# Should America bomb Iran?



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

I was hoping to have a discussion on here about what will most likely be the most prevalent issue covered by the media over the six months (aside from, of course, whether Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie should be having a baby :roll: ).

Should America bomb Iran? Iran came forward last week to pronounce that they have now successfully completed enriching uranium. This means, if memory serves me right, that they can employ the new U-238 or U-235 element as either a source of energy or can use it to create one or several nuclear weapons. Iran's president was sabre-rattling last week, saying essentially that "Israel is heading toward annihilation". Islamic fundamentalism is extremely prevalent in Iran.

Make no mistake about it. This is going to be huge. The coming storm is going to be massive and could envelope the entire region in a bloodbath of unprecedented proportion.

The options for America (and really, this should be something that the U.N. authorizes and acts upon, but we all know that America doesn't think much of that entity in any case and certainly won't rely on their decision one way or the other), are as follows:

1. Demand one more time that Iran abandon it's nuclear program with the understanding that military action will commence if their response is non-compliance. Then, follow up immediately with strategic bombing of their nuclear installations and with a significant military presence standing by should retalliation against Israel (which is all-but inevtiable) get out of hand.

2. Continue to use diplomacy at trying to get Iran to abandon it's nuclear ambitions by providing whatever incentives they can, and rely on the hope that, if Iran does arm itself with nuclear weapons, the conventional theory of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) will nullify the threat.

These are the only two option i can see, but there may be others that i'm missing.

Here is what i think. I hate George Bush. I hate the whole war-mongering lot of them. I think they're liars, cheats, scum, and slime. I was vehemently against the Iraq war and just about any other policy initiative that the Republicans under Bush had advocated. I believe very strongly that a lot of the problems the world finds itself mired in right now is a by-product of policies, statements, and invective from the Bush administration from their disdain of the U.N. to labelling three arbitrary countries in an all-inclusive "Axis of Evil". I truly believe that if someone like Bill Clinton was in power there would be more of a dialogue with Iran and North Korea and that they may adopt a more concilliatory attitude toward the west, possibly even abandoning their nuclear programs in exchange for other considerations.

Bush will undoubtedly go down in history as the worst president in the history of America and i think America should have it's collective head examined for voting for this lunatic, not once, but TWICE!!! Even after his lies had been revealed.

However, we (and i mean "we" in the sense of Western society who pretty much share the same general values and ideology) are in an enormous amount of trouble right now if we let Iran develop a nuclear weapons program. The idea of Islamic fundamentalists having their finger on the button, to me, is utterly unthinkable. We mustn't let this happen, at any costs.

While i would certainly have reservations against a full-scale invasion, i resolutely believe that they should either abandon their nuclear ambitions or face the onslaught of American bombs.

I hope all of you can respond to this and chime in with your opinions. Please don't worry if you think you don't know much about the issue or anything like that. This is a very important issue that will effect all of us in one way or the other and it doesn't look like there's going to be any easy answers.

s.


----------



## LOSTONE (Jul 9, 2005)

The middle east.

This is not what I want to happen there but I am guessing that soon this is exactly what it will look like  .


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

Sebastian, I so agree with everything you said that there is no room for debate. per se. I HATE that we have been put in this position by our President and the thought of dropping *the* bomb makes me physically ill.

I will be interested in reading other's thoughts.

t*


----------



## enngirl5 (Aug 10, 2004)

I don't like Bush either and did NOT vote for him. I voted for the lesser of the two evils. Sometimes I think Bush makes people feel safe, and that people feel Bush actually takes action rather than just talking. I have found this to be a big reason many people I know voted for Bush. Not that I agree with that, and I pretty much avoid election talk with friends if I want to remain friends with them. I follow the don't ask don't tell thing if you voted for Bush. Cause if you did, I will inevitably think less of you. :roll: I can't help myself.

i don't know what we should do. But I do know one thing, I don't like my fate resting in the hands of these nuts in the Middle East. Why would they make it known that they finished working on their Uranium? Wonder what Bush has to say about all this?


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Oddly enough, my first reaction to this is why should America be the one to drop the bomb? And we can't and we won't. I don't see it. On the other hand this is not like The Cold War with the Soviets, where we called their bluff by increasing our defenses.

I really don't know enough about politics. It is so complicated.

YES Bush is an idiot. I think his problem is he is rigid in his thinking. Arrogant, but also sort of dull, lol. And he can't bend with changes. He is an AWFUL communicator.

N. Korea has been rattling nuclear sabres as well. Nothing new. And it was Saddam's wish to have WMD, though he didn't seem to have that pulled together (another idiot).

My greatest disgust over the Iraq war was NO PLANNING about post war Iraq. How could so many historians miss the boat in terms of how quickly the Iraqis would "change" and "adapt." It's a sad thing.

Meantime, a good book that is VERY hard to read about the history of this which does go back many Presidents ... is "The Assassin's Gate: America in Iraq" by George Packer. Also Thomas Friedman's book "From Beirut to Jerusalem." I have an IMPOSSIBLE time reading these. History is so convoluted, unpredicable, full of impossible tasks, chaging balance of power, etc.

I had to laugh a tad re: should we bomb Iran, as I'm wondering if we have enough military to carry that out. And we're seriously in debt. (I don't think this country has been this much in debt in ... how many years? Clinton balanced the budget I believe. We are in serious debt now. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Bush is not a conservative (he spends up the wazoo), though he is a hawk. Else, I don't know what he is.

But who will clean up the mess after that?

I've given up. I've decided why vote on a President. More interested in local politics. We screw up right and left, so do the leaders of other countries. Too many different POVs.

I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. Sigh. :roll:

Also, people forget that Kerry is a Catholic. I don't know how he would have reconciled many of his political decisions with that. Carter had problems as well -- trying to reconcile his Faith with his political role... in his recent book however, he explains how he tried to separate Church and State.

Problem here is, Muslim vs. Western Thought. Can't avoid that thought either. How do we reconcile this chasm of a difference?

D.


----------



## jc (Aug 10, 2004)

i think americans are mad.................... :wink:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

8) jc, you mean mad as a hatter? daft? or just mean? or angry at getting lambasted sp? regularly, lol.

Re: the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty:

(From Wikipedia)

*"Five states are permitted by the NPT to own nuclear weapons: 
France (signed 1992), the People's Republic of China (1992), 
Soviet Union (1968; obligations and rights now assumed by Russia), 
United Kingdom (1968), and the United States (1968). These were 
the only states possessing such weapons at the time the treaty was 
opened to signature, and are also the five permanent members of the 
United Nations Security Council. These 5 Nuclear Weapons States 
(NWS) agree not to transfer "nuclear weapons or other nuclear 
explosive devices" technology to other states, and non-NWS parties 
agree not to seek or develop nuclear weapons."*

OK, let's see, will France take care of this for us? No I think they've already violated the transfering of nuclear technology at minumum to other countries -- don't quote me.

China? I think they will be in charge of things in a few years, so I'm not that concerned about the U.S. being a "world leader" or whatever we are anymore. Our Empire is crumbling.

The UK? Anyone? The UK? Will you push the button on Iran?

Russia? :shock:

Too many people have too many vested interests in the Middle East. There's too much chaos there now. I have serious doubts anyone wants to push that button, but Sebastian, why leave it to the US. As jc says, we are mad, which in Brit terms I do believe is daft, lol. 8)

Oh, what a world, what a world.....

