininukes (RNEC's, Bunker busters.)


Land mines:

"Landmines have been around for about a hundred years."

Maybe, but not quite representative of what's going on in the world. In 1997, a global treaty was written and the US was expected to sign it by 2006. Many other countries signed on. I believe we have *not* used land mines in recent history as they are relatively indiscriminate killers. Human rights groups have backed anti-mine movements.

In 2004, the US shocked anti-landmine activists when it said it will not sign the 1997 global Mine Ban Treaty, a pact it was expected to agree to by 2006 and which had been signed by more than 140 countries around the world. Most Western nations had signed on to the treaty. Those signatories to the global pact would, under its terms, have to consider ending investments in US companies producing or exporting the new antipersonnel mines.

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=12367


A decision on whether or not to manufacture land mines (Spiders) is due in December.

~~~~~

(I knew the last item -fixing intelligence - was contentious, so I don't have anything more to add on that.)

My facts were not straight, and I apologize. I have learned a few things from this exchange, and I hope a few others have too.

Thanks for your time.

 

[pattylou]

Tangentially, this letter seemed a nice summary of land mine opposition and statistics:

March 14, 2002

Dear President Bush,

I strongly urge you accede to the global Mine Ban Treaty. Reliable sources indicate that the Pentagon may recommend that you abandon all efforts to comply with the Treaty. We strongly urge you, at a minimum, to continue the current level of U.S. compliance with most elements of the treaty and, to accede to the treaty before or by 2006. Joining the Mine Ban Treaty can help to ensure the safety of U.S. soldiers and innocent civilians around the world.

Antipersonnel landmines maim and kill upwards of 18,000 people each year, mostly children, farmers, and other innocent civilians. An estimated 80 million landmines, buried in over 80 countries, lie in wait of innocent footsteps. These hidden weapons render land useless for cultivation, inhibiting economic development in many countries struggling to escape poverty.

Warriors and pacifists stand together on this issue: the U.S. should ban antipersonnel landmines now. Landmines caused over 100,000 U.S. Army casualties since 1942, including one-third of all casualties in Vietnam and the Gulf War. Several months ago, you received a letter from eight retired U.S. Generals. They urged you to join the Mine Ban Treaty. The Generals wrote that eliminating the use of landmines "would enhance our [U.S.] combat mobility and effectiveness and, most importantly, protect our nation's sons and daughters when we send them into harm's way."

So long as the United States remains outside the Mine Ban Treaty, it gives cover to those so-called "problem countries," paramilitaries, and other armed struggle groups who use landmines irresponsibly. If exceptions can be made for the United States, why not for them? Thus, the U.S. is part of the problem until it joins the treaty.

Most nations of the world have joined the Mine Ban Treaty. All NATO allies are states parties the treaty, except Turkey, which, on April 6, 2001, announced its intention to accede. All countries in the Western Hemisphere have joined, except Cuba. Isn't it time that the U.S. joined with its European allies and neighbors of this hemisphere to eliminate this indiscriminate weapon?




Joe Volk
Executive Secretary

 

[The Smoking Man]

My reaction? It has come to late. The US has borne Iranian theocracy too long. The same goes for the Iranians.

Honestly I can't see why anyone would oppose an attack on Iran even if it is nuclear.

1. Iran is a threat to the world.
2. Iran is a theocratic dictatorship. A dictatorship can have no rights.

Did the USA and the UK take this into consideration when they toppled the Democratic government in the 1950's and installed the Shah of Iran as a dictator in their place?

You got a revolt when the people found they had no voice.

That revolt was led by Imam and the Ayatolla Khomeni.

When will you figure it out that the list of nations hostile to the USA in the Middle East are exactly the same countries that the west has interfered with over the last century?

The biggest threats: Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine.

Who else is 'pissed' in the world? ... Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines ... Shall we start on the list of South American and Carribean nations?

Are you seeing a pattern?

You see your history written by you as the benevolent 'papa' image in the world. Most of these other nations see you as the aggressor.

 

[pattylou]

My reaction? It has come to late. The US has borne Iranian theocracy too long. The same goes for the Iranians.

Honestly I can't see why anyone would oppose an attack on Iran even if it is nuclear.

1. Iran is a threat to the world.
2. Iran is a theocratic dictatorship. A dictatorship can have no rights.

WOW!

Are you aware that most Iranians are human beings with the same drives, hopes, and dreams as every other human being?