The saddest thing about Bush.... and a good many leaders who wish to be Presidents ... they know little if anything about foreign relations -- I didn't realize Bush was THAT stupid. That we are a WORLD now. That, IMHO, we can't be isolationist. Which the French want so badly ... even in Quebec!

There is a divide between being isolationists and the need to come together as one world. I don't know if that's possible. As someone once said, "We are one world, and our world has no door." Wish I remember who said that.

Bottom line:  I do not thing we have any choice but to act globally. We already are in a global economy. The world is tiny. Communication/transportation/exhange of goods and services ... it's too far along. We can't go back. We rely on each other, even if we hate each other.

"Speak softly and carry a big stick." -- Theodore Roosevelt.
Why can't I remember the simplest things?


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

> *Mr. Ahmadinejad's statements, and those of other senior Iranian officials, are always viewed with suspicion by American and international nuclear experts, because Iran has, at various times, understated nuclear activities that were later discovered, and overstated its capabilities. Analysts and American intelligence officials, bruised by their experience in Iraq, say they are uncertain whether Mr. Ahmadinejad's claim represents a real technical advance that could accelerate Iran's nuclear agenda, or political rhetoric meant to convince the world of the unstoppability of its atomic program.*


From todays New York Times.

This is the same crappolla that fueled my anxieties and those of many Americans post 9/11 in particular.

How do we know if someone is bluffing, hiding things during inspections, etc. This was where even the U.N. in Iraq had been inspecting and reinspecting Iraq for years. Was it 10 years or more and coming up...

uncertain.

NO I DO NOT AGREE WITH BUSH'S METHOD OF HANDLING CRISES. HE IS INDEED THE WORST PRESIDENT I THINK WE'VE EVER HAD -- TO THE BEST OF MY UNDERSTANDING.

BUT ANY HEAD OF STATE IN ANY COUNTRY IN THIS WORLD IS WRINGING HIS/HER HANDS OVER THIS PROBLEM WHICH OCCURS OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN HISTORY.

I WISH I HAD AN ANSWER, AND I AM RELIEVED TO KNOW I DON'T AS I DON'T WANT THAT RESPONSIBILITY.

:shock:


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

Dreamer said:


> My greatest disgust over the Iraq war was NO PLANNING about post war Iraq. How could so many historians miss the boat in terms of how quickly the Iraqis would "change" and "adapt." It's a sad thing.


Not to nitpick, but many historians didn't miss the boat. They just weren't listened to but the war-mongering Bush administration and the news hungry media outlets.

I have to say, i don't think this is merely Iran trying to gain some international attention. I think it's the real thing. And also, since when has the CIA become such an impotent organization. I'm reading the 9/11 commission report these days and combined with a lot of these stories of Iran where it just seems like they haven't a clue one way or the other whether they are a nuclear power, or are not, etc. I mean, i'm hoping that this is just all disinformation or some other espionage tactic where they just don't want the public to know what they know, but i can't help but wonder.

Also, the only reason why i think it would be up to America to do something about this is because i just don't see anyone else having the political will to do it. The Bush Administration has already proved to the world that they care nothing for the sovereignty of other nations nor the measure of world opinion. Not to mention that their military capabilities far outweighs any of the other potential aggressors. I mean...by all rights, it shouldn't be up to America to take care of this. It should be up to the U.N. But if America is going to invade Iraq against the world's wishes, then they might as well do the same to Iran, who pose a much greater threat.

s.

p.s. I wanted to respond more thoroughly but i'm horribly depressed today and couldn't muster up much of a response.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Sebastian said:


> I mean...by all rights, it shouldn't be up to America to take care of this. It should be up to the U.N. But if America is going to invade Iraq against the world's wishes, then they might as well do the same to Iran, who pose a much greater threat.


I agree with much of what you've said. And I have no answer. It's a risk one way or another.

But it seems strange that another coutry would condone our messing with Iran, when they are already pissed at us for messing with Iraq. We went in there under false pretenses. Bush used 9/11 to his advantage, but he and other Presidents before him had planned to off Saddam long before that, including Clinton.

The thing is, no one takes action, yet ultimate looks to the US to take care of garbage like this, this gets furious at us for doing so.

AGAIN, not defending BUSH!

The key thing is I don't know what anyone knows about the motives of many countries in the Middle East, save the FUndamentalist Muslim view that Western thought is corrupt. How do we deal with that? I will say, Iran has no real need for nuclear power, though it is cleaner and won't contribute to global warming (yet another discussion I won't get into). Iran knows they're sitting on gold, that not just the US needs. *Every country in this world depends on oil. Yes, the US is extraordinarily wasteful. Horrible contributers. But we are a far bigger country than the smaller countries in Europe. And people are terrified of nuclear power. Alternative energy is expensive to convert to.*

But literally, we have stretched our military so thin at this point in Afhanistan/Iraq, etc., etc., even a ground war I think is out of the question.

*I have NO CLUE. None.*

I don't even think Iran fears us, or fears our retaliation in the same way the Soviet Union did. Everytime they upped the ante, so did we. In that sense it worked.

I love my state where I live. My home. I want to hide in the Upper Penninsula in a small shack and just live a normal, simple life.

Sebastian, I hope this means we won't be able to get together for a cuppa' Joe sometime, lol. Yeah, talking about politics and religion is so touchy. But it needs to be discussed.

*I have no IDEA what we should do. What the U.N. should do. What any other country should do. But I think other countries would be mad as hornets at us if the US got involed now in Iran. Same mess w/North Korea.*

The world is too complicated. A great distraction though. I enjoy discussing things down here these days versus spending too much time on DP. There are plenty of nervous Americans who don't have the answer to this at all. What the Hell can we do as citizens at this point?

AAAAEEEEEEEE.
Troubled times, troubled times.
D :?


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

> i think americans are mad....................


No, I think JC meant that Americans are mad because they throw their weight (no pun intended...perhaps) around without the slighest idea regarding the cultural implications of their actions. Us Brits have learnt by our colonial mistakes.

Because it's they have no culture of their own, I'd guess. 8) Except the Indians, and they killed all them.


----------



## widescreened (Jun 22, 2005)

How fickle and forgetful the masses are!!
When does someone change from goodguy to badguy?
Im referring to the american support for the taliban against the soviets,arming them and training them,and the same thing with Saddam,arming and training him too.The list is much longer too,but these 2 examples are the most appropriate in todays geopolitical world.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Sorry you're depressed today.
I am merely avoiding doing about 12 errands and 3 projects.



sebastian said:


> Not to nitpick, but many historians didn't miss the boat. They just weren't listened to but the war-mongering Bush administration and the news hungry media outlets.


I wasn't clear on that one. I guess what I meant was someone like Condi Rice is an expert in Foreign affairs. I don't understand how "All the President's Men" and women could have cow-towed sp? to Rumsfeld as well. Many historians in general would be aware, and of course weren't heeded. Many generals, including Colin Powell wern't heeded.

I mean those within the Administration who in theory know something about history and *foreign affairs -- the ideology, history of all the other countries we need to deal with -- we're lacking in that, or so it seems*.

Yes, there is a stubbornness, rigidity to Bush. My sense is even when presented with more correct information, he isn't flexible enough to change. He can't admit to himself/or others that his POV is wrong.

Also, agreed, I don't understand how the media didn't get it straight. This is what left the average American in a quandry and completely confused. Whom to believe?

There was an arrogance in the thought that this would be an "easy task".
Rumsfeld again.



> Also, the only reason why i think it would be up to America to do something about this is because i just don't see anyone else having the political will to do it. [/b]The Bush Administration has already proved to the world that they care nothing for the sovereignty of other nations nor the measure of world opinion. Not to mention that their military capabilities far outweighs any of the other potential aggressors. I mean...by all rights, it shouldn't be up to America to take care of this. It should be up to the U.N. But if America is going to invade Iraq against the world's wishes, then they might as well do the same to Iran, who pose a much greater threat.[/b]
> 
> s.


I suppose one could say Bush has no respect for soveriengnty of other nations. I don't know what his story is. He is on a mission of some sort, but I don't know what his true personal motives are anymore.

But obviosly those who hijacked planes, crashed two in the WTC, one into the Pentagon, and supposedly there was one more that never got off the ground that was earmarked for the Whitehouse...

*well.... these Fundamentalist Muslims have no concern for the soveriegnty of Western Nations. They have no concern for Israel, for Europe, etc. So much tribalism everywhere!*

I think there is an overall desire shared by most Western countries (I keep leaving out the French) that keeping individual nationalism is important, but isolation isn't a great idea -- we depend on each other -- but this concept is also held by Middle Eastern countries.

There is that split between Middle East and West, and indeed between other nations and the West. I don't know how we solve it. *How do we fight extreme Fundamentalism on both sides?*

Also, I know the Brits are strong allies. Why didn't Blair get the info straight? Why did he go along with this as well. Why can't we say that Blair doesn't care about the sovreignty of other nations? Or is that the consensus on Blair... I don't know enough about him to comment.

*I don't know the answer, but why did Blair participate in this and offer us the most assistance? I don't see Blair as someone as dull as Bush, as rigid. Would you say Blair has no respect for the sovereignty sp! of other nations?*

This is far too complicated. But I'm curious about that.

No clue.
None.

D


----------



## Monkeydust (Jan 12, 2005)

It's quite clear what the US will do eventually...invade or attack Iran.

As to what they _should_ do, I prefer to ignore the two options given and simply opt for "do nothing". I'm pretty sure that Iran isn't actually developing nuclear weapons, only nuclear power. Even if they were developing nuclear weapons, I wouldn't be too bothered.


----------



## agentcooper (Mar 10, 2005)

hmmm...first off, i'd like to say that it's nice to see a good discussion on here. i missed you guys!

it's my opinion that the u.s. and the u.n. should work together on what to do about _both_ iran and n. korea. i really, REALLY wish america hadn't started the iraq war without the approval of the world and i'd hate to see us start another war all by our lonesome. i don't know how the leader of this huge country, could think that it's _not_ important to have the u.n.'s approval to start a war that is costing us many lives (american, british, spanish, iraqi, etc..), not to mention billions upon billions of dollars.

i hate seeing what bush has done to our foreign politics...he is such a bumbling *fool*! i'd like to point out that like enngirl, i did not vote for bush in either election (and i did vote in both elections). i actually didn't know anyone, aside from my ultra-conservative grandparents, who did vote for him....and i live in utah, which is one of the most conservative states in the union. i suppose i must surround myself with more liberal-minded people (thank god!).


----------



## enngirl5 (Aug 10, 2004)

Yes I live in an ultraconservative state too. So all I see all day long are bumper stickers of John Deere, confederate flags, and "W". It's a lovely state.



> As to what they should do, I prefer to ignore the two options given and simply opt for "do nothing". I'm pretty sure that Iran isn't actually developing nuclear weapons, only nuclear power. Even if they were developing nuclear weapons, I wouldn't be too bothered.


The only problem is, we need to be very sure. These people have no qualms about sacrificing their own lives to kill us.

Did anyone see the news on the recent audio tapes released of the plane going down on 9/11?


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Everyone, 
Having some knowledge of foreign relations and the State Departments current agenda, the US is NOT going to ever attack North Korea ( they are imploding without our help) and will not invade Iran until at least 2010, and only if they absolutely must. We dont have the current resources to invade Iran. Its that simple. Plus, there is also some hope through a diplomatic compromise of enriching the uranium in Russia (which in my opinion will backfire when the russians give them the fissionable material under the table anyways). If they were smart, they would call this bluff publicly. They really are intending to build nuclear weapons. Their "power plants" that they are building for "peaceful purposes" are all located in underground bunkers. Huh? Doesnt sound like my local Ohio Edison plant, but maybe thats just how they do things in Iran.....

They will not, however, call our bluff. Because our little sister in the East, Israel, has already openly stated that they WILL drop nukes on the Iranian facilities if it looks like they get the materials afterall. Its not going to be a land invasion. The Israeli Airforce already has plans on how to drop them, where, and what kind (bunker busting). And dont think our State Department wont help, and then deny any knowledge. Plausible deniability is the name of the game. Thats why we have "NOC" agents - Non official Cover agents. When they're caught, they have no diplomatic immunity. They're cut adrift, disowned, locked in foreign prisons with no affiliation to us. Officially they dont exist and are lost. But they're the best kind of spies to have.

As far as presidents go, I obviously agree with some of President Bush's stances/attributes (ie, stem cells - I wont get into it here, but biologically, adult are more useful and I ethically cant deny the plausiblity of a baby ,or embryo, being a human life) and I obviously disagree with some of them (the Iraqi war was an unjust war - in short, unethical). But I tend to find sweeping generalizations of ANYTHING distasteful. People, most politicians are dumb. I've worked on their campaigns. What you vote for is the image - the party platform, the focus groups, the polls, the way the handlers make them speak. When they arent dumb, they fall into the ineffective category. Look at Carter. Brilliant. Not good with image. But then again, politicians need to be people persons, and how many geniuses do you know who are good with people? The best you can hope for is middle of the road. Bush has principles. He has guts. He has pathetic public speaking abilities and poor planning. He, like every other president, is a slave to corporate campaign contributors. But guess what? Everyone in public office has other people do the planning. The dumb guy just gives the okay. The fate of the middle east, surveillance of private citizens, the balance of western power, and the future of oil consumption are all on the table since 9/11. EVERYONE in Washington has a finger in this pie. Not just conservatives, or liberals. Every lobbyist group, some right, some left, and mostly, the lobbyists of people who have money (who dont care about parties, or ethics, or us - they care about their corporation coffers) are pushing for the Iraqi War, the Patriot Act, etc....These plans have been in State Department, Intelligence Agency, and Pentagon drawers for years. Your buying the public dance that politicians do if you blame everything on their stupidity - Who do you think gets them into office? You - or the money that convinced you that the Oil, bio-pharmaceutical, carmakers, etc....ponied up in advertising? Please, everyone - WAKE UP.

A study was recently done, and in 9 out of 10 races, whoever spent the most money won. Simple as that. Everyone is being conditioned to oversimplify everything - to lose the grey of life in a black and white tabloid reality that DOESNT EXIST. And as long as everyone is content with half-truths, gross generalizations, and the dog and pony show - THINGS WILL NOT GET DONE CORRECTLY IN SOCIETY, INNOCENTS WILL SUFFER, AND THE OBSCENE SHOW WILL CONTINUE. Educate yourself. Dont be content to be like everyone else. If your starting to sound like your FOX news, or your CNN, or your Evangelical Network, or your college proffesor - do a double take and begin looking at things from a point of objectivity. When humanity begins doing this, and stops following the crowd, society will be a different, better, more exciting place. Dont shy away from people who challenge your ideas. Take them on. Sharpen what you know or learn from them if you're wrong. I want to eventually go into politics, but I dont know if it could handle me.