Are you aware that if they turned the argument around they would easily have equal reason to nuke the US (the wording might be tweaked.)

Are you familiar with the expression "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind?

(And, are you American? Just curious.)

 

[The Smoking Man]

WOW!

Are you aware that most Iranians are human beings with the same drives, hopes, and dreams as every other human being?

Are you aware that if they turned the argument around they would easily have equal reason to nuke the US (the wording might be tweaked.)

Are you familiar with the expression "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind?

(And, are you American? Just curious.)

Ironically, this seems to be the attitude of many Conservatives around the world.

"Kill them all and let god sort them out."

He talks of a dictatorship and then condemns all those who are imprisoned under it like they are able to do something about it.

It's that 'acceptable collateral damage' level that the US draws so high when it comes to 'protecting' god fearing Americans.

 

[Skyhunter]

Interesting fact, the word "Allah" was also the name of the cheif god they worshipped.

YahWeh was the Hebrew God of war. When evolving a religion from polytheistic to monotheistic, keep the chief god and call the others aspects of the one deity.

 

[Skyhunter]

If you kill an enemy, all his friends and family become your enemy.

The only sure way to destroy an enemy is to make him your friend.

 

[Smurf]

My reaction? It has come to late. The US has borne Iranian theocracy too long. The same goes for the Iranians.

Honestly I can't see why anyone would oppose an attack on Iran even if it is nuclear.

Oh I'm not opposed to an attack on Iran, even if it were nuclear. I'm opposed to the ensuing News Headline that reads "USA kills millions for no ****ing reason"

1. Iran is a threat to the world.
2. Iran is a theocratic dictatorship. A dictatorship can have no rights.

What about the people that live there? Do they have rights?

 

[Smurf]

Pre-emptive invasion: Agreed, a complicated question. For my generation, who had not lived through the Cuban missile crisis and so on, but had grown up on the idea that the US promoted peace and tolerance (I recall one issue after another - Watergate, the Iran hostage crisis, etc) being dealt with honorably - or at least the attempt to do so. Anyway, for me (and I assume others) the act of preemption (ultimately shown to be ill conceived) obliterated what it meant to be an American. I felt very grieved for years, as I realized the American Identity was being forced into a new mold.

But certainly in history there were times when pre-emptive acts were considered --- although never acted upon.

The USA has not launched a pre-emptive attack in decades (if any, I can't think of one off the top of my head). The war in iraq was preventive if anything at all.

In my mind pre-emtpive war is perfectly fine.

For example - someone is flying a squadron of bombers towards NY, and the US launches a pre-emptive attack to destroy those bombers.
There was no imminent threat to the US before the invasion of Iraq. The justification for Iraq was to prevent possible future attacks on the US, there was no imminent threat, therefor it was preventive war, which is never acceptable.

 

[BobG]

The USA has not launched a pre-emptive attack in decades (if any, I can't think of one off the top of my head). The war in iraq was preventive if anything at all.

In my mind pre-emtpive war is perfectly fine.

For example - someone is flying a squadron of bombers towards NY, and the US launches a pre-emptive attack to destroy those bombers.
There was no imminent threat to the US before the invasion of Iraq. The justification for Iraq was to prevent possible future attacks on the US, there was no imminent threat, therefor it was preventive war, which is never acceptable.

I agree a pre-emptive war is acceptable. If enemy troops are assembling on your borders or en route to set up on your borders, you'd be a fool to give them them the choice of when to start the war.

Actually, the justification for Iraq was as a pre-emptive war to avert an imminent threat. The fact that there was no imminent threat points to incompetence of the Bush administration, not that the concept was wrong. There's one key rule for pre-emptive wars - don't be wrong!

Being wrong transcends all motivations and all political affiliations. You're wrong on something that big, you should count on being fired.

Or maybe that's being a bit harsh. It's probably a mistake to just consider Hussein an idiot. It's possible he was very smart - a lot smarter than Bush and his staff. It's not an entirely outrageous thought. Say what you may about Hussein's morals, but the only big mistake he made was a grave miscalculation in deciding to invade Kuwait. Before Kuwait, conditions were steadily improving in Iraq and Iraq would most likely be one of the richer, more powerful nations in the Middle East today without the repercussions from Kuwait.

 

[Smurf]

I agree a pre-emptive war is acceptable. If enemy troops are assembling on your borders or en route to set up on your borders, you'd be a fool to give them them the choice of when to start the war.

Basically. Yes.

Actually, the justification for Iraq was as a pre-emptive war to avert an imminent threat. The fact that there was no imminent threat points to incompetence of the Bush administration, not that the concept was wrong. There's one key rule for pre-emptive wars - don't be wrong!

The justification used was that Saddam has WMD. This is a justification for preventive war. The fact that the Bush administration lied and used the word pre-emptive doesn't change that it was a preventive war. It just means they were less honest with the people in trying to scare them into thinking saddam was an imminent threat. The fact that they lied about the WMD in the first place makes the act even more dispicable.

Being wrong transcends all motivations and all political affiliations. You're wrong on something that big, you should count on being fired.

I don't agree with that. You can be wrong, so long as you're not irrational. If a squadron of bombers were flying towards Paris from Germany I would fully expect France to destroy them as soon as possible. If it later turns out there was a bug in their navigation computers and they didn't know where they were, I won't turn around and condemn France for destroying them

(Yes I realize this example is illogical, but it illustrates the point)

The invasion of Iraq was based on irrational justification, wrong or not doesn't matter. The fact that a reasonable person would not have had the same conclusion makes it unforgivable.

Oddly enough, if they had been right, it wouldn't really have mattered that they were irrational in getting their, so long as they don't try it again.

 

[2CentsWorth]

Is Iran a threat? How do we define this? Because of nuclear related activities? Aside from being reminded of the number of countries that already have nuclear weapons, it is only a threat if the country is being aggressive towards us, isn't it? And wouldn't that describe the US more than Iran where this relationship is concerned?

In the meantime, the US might remember that there is a signficant pro western population within Iran. Could it be that the Iranian government is egging the US into aggressive behavior, thus removing any support of the west by it's people? Please tell me the Bush administration isn't going to be out smarted by Middle Eastern leaders again.

 

[BobG]

Is Iran a threat? How do we define this? Because of nuclear related activities? Aside from being reminded of the number of countries that already have nuclear weapons, it is only a threat if the country is being aggressive towards us, isn't it? And wouldn't that describe the US more than Iran where this relationship is concerned?

In the meantime, the US might remember that there is a signficant pro western population within Iran. Could it be that the Iranian government is egging the US into aggressive behavior, thus removing any support of the west by it's people? Please tell me the Bush administration isn't going to be out smarted by Middle Eastern leaders again.

I would base the idea of whether a country is a threat or not by the likelihood of it causing problems for its neighbors or others. The types of weapons they have determine the magnitude of the threat. If a country has shown the desire to invade its neighbors, it's a threat. Nuclear weapons turn a threat into a huge threat. Nuclear weapons don't help a country invade its neighbors, but it eliminates the threat of retribution.

Nuclear proliferation is a separate problem. The more countries that rely on nuclear weapons, the greater the likelihood of at least one of them resorting to using them. The US-USSR was a high stakes game where things got pretty dicey at least once (the Turkey-Cuba missile crisis). India-Pakistan is another scary situation where two nuclear powers have regular confrontations.

Iran developing nuclear weapons would be a bad thing, with a decent chance for bad consequences, depending upon what happens in Iraq (a traditional Iran foe). It increases the chances for disaster, but I don't think it necessarily makes a disaster likely. I'd still consider nuclear weapons in North Korea more dangerous than nuclear weapons in Iran.

 

[McGyver]

In the Mind of Religious Extremists

One could attempt to understand the reasoning and motivation behind Middle East terrorism, by considering how the extreme religious right in the U.S. might react if strict covenants of Christian beliefs were thought at risk. One could do so with two deeply held beliefs in the U.S. religious movement: abortion, and nudity (w/ prostitution).

Imagine just for a moment HOW the religious right would react to the sight of abortion clinics on every street corner of many towns, and nudity and prostitution legal and widely available throughout cities and communities. There would be real TROUBLE. How many of you recall what happened to abortion clinics back in the 80s and 90s? We had real fanatics here, and clinics have nearly all but closed, and nudity material today is hidden and comes in a sealed wrapper.

Some in the Middle East are fanatical that their land is a holy land, and for how it may be used. It's not like Saudi Arabia is a democracy or anything, nor are its citizens allowed any input on policy, nor sharing of the wealth from sale of the oil.

When one views that region's living conditions and lack of freedom's in this light, and compares it against the U.S., it becomes a little easier to understand the increasing popularity of its religious fanatism.

Brains will be braun most any day of the week. Put your thinking caps on!