Peace
Homeskooled

Disclaimer : The above statement is based on numerous sources - Time Magazine, The Associated Press, personal experiences on 2 campaigns, one visit to the Republican National Convention and meetings with several congressmen and Senators, friends who work within the Pentagon, International Relations classes by an ex-State department officer, Fr. Sewickey (for whom I am forever grateful), a classical training in politics in Rome and Greece, and my own gut intutions on how it is all tying together. None of this is verbatim from anyone's mouth but my own, some of them are my own theories entirely. I just dont want anyone thinking I know more or less than what I do.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Dear Home,
I buy a good bit of what you say, and I claim near total ignorance about politics on the whole. And I do try to ask questions and understand.

I also think you're correct that the US won't take any action right away, and ah, I forgot about Israel. If Mr. Sharon were still around perhaps he would have already taken Iran out. Forgot about Israel! How could I?

It is so difficult to understand the complexity of politics. I try and try and try to understand little bits and pieces, but feel rather helpless.
Best,
D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

PS

*No one has answered my question about Tony Blair. Doesn't he have some culpability? I wish someone would just explain that to me. Give me a POV on his involvement. It seemed to be more than simply being a strong ally. I think he was also hoodwinked into the WMD business. But does he have no respect for the sovereignty of other nations?

And again, why do we keep excusing countries that threaten US? It isn't all our fault is it? Why terrorists crash airplanes and blow people up? In the US in Europe in Japan in Britain, etc.?*

Just asking. I don't understand how this will be sorted out. I just don't.


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

HS,

I respect you a great deal as both a scientifically-minded thinker and as one who seems to parallel my way of thinking when it comes to ethics and spirituality and the like. I don't think i need to ask you not to take this personally as you're one who can appreciate when someone is attacking the argument and not the person.

A lot of what you said just doesn't wash with me and i'm going to address the points one by one.



Homeskooled said:


> Having some knowledge of foreign relations and the State Departments current agenda, the US is NOT going to ever attack North Korea ( they are imploding without our help)


Agreed. If they were going to do it, they would have done it by now, and as they constantly seem to be pulling more troops out of South Korea, an attack on the North, in any form, really doesn't seem likely. And you're right...N. Korea has a starving population and a military who cannot possibly be maintained at their pitiful rate of GNP.



Homeskooled said:


> and will not invade Iran until at least 2010, and only if they absolutely must. We dont have the current resources to invade Iran. Its that simple.


I wonder where you came up with 2010? Just curious. And how is it that you think that the U.S. doesn't have the resources? I realize they maintain a military presence in several countries, but first of all, any attack on Iran would start off as a tactical air strike supported by warships and followed, only if necessary, by infantry from Iran's western border. For that region, Iran has a strong army, and is much further advanced technologically then, say, Iraq. But a simple realignment of forces would be the only thing necessary to undertake an invasion. Frankly, "we don't have the current resources", at a time when the military budget is at an all-time high and the threat is nuclear proliferation to an Islamic fundamentalist regime when the U.S. isn't exactly on the top of their Christmas list strikes me, a peace-loving Canadian :wink: , as unacceptable. I can only imagine how the war hungry hawks in the DoD feel about this. What i mean is...if the political will was there, it could be done.

Maybe i'm being naive...but if the stakes are high enough there is absolutely no reason why the U.S., the greatest military power in history, shouldn't be able to handle a war on two fronts, if absolutely necessary...especially since one of them is already officially over... :roll:












Homeskooled said:


> Plus, there is also some hope through a diplomatic compromise of enriching the uranium in Russia (which in my opinion will backfire when the russians give them the fissionable material under the table anyways). If they were smart, they would call this bluff publicly.


Sorry, i'm not trying to be nitpicky here, but i'm really not sure what you're saying. Who is calling who's bluff?



Homeskooled said:


> They really are intending to build nuclear weapons. Their "power plants" that they are building for "peaceful purposes" are all located in underground bunkers. Huh? Doesnt sound like my local Ohio Edison plant, but maybe thats just how they do things in Iran.....


I agree. Iran, like most nations who are able to get away with it, is seeking to become a nuclear power. This is enormously dangerous to both the balance of power in the region and the geopolitical arena in general. Iran cannot be allowed to achieve this ability. I know, i know...no one should have nuclear weapons and i would support any kind of universal disarmament program, but for the time being, Iran shouldn't have nukes. It should really be self-evident why not.



Homeskooled said:


> Because our little sister in the East, Israel, has already openly stated that they WILL drop nukes on the Iranian facilities if it looks like they get the materials afterall.


As far as i know, and correct me if i'm wrong (with cited sources of course), Israel has never even publically admitted to having nukes, let alone using them on Iran. I know they said they will take out Iran's nuclear facilities if the U.S. won't, but i have yet to see a report where they said they'd use nuclear weapons to do this.



Homeskooled said:


> As far as presidents go, I obviously agree with some of President Bush's stances/attributes (ie, stem cells - I wont get into it here, but biologically, adult are more useful and I ethically cant deny the plausiblity of a baby ,or embryo, being a human life) and I obviously disagree with some of them (the Iraqi war was an unjust war - in short, unethical). But I tend to find sweeping generalizations of ANYTHING distasteful. People, most politicians are dumb. I've worked on their campaigns. What you vote for is the image - the party platform, the focus groups, the polls, the way the handlers make them speak. When they arent dumb, they fall into the ineffective category.


So...what are you saying? We should stop voting? Regardless of the dynamics behind the person we vote for...we should expect nothing less than the best from them. If they are mere puppets who don't know any better then they should bloody well be guillotined or something and get a leader in there that does know what they're doing.

I know what you're saying though. I understand how dangerous it is to label someone as "dumb" just because they can't speak eloquently. And I understand that it is an egregious breech of etiquette to use "sweeping generalizations" of people, places, and things. But we've entered a new era with the Bush administration. We really have. I remember abandoning my "sweeping generalization" rule years ago with this idiot. And you know why I did? Because i'd constantly go on news websites or start talking to people about why i thought the Republicans were destroying everything sacred in the world only to have people tune me out after a few minutes. As FOX news well knows, "sweeping generalizations" certainly get people's attention.

People don't get it. It's utterly unbelievable to me, but they really don't get it! We are running out of time on this planet. A catastrophe of global proportions is upon us in the way of so-called "global warming" and people are still passing it off as dubious science. I'm surprised, HS, with your intellect and your obvious understanding of science that this doesn't seem to bother you when you talk about Bush and his cronies. They are basically our last chance, as a global community, to save us from this catastrophic freefall we're in. America represents 25% of the greenhouse gases that are emitted into the atmosphere. The Bush administration has done nothing but impede and, in some cases reverse, any kind of environmental progress the United States could have made. In a few more years, if it isn't too late already, we will reach our global Event Horizon, and we will be unable to steer away from our inexorable path toward total planetary destruction.

This is very close to fact. And if there is anyone on here who questions the very real dangers of global warming, i suggest they get off their asses and read something about it. We really don't have much time left and it's absolutely amazing to me that this issue is still given a backseat on most political platforms.



Homeskooled said:


> Bush has principles. He has guts.


To this, I would simply say: "PROVE IT!"



Homeskooled said:


> He has pathetic public speaking abilities and poor planning. He, like every other president, is a slave to corporate campaign contributors. But guess what? Everyone in public office has other people do the planning. The dumb guy just gives the okay.