 

[Entropy]

1. Iran is a threat to the world.

Yep, everyday I wake up in terror, fearing that Iran will invade Florida.

2. Iran is a theocratic dictatorship. A dictatorship can have no rights.

What you fail to understand is that Iran is a sovereign nation, meaning that it's people accept it's authority. If their people truly wanted a different government then they would rise up and overthrow the government, trust me, civilians outnumber the army 100 to 1. Dictators can only keep power through fear, if the civilians are too scard to rise up and take responcibility for their own country then it's their choice to remain under a dictatorship.

 

[SOS2008]

Nuclear proliferation is a separate problem. The more countries that rely on nuclear weapons, the greater the likelihood of at least one of them resorting to using them. The US-USSR was a high stakes game where things got pretty dicey at least once (the Turkey-Cuba missile crisis). India-Pakistan is another scary situation where two nuclear powers have regular confrontations.

Iran developing nuclear weapons would be a bad thing, with a decent chance for bad consequences, depending upon what happens in Iraq (a traditional Iran foe). It increases the chances for disaster, but I don't think it necessarily makes a disaster likely. I'd still consider nuclear weapons in North Korea more dangerous than nuclear weapons in Iran.

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) theory is that this is the best deterrence to war. In view of this theory, India and Pakistan may likely have a cold war, with small conventional skirmishes at best. The fear has always been whether a leader will come to power who isn't rationale and has access to the red button. From this perspective I agree with 2CentsWorth that I'm more concerned about Bush than the Iranian government. And as for Iraq and Iran, the more recent conflicts in history were perpetrated by Saddam to create an external enemy diversion to his own abuses and domestic issues. Sound familiar?

North Korea is more desperate, but not irrational, and lacks a long-term capability beyond a nuclear strike. These countries want these weapons to protect themselves from the bully on the block. I'm not worried about attacks from either country as long as they are not first threatened by the U.S. and backed against a wall. My only concern might be that NK could sell nukes for food, or Iran could sell nukes to OBL -- But doubtful, because NK wants to keep their nukes, and Iran is rational (despite what people want to believe) and would not help terrorism to this extreme IMO.

Fear mongering is a tool perfected by the Bush administration, and the real root of current instability in the world.

 

[Antiphon]

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) theory is that this is the best deterrence to war. [...] The fear has always been whether a leader will come to power who isn't rationale and has access to the red button. From this perspective I agree with 2CentsWorth that I'm more concerned about Bush than the Iranian government.

SOS, you and 2cents have lost the right to be taken seriously here anymore. Why don't
you head back to the DU where this kind of bile is welcomed. And if on
the off chance you're actually serious then please seek help. The roots
of this virtual political hate speech are psychological, not philosophical.


North Korea is a problem, but it's just China's counterweight in the region.
And as insane as Kim might be, he's no Muslim. The Islamic thugs running
Iran have stated over and over again their desire to incinerate Israel and
the US. Unlike some of the terminally naive left-wingers in here, I believe
them.

 

[SOS2008]

SOS, you and 2cents have lost the right to be taken seriously here anymore. Why don't
you head back to the DU where this kind of bile is welcomed. And if on
the off chance you're actually serious then please seek help. The roots
of this virtual political hate speech are psychological, not philosophical.


North Korea is a problem, but it's just China's counterweight in the region.
And as insane as Kim might be, he's no Muslim. The Islamic thugs running
Iran have stated over and over again their desire to incinerate Israel and
the US. Unlike some of the terminally naive left-wingers in here, I believe
them.

There you go, making assumptions about other members again. I'm quite certain I have studied politics and global affairs more than the average person, including you. And I'm quite certain it is not for you to say what member can be taken seriously, or who should head where.

Let me clarify -- I am not saying NK is not of concern, nor that proliferation of nuclear weapons is a good thing. I'm just saying to put it in proper perspective, and in your case you might try putting yourself in another's shoes. If you were an Iranian, would you not fear the U.S. more than Americans fear Iran? The problem here in the U.S. is lack of understanding and therefore susceptibility to fear mongering, which the Bush administration excels at. We need a real foreign policy in which we've ascertained what is a true threat--when, where, why, and not just have knee-jerk reactions to everything, particularly military ones.

 

[Smurf]

SOS, you and 2cents have lost the right to be taken seriously here anymore. Why don't
you head back to the DU where this kind of bile is welcomed. And if on
the off chance you're actually serious then please seek help. The roots
of this virtual political hate speech are psychological, not philosophical.