How can you honestly sit there and attribute the disasterous way he's run his presidency to trifling euphemisms like "poor planning". His "poor planning" is causing American lives to be lost in Iraq. His "poor planning" is running you guys up on a federal deficit which is nothing short of hysterically disproportionate. His "poor planning" has offended several nations worldwide who now, instead of having a dialogue with America, now want to build a nuclear bomb and fire it your way. His "poor planning" has effectively rendered impotent the United Nations as an international collective of equals and has made international justice and law a capricious joke. His "poor planning", you mark my words, is what is going to facilitate a thousand more "New Orleans situations" due to the unrelenting catastrophes we will all face as a result of global warming. And you know, none of this even touches on the civil rights violations his office has perpetually promoted, at home and abroad.

I realize again, it's not all "HIM", but when i say Bush, i mean his administration, etc. The buck stops with him and it's just easier to say his name rather than constantly qualify who i'm attacking.



Homeskooled said:


> A study was recently done, and in 9 out of 10 races, whoever spent the most money won. Simple as that. Everyone is being conditioned to oversimplify everything - to lose the grey of life in a black and white tabloid reality that DOESNT EXIST. And as long as everyone is content with half-truths, gross generalizations, and the dog and pony show - THINGS WILL NOT GET DONE CORRECTLY IN SOCIETY, INNOCENTS WILL SUFFER, AND THE OBSCENE SHOW WILL CONTINUE. Educate yourself. Dont be content to be like everyone else. If your starting to sound like your FOX news, or your CNN, or your Evangelical Network, or your college proffesor - do a double take and begin looking at things from a point of objectivity. When humanity begins doing this, and stops following the crowd, society will be a different, better, more exciting place. Dont shy away from people who challenge your ideas. Take them on. Sharpen what you know or learn from them if you're wrong. I want to eventually go into politics, but I dont know if it could handle me.


I agree that people should educate themselves. But i don't like the implication which seems to be the hallmark of Bush supporters, that somehow "the world is much more complicated", and the naysayers are all just people who have watched one too many Michael Moore movies and are out of their league when talking with "serious people".

I know what I'm saying. I read a helluva lot of news. And i have an arsenal of factual logic that will back up my points. The truth of the matter is that it's extremely rare that i've ever heard an interesting argument or idea coming from Bush supporters. It's usually just regurgitated invective they picked up from Bill O'Reily. Or whatever the latest propoganda rhetoric it is being puked out from the White House. "Axis of Evil", "War on Terror", etc, etc, etc.

Sigh. It's 2:16 in the morning and i have to work tomorrow morning. Sorry if i ranted a bit, and no offence meant to anyone.

Except Bush.

Idiot.

s.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Just briefly,

I think Home meant nothing can happen until after 2008 when we have our next Presidential election. Bush WILL be out, and it will be up to the next poor fool in office to figure out what to do I think. Iran has been threatening us over and over and over for years. They may indeed be goading Bush to do something, as you say he already has invaded Iraq.

Also, to the best of my understanding, listening to complaints by the military, our having to use our Air National Guardsmen, etc., we are stretched impossibly thin military-wise. Financially and in terms of manpower, in terms of supplies.

There have been a number of natural disasters -- Katrina the biggest here -- that is using up a lot of the budget on bad local planning. Not only have we been spending on the military, but there are financial problems domestically. Our national debt is HUGE, I think bigger than it's ever been.

As I understand it, we are in a bit o' trouble if we "move around" our military. We have only so many fingers to hold in the dam and the water is leaking anyway.

Re: global warming, serious problem. Yes the US is a HUGE contributer, but so is every other country in the world that uses fossil fuels in one form or another. And, in theory, the only truly clean fuel that we could implement, and is partially implemented is nuclear. And that is a huge controversy.

We must do something about that, but no one wants a nuclear plant in his/her back yard. No one. And I mean for POWER. So there are half-hearted attempts to build hy-brid cars, etc., but EVERYTHING runs on fossil fuels. We would have to shut down the world, and sadly as I understand, the reversal of global warming would only be slowed not stopped. (That was on a PBS special or something. It was rather sobering. Ironically it was Reagan who started the investigations into Global Warming.)

My two cents. But the rest, I do have disagreements w/Home about, or I don't know all the facts. But there is a degree of "Oh GOD" -- in me -- "the world never changes, we never learn from history, history repeats itself." I'm not worried, I'm resigned right now. Again, I feel helpless.
There are a good number of us who have given up on Presidential politics.

*WHY WON'T ANYONE MAKE A COMMENT ON TONY BLAIR, LOL. PLEASE!! EXPLAIN TO ME HOW OTHER COUNTRIES SEE HIM!*

Thank you, lol!


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

> *Three states - India, Pakistan, and Israel - have declined to sign the treaty.* India and Pakistan are confirmed nuclear powers, and *Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, although it is not known to have conducted tests* (see List of countries with nuclear weapons). These countries argue that the NPT creates a club of "nuclear haves" and a larger group of "nuclear have-nots" by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, but the treaty never explains on what ethical grounds such a distinction is valid.


Forgot to say re: Israel. She takes care of herself. As noted in the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, three states refused to sign. See above. Most countries are pretty certain Israel has nuclear capability.

(It also says that @20+ or more other countries have potential near immediate nuclear capability as well, so we can worry about a host of other messes on the horizon)

Google: nuclear non proliferation
There are so many loopholes it's ridiculous.


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

Dreamer,

There was a rumour going around the board that somebody said you might be hinting at wondering about Tony Blair. Well...i'm not sure what i can say about him. I simply don't hold him with as much contempt as I do Bush. The reason for this is mostly because of the environmental question and also because things like unfair trade policies are not something relevant to my current situation, having to do with England, but they do when it has to do with the U.S.

That sounded really ugly. Sorry. I'm rushing to write this and too tired to form a sentence.

Also, people had better get used to having nuclear power plants in their backyard because we very literally cannot sustain our dependence on fossil fuels for even a few years longer. But their are even more palatable options if people just took the initiative and didn't do selfish, idiotic things like purchase SUVs. Also, i'm aware that other countries have to contribute to cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions, and that's why international agreements are negotiated and drawn up. It's just that the Bush administration chooses not to participate in them (i'm speaking mostly of the Kyoto protocol here). America contributes one quarter of these gases!!! They _need_ to take the lead. Finland converting to mostly reusable energy sources is impressive and great, but globally, not nearly enough. America is the world's biggest culprit. But yes, China and India will have to immediately come around to this way of thinking as well.

Dreamer: I find it interesting that we seem to have a mutual affinity for PBS. There actually was something on Nova last night on a phenomenon known as "Global Dimming" whereby our previous predictions of the effects of global warming have been drastically _understated_ because all the pollutants in the lower atmosphere have been acting as a cooling agent. It was actually a very good show. But, unfortunately, it's shown us that things are much worse than we had ever predicted before.

s.


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Sebastian, 
I came up with 2010 because someone I know on the defense committees cited 2007 as an adequate pullout date from Iraq (thus freeing up sources). I think he's spouting me the party line, so I'm giving them 3 extra years. Even then, we will always use the country for bases. We say we wont, but history, and my common sense, tell us something else.

Yes, the US could, in theory, handle another World War, and probably win. But you know what? Politicians DO actually still have families and hearts. Senators, unlike Congressman, after bickering on the Senate floor, go out to eat for lunch together, play some raquetball, and go to each other's children's graduations. You have to have been there, in the Washington political scene, to understand it. Secondly, much more important to these men, beyond world conquest (which isnt really on anyone's agenda in Washington), is winning their elections. Do you know what the body count would be for a two front war with suicide bombings probably in New York City as retaliation?



> Sorry, i'm not trying to be nitpicky here, but i'm really not sure what you're saying. Who is calling who's bluff?


Iran should have called our bluff. They are, to an extent. Except that Israel is a problem. Onto that objection.



> I agree. Iran, like most nations who are able to get away with it, is seeking to become a nuclear power. This is enormously dangerous to both the balance of power in the region and the geopolitical arena in general. Iran cannot be allowed to achieve this ability. I know, i know...no one should have nuclear weapons and i would support any kind of universal disarmament program, but for the time being, Iran shouldn't have nukes. It should really be self-evident why not.


By the way, I know what your saying without trying to be insulting, and I agree with you.



> As far as i know, and correct me if i'm wrong (with cited sources of course), Israel has never even publically admitted to having nukes, let alone using them on Iran. I know they said they will take out Iran's nuclear facilities if the U.S. won't, but i have yet to see a report where they said they'd use nuclear weapons to do this.


You are correct. They, and Taiwan, have never officially entered the nuclear club. There's a term for this "covert" carrying of nuclear arms, and I forget it. They do this mainly because we supply them with them, which gives us final say-so if they use them. Once again, however, if they are misused, we've never taken offical responsibility. Once again, the name of the game in diplomacy is plausible deniability. However, its become such common knowledge that to deny Israel's nuclear capabilities is becoming less and less viable. If you look in Time magazine's article on the Iran crisis two months ago, a whole section of the document deals with Israeli defense department sources outlining how Iran will be attacked - nukes and all.



> So...what are you saying? We should stop voting? Regardless of the dynamics behind the person we vote for...we should expect nothing less than the best from them. If they are mere puppets who don't know any better then they should bloody well be guillotined or something and get a leader in there that does know what they're doing.


No. I'm saying that you have to either abstain from voting, run yourself if you are intelligent, or back unlikely candidates. If they are mere puppets then they should be guillotined? Who do you think will be left standing, Sebastian? Your Prime Minister? My President? Martin's Tony Blair? Who? Who hasnt sold at least a portion of their souls to wealthy men in order to be in office? Dont act so shocked - money has run the world since time immemorial, and the only hope of wresting its hold on the souls of the powerful is the antidote to greed, and thats a virtue - charity. Its also a synonym for love, according to St. Paul. But who wants to hear that, right? The first thing we ask our politicians to do is seperate their spirituality from their policy-making decisions. And we've gotten what we've asked for.



> I know what you're saying though. I understand how dangerous it is to label someone as "dumb" just because they can't speak eloquently. And I understand that it is an egregious breech of etiquette to use "sweeping generalizations" of people, places, and things. But we've entered a new era with the Bush administration. We really have. I remember abandoning my "sweeping generalization" rule years ago with this idiot. And you know why I did? Because i'd constantly go on news websites or start talking to people about why i thought the Republicans were destroying everything sacred in the world only to have people tune me out after a few minutes. As FOX news well knows, "sweeping generalizations" certainly get people's attention.


And so because the neo-cons fall into this category as well, you've decided to abandon reason - to begin to sound like them? Is this a mature or rational decision which adds to the quality of the debate? I place all conservatives and liberals who do this under the same heading - "the mob". More than a thousand years ago , a Roman senator when asked what Rome was replied that "the mob is Rome". And to placate that mob, Nero built the Roman Circus, which is as obscene as any dog or pony show we are given nowadays to fill our political stomachs. Humanity has changed little. It has gotten better, but not as much as it should be.



> eople don't get it. It's utterly unbelievable to me, but they really don't get it! We are running out of time on this planet. A catastrophe of global proportions is upon us in the way of so-called "global warming" and people are still passing it off as dubious science. I'm surprised, HS, with your intellect and your obvious understanding of science that this doesn't seem to bother you when you talk about Bush and his cronies. They are basically our last chance, as a global community, to save us from this catastrophic freefall we're in. America represents 25% of the greenhouse gases that are emitted into the atmosphere. The Bush administration has done nothing but impede and, in some cases reverse, any kind of environmental progress the United States could have made. In a few more years, if it isn't too late already, we will reach our global Event Horizon, and we will be unable to steer away from our inexorable path toward total planetary destruction.


No, people dont get it. The number one reason why the treaty has not been ratified is that the worlds two worst polluters, and our two greatest competitors, India and China, refuse to sign it because they are "growing". Of course they are - thats why industrialized nations that give health benefits to worker's families and a living wage are shipping jobs to these "second world" countries. The workers are quite content to breathe in air similar to 1950's American, Canadian, and English steel towns, providing they make 50 cents and hour. Thats usually about 30 cents more than they were making before. And once a UN treaty is signed, according to the Constitution, it trumps any domestic laws or politician. Its a grave, irrescindible decision. Its a pickle, Sebastian. Ratify it, and _some_, only some, of the world's green house gases decrease. Some of them are simply "exported" to "growing" countries who will continue to thumb their noses at the health of their own people, just to see their economies rise. There is no EPA in India. And as the factories close, about 5 million Americans lose their livelihoods. Exactly how many politicians will do this? The Bush administration has pledged 5 billion dollars a year in finding alternative fuel (and its finally getting moved to the front burner becuase of the middle east) and a reduction in green house gases by 2012 of 18 percent. I sort of doubt that. Maybe 12-15 percent. But I DO see alternative fuels becoming viable by then. Ethanol will be huge within the decade.

What would I do? I'd promise to ratify the treaty if the two other nations did, or I would introduce a less harsh treaty that would be amicable to ALL parties economies. But I probably wouldnt ratify this one under current conditions either. Someone is going to have to start coming up with new options. This either/or scenario with the Kyoto Treaty isnt working.



> To this, I would simply say: "PROVE IT!"


He is, in person, an honestly caring man. He isnt book smart - although he reads them while he travels. But he's no academic. He's had pressure on him to fire gay political staff, from the far right, and refused. He has quite a few homosexual friends. He battled alcoholism in his 30s, and left it behind by finding God. He never wanted to be president - he was asked at his father's inauguration in 1992. He isnt powerhungry. He has a good marriage, and writes his wife poetry. His daughters are a reflection of their parents - kind, well-educated. His grades were slightly better than those of John Kerry. He abhors pretense, and runs a tight ship with the White House staff. He prides himself on the fact that he has personal friends on his staff he can trust, such as "Condi", and prides himself on composing the staff of experts. There isnt a prejudiced bone in his body, unlike the stories I've heard of Hillary Clinton from a black ROTC friend of min. He detests opinion polls, and his staff has a wry sense of humor about them. They DO follow them, as do all politicians, but not to the point that the Clinton White House was a slave to them. He hates giving speeches, and prefers to talk to people one on one, and in person. He makes frequent visits to the military hospitals around Washington. The US inflicted casualty rate in this war upon the Iraqis is infinitismally smaller than from the first Gulf War, which was shorter, but killed between 100,000- 300,000 civilians. I dont agree with his Old Testament brand of justice ( or should I say Texan) - which is evidenced in the defiling of a sovereign nations rights - but I realize that he probably thought it would solve alot of problems at once. Placate the special interest groups (especially fuel companies) which put him into office, give the warhawks and strategists in the Pentagon a way to finally stabilize the Middle East with a permanent American presence, and finally eliminate a diplomatic problem (Sadaam Hussein). He isnt a saint. He still is a politician. He takes orders from the Republican National Committee, just as Clinton was an unhappy slave of the Democratic Committee. I'm sure his financial backers lean on him incessantly, and he's sold out to them. He isnt an intellectual (as I said before, only Carter was, and to a much lesser extent, Reagan). But in the final analysis, he sees himself as the captain of his own ship - there are the guts. And he is a humane person - the principles.