Believe me. So have you.

North Korea is a problem, but it's just China's counterweight in the region.
And as insane as Kim might be, he's no Muslim.

What does that mean? Does not being a muslim make someone less violent? As non-muslim as Kim might be he is still a dictator WITH nuclear weapons and WITH the capability of getting them TO AMERICA - UNLIKE Iran you bloody racist.

The Islamic thugs running Iran have stated over and over again their desire to incinerate Israel and the US. Unlike some of the terminally naive left-wingers in here, I believe them.

HAVE THEY STATED
that they want to do it in a way that will cause millions of innocent deaths and ruin the land forever?
HAVE THEY STATED
they are willing to do it at any cost, even if it means their own complete destruction.
HAVE THEY STATED
that they don't care about any of the consequences, both international and domestic, of nuking a country for no reason.

I don't think they have.

Maybe the israeli's and american's should try solving their problems with something other than force for once. Who knows, it might even work. I mean, all those wars obviously didn't if you're still scared of israel getting attack. Just a suggestion.

 

[Informal Logic]

Since N Korea has already been discussed before, I move on to the topic of Iran. If I were Iran, I would be interested in developing energy alternatives to oil. It is a finite resource, and in the meantime I would want to export as much as possible to Americans who are short term thinkers. Then, if in time there is an ability to make nukes, all the better to have protection from US aggressions. Is there a country that wants to use nukes anymore than any other country, or would you say nukes are used for insurance?

If Americans had a better understanding of other countries, cultures, beliefs, etc. the so called war on terror would not be such a mess. The same applies to our foreign policy.

 

[Archon]

SOS, you and 2cents have lost the right to be taken seriously here anymore. Why don't you head back to the DU where this kind of bile is welcomed. And if on the off chance you're actually serious then please seek help. The roots of this virtual political hate speech are psychological, not philosophical.

I hardly think it's bile to fear that Bush might be crazy enough to use nukes without real provocation. I mean, look at recent history: Bush has already invaded Iraq without reason. He has shown his unwillingness to consider the opinions of other world leaders and of his own people. His religious beliefs are such that he undoubtedly believes Muslims to be heathens unworthy of existence. He has threatened force against Iran if they continue to do anything even remotely suspicious with materials which are even remotely connected to atomic energy/bombs. Given this information, how can you not fear that Bush might be capable of launching the world into a nuclear world war? At the least, he's as dangerous as Iran or North Korea. At the most, we're already dead.

North Korea is a problem, but it's just China's counterweight in the region. And as insane as Kim might be, he's no Muslim.

I hope I misread this: you seem to be saying that the "Kim" isn't a danger just because he happens not to be a Muslim. To me, this is equating danger with Muslims, which is precisely the sort of attitude that is destroying America.

The Islamic thugs running Iran have stated over and over again their desire to incinerate Israel and the US. Unlike some of the terminally naive left-wingers in here, I believe them.

Unlike some of the terminally naive right-wingers in here, I believe that Bush is as much a danger to us as are the Iranians, if not more so. It seems to me that you're expressing a desire to incinerate Iran. How is this any better than their supposed desire to incinerate the U.S. and Israel?

 

[Skyhunter]

SOS, you and 2cents have lost the right to be taken seriously here anymore. Why don't
you head back to the DU where this kind of bile is welcomed. And if on
the off chance you're actually serious then please seek help. The roots
of this virtual political hate speech are psychological, not philosophical.

You have the right to take them seriously or not as do they you, no rights have been lost here.

You can trace the roots of modern political hate speech to the extreme ranting right-wing media that essentially started with Rush Limbaugh. Once Clinton got into office they had a focus for their hate. The ranting right-wingers gained popularity and acceptance into the mainstream media.

http://www.rackjite.com/5media.htm

Listen to Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and Rush Limbaugh, and then tell me with a straight face that the left started this hate speech. Read the transcripts of these shows through the nineties. If you can then say with a straight face that the liberal left started the hate speech then I guess maybe it is possible to lose ones right to be taken seriously.

North Korea is a problem, but it's just China's counterweight in the region.
And as insane as Kim might be, he's no Muslim. The Islamic thugs running
Iran have stated over and over again their desire to incinerate Israel and
the US. Unlike some of the terminally naive left-wingers in here, I believe
them.

Could you provide some names, dates, and quotes from these so called "Islamic thugs" so that we so called "terminally naive left-wingers" can discern for ourselves what seems to be in your opinion a foregone conclusion?