> How can you honestly sit there and attribute the disasterous way he's run his presidency to trifling euphemisms like "poor planning". His "poor planning" is causing American lives to be lost in Iraq. His "poor planning" is running you guys up on a federal deficit which is nothing short of hysterically disproportionate. His "poor planning" has offended several nations worldwide who now, instead of having a dialogue with America, now want to build a nuclear bomb and fire it your way. His "poor planning" has effectively rendered impotent the United Nations as an international collective of equals and has made international justice and law a capricious joke. His "poor planning", you mark my words, is what is going to facilitate a thousand more "New Orleans situations" due to the unrelenting catastrophes we will all face as a result of global warming. And you know, none of this even touches on the civil rights violations his office has perpetually promoted, at home and abroad.


When I said he was a poor planner, I was making a point that they are ALL poor planners. That isnt the President's job. Its the staff, the Defense Secretary (good ole' Powell - now theres a smart man), and the Pentagon's problem (Rumsfield - incredibly brilliant, canniving old man. Doesnt care a bit about the people of Iraq. Good with weapons though). As for New Orleans, thats a FEMA problem. Once again, Bush falls prey to another old vice of politics - cronyism. The man in charge of FEMA was a friend - heck, how often do we use FEMA, right? We need to start getting qualified people in these offices.



> I agree that people should educate themselves. But i don't like the implication which seems to be the hallmark of Bush supporters, that somehow "the world is much more complicated", and the naysayers are all just people who have watched one too many Michael Moore movies and are out of their league when talking with "serious people".


Actually, I dont know that the right usually paints the left as uneducated. Watch Michael Moore. Conservatives are painted as gun-toting hillbillies. And yes, he does indeed oversimplify. So does FOX news. And CNN. And Bill OReilly. And Rush Limbaugh. And ultra-liberal Hollywood. Oh, right. And the Associated press mucks things up, and Reuters. I'm NOT distinguishing between liberals or conservatives. I think they're all acting like "the mob." And the mob is America. You cant pick up all of this stuff from reading, either. Most of life has to be experienced to finally be understood.



> Or whatever the latest propoganda rhetoric it is being puked out from the White House. "Axis of Evil", "War on Terror", etc, etc, etc.


You know, I hate political spin. War on Terror - its just an excuse for the Patriot Act, a brilliant way to sneak mass surveillance in as legal. But I dont think anyone really gives the Axis of Evil speech the credit it deserves. It was unabashedly honest. I found it sort of refreshing. Who was on that list? Iran, North Korea, and Iraq. Now how does that list sound off to you? What, Iran isnt a major worldwide concern now? Iraq - whose denying that Iraq was number one or two in the Middle East as far as crackpot dictators and a thirst for violence? Lastly, North Korea. They did try making another nuke shortly after the speech, but its really just a long, silly bluff. Fine. Make a nuke. You've only got enough enriched plutonium and half-starved scientists to make one really inconsequential, 1940's esque bomb. Do you really want to alienate everyone shipping you famine releif (which is what we do for them - its not widely publicized). So I dont know if I would have put them on the list. I would have put China. But we arent quite THAT honest, yet (or perhaps stupid. They're getting quite militarily built up). I would definitely address their human rights abuses, though.

Okay Sebastian. To borrow a Texas term, I'm shooting from the hip. I'm not particulary fond of Bush, but I dont hate him. He's surprisingly less slimey than most of the other politicians I've met. I consider myself, as I've said before, mildly pro-Bush. In my lifetime, independents and third parties will have a chance at the White House. Then I'll be excited. Until then, I'm just not buying the liberal or conservative blather. Its just too easy, and I do most things the hard way.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Sebastian, 
I came up with 2010 because someone I know on the defense committees cited 2007 as an adequate pullout date from Iraq (thus freeing up sources). I think he's spouting me the party line, so I'm giving them 3 extra years. Even then, we will always use the country for bases. We say we wont, but history, and my common sense, tell us something else.

Yes, the US could, in theory, handle another World War, and probably win. But you know what? Politicians DO actually still have families and hearts. Senators, unlike Congressman, after bickering on the Senate floor, go out to eat for lunch together, play some raquetball, and go to each other's children's graduations. You have to have been there, in the Washington political scene, to understand it. Secondly, much more important to these men, beyond world conquest (which isnt really on anyone's agenda in Washington), is winning their elections. Do you know what the body count would be for a two front war with suicide bombings probably in New York City as retaliation?



> Sorry, i'm not trying to be nitpicky here, but i'm really not sure what you're saying. Who is calling who's bluff?


Iran should have called our bluff. They are, to an extent. Except that Israel is a problem. Onto that objection.



> I agree. Iran, like most nations who are able to get away with it, is seeking to become a nuclear power. This is enormously dangerous to both the balance of power in the region and the geopolitical arena in general. Iran cannot be allowed to achieve this ability. I know, i know...no one should have nuclear weapons and i would support any kind of universal disarmament program, but for the time being, Iran shouldn't have nukes. It should really be self-evident why not.


By the way, I know what your saying without trying to be insulting, and I agree with you.



> As far as i know, and correct me if i'm wrong (with cited sources of course), Israel has never even publically admitted to having nukes, let alone using them on Iran. I know they said they will take out Iran's nuclear facilities if the U.S. won't, but i have yet to see a report where they said they'd use nuclear weapons to do this.


You are correct. They, and Taiwan, have never officially entered the nuclear club. There's a term for this "covert" carrying of nuclear arms, and I forget it. They do this mainly because we supply them with them, which gives us final say-so if they use them. Once again, however, if they are misused, we've never taken offical responsibility. Once again, the name of the game in diplomacy is plausible deniability. However, its become such common knowledge that to deny Israel's nuclear capabilities is becoming less and less viable. If you look in Time magazine's article on the Iran crisis two months ago, a whole section of the document deals with Israeli defense department sources outlining how Iran will be attacked - nukes and all.



> So...what are you saying? We should stop voting? Regardless of the dynamics behind the person we vote for...we should expect nothing less than the best from them. If they are mere puppets who don't know any better then they should bloody well be guillotined or something and get a leader in there that does know what they're doing.


No. I'm saying that you have to either abstain from voting, run yourself if you are intelligent, or back unlikely candidates. If they are mere puppets then they should be guillotined? Who do you think will be left standing, Sebastian? Your Prime Minister? My President? Martin's Tony Blair? Who? Who hasnt sold at least a portion of their souls to wealthy men in order to be in office? Dont act so shocked - money has run the world since time immemorial, and the only hope of wresting its hold on the souls of the powerful is the antidote to greed, and thats a virtue - charity. Its also a synonym for love, according to St. Paul. But who wants to hear that, right? The first thing we ask our politicians to do is seperate their spirituality from their policy-making decisions. And we've gotten what we've asked for.



> I know what you're saying though. I understand how dangerous it is to label someone as "dumb" just because they can't speak eloquently. And I understand that it is an egregious breech of etiquette to use "sweeping generalizations" of people, places, and things. But we've entered a new era with the Bush administration. We really have. I remember abandoning my "sweeping generalization" rule years ago with this idiot. And you know why I did? Because i'd constantly go on news websites or start talking to people about why i thought the Republicans were destroying everything sacred in the world only to have people tune me out after a few minutes. As FOX news well knows, "sweeping generalizations" certainly get people's attention.


And so because the neo-cons fall into this category as well, you've decided to abandon reason - to begin to sound like them? Is this a mature or rational decision which adds to the quality of the debate? I place all conservatives and liberals who do this under the same heading - "the mob". More than a thousand years ago , a Roman senator when asked what Rome was replied that "the mob is Rome". And to placate that mob, Nero built the Roman Circus, which is as obscene as any dog or pony show we are given nowadays to fill our political stomachs. Humanity has changed little. It has gotten better, but not as much as it should be.



> eople don't get it. It's utterly unbelievable to me, but they really don't get it! We are running out of time on this planet. A catastrophe of global proportions is upon us in the way of so-called "global warming" and people are still passing it off as dubious science. I'm surprised, HS, with your intellect and your obvious understanding of science that this doesn't seem to bother you when you talk about Bush and his cronies. They are basically our last chance, as a global community, to save us from this catastrophic freefall we're in. America represents 25% of the greenhouse gases that are emitted into the atmosphere. The Bush administration has done nothing but impede and, in some cases reverse, any kind of environmental progress the United States could have made. In a few more years, if it isn't too late already, we will reach our global Event Horizon, and we will be unable to steer away from our inexorable path toward total planetary destruction.


No, people dont get it. The number one reason why the treaty has not been ratified is that the worlds two worst polluters, and our two greatest competitors, India and China, refuse to sign it because they are "growing". Of course they are - thats why industrialized nations that give health benefits to worker's families and a living wage are shipping jobs to these "second world" countries. The workers are quite content to breathe in air similar to 1950's American, Canadian, and English steel towns, providing they make 50 cents and hour. Thats usually about 30 cents more than they were making before. And once a UN treaty is signed, according to the Constitution, it trumps any domestic laws or politician. Its a grave, irrescindible decision. Its a pickle, Sebastian. Ratify it, and _some_, only some, of the world's green house gases decrease. Some of them are simply "exported" to "growing" countries who will continue to thumb their noses at the health of their own people, just to see their economies rise. There is no EPA in India. And as the factories close, about 5 million Americans lose their livelihoods. Exactly how many politicians will do this? The Bush administration has pledged 5 billion dollars a year in finding alternative fuel (and its finally getting moved to the front burner becuase of the middle east) and a reduction in green house gases by 2012 of 18 percent. I sort of doubt that. Maybe 12-15 percent. But I DO see alternative fuels becoming viable by then. Ethanol will be huge within the decade.

What would I do? I'd promise to ratify the treaty if the two other nations did, or I would introduce a less harsh treaty that would be amicable to ALL parties economies. But I probably wouldnt ratify this one under current conditions either. Someone is going to have to start coming up with new options. This either/or scenario with the Kyoto Treaty isnt working.



> To this, I would simply say: "PROVE IT!"


He is, in person, an honestly caring man. He isnt book smart - although he reads them while he travels. But he's no academic. He's had pressure on him to fire gay political staff, from the far right, and refused. He has quite a few homosexual friends. He battled alcoholism in his 30s, and left it behind by finding God. He never wanted to be president - he was asked at his father's inauguration in 1992. He isnt powerhungry. He has a good marriage, and writes his wife poetry. His daughters are a reflection of their parents - kind, well-educated. His grades were slightly better than those of John Kerry. He abhors pretense, and runs a tight ship with the White House staff. He prides himself on the fact that he has personal friends on his staff he can trust, such as "Condi", and prides himself on composing the staff of experts. There isnt a prejudiced bone in his body, unlike the stories I've heard of Hillary Clinton from a black ROTC friend of min. He detests opinion polls, and his staff has a wry sense of humor about them. They DO follow them, as do all politicians, but not to the point that the Clinton White House was a slave to them. He hates giving speeches, and prefers to talk to people one on one, and in person. He makes frequent visits to the military hospitals around Washington. The US inflicted casualty rate in this war upon the Iraqis is infinitismally smaller than from the first Gulf War, which was shorter, but killed between 100,000- 300,000 civilians. I dont agree with his Old Testament brand of justice ( or should I say Texan) - which is evidenced in the defiling of a sovereign nations rights - but I realize that he probably thought it would solve alot of problems at once. Placate the special interest groups (especially fuel companies) which put him into office, give the warhawks and strategists in the Pentagon a way to finally stabilize the Middle East with a permanent American presence, and finally eliminate a diplomatic problem (Sadaam Hussein). He isnt a saint. He still is a politician. He takes orders from the Republican National Committee, just as Clinton was an unhappy slave of the Democratic Committee. I'm sure his financial backers lean on him incessantly, and he's sold out to them. He isnt an intellectual (as I said before, only Carter was, and to a much lesser extent, Reagan). But in the final analysis, he sees himself as the captain of his own ship - there are the guts. And he is a humane person - the principles.



> How can you honestly sit there and attribute the disasterous way he's run his presidency to trifling euphemisms like "poor planning". His "poor planning" is causing American lives to be lost in Iraq. His "poor planning" is running you guys up on a federal deficit which is nothing short of hysterically disproportionate. His "poor planning" has offended several nations worldwide who now, instead of having a dialogue with America, now want to build a nuclear bomb and fire it your way. His "poor planning" has effectively rendered impotent the United Nations as an international collective of equals and has made international justice and law a capricious joke. His "poor planning", you mark my words, is what is going to facilitate a thousand more "New Orleans situations" due to the unrelenting catastrophes we will all face as a result of global warming. And you know, none of this even touches on the civil rights violations his office has perpetually promoted, at home and abroad.


When I said he was a poor planner, I was making a point that they are ALL poor planners. That isnt the President's job. Its the staff, the Defense Secretary (good ole' Powell - now theres a smart man), and the Pentagon's problem (Rumsfield - incredibly brilliant, canniving old man. Doesnt care a bit about the people of Iraq. Good with weapons though). As for New Orleans, thats a FEMA problem. Once again, Bush falls prey to another old vice of politics - cronyism. The man in charge of FEMA was a friend - heck, how often do we use FEMA, right? We need to start getting qualified people in these offices.



> I agree that people should educate themselves. But i don't like the implication which seems to be the hallmark of Bush supporters, that somehow "the world is much more complicated", and the naysayers are all just people who have watched one too many Michael Moore movies and are out of their league when talking with "serious people".


Actually, I dont know that the right usually paints the left as uneducated. Watch Michael Moore. Conservatives are painted as gun-toting hillbillies. And yes, he does indeed oversimplify. So does FOX news. And CNN. And Bill OReilly. And Rush Limbaugh. And ultra-liberal Hollywood. Oh, right. And the Associated press mucks things up, and Reuters. I'm NOT distinguishing between liberals or conservatives. I think they're all acting like "the mob." And the mob is America. You cant pick up all of this stuff from reading, either. Most of life has to be experienced to finally be understood.



> Or whatever the latest propoganda rhetoric it is being puked out from the White House. "Axis of Evil", "War on Terror", etc, etc, etc.


You know, I hate political spin. War on Terror - its just an excuse for the Patriot Act, a brilliant way to sneak mass surveillance in as legal. But I dont think anyone really gives the Axis of Evil speech the credit it deserves. It was unabashedly honest. I found it sort of refreshing. Who was on that list? Iran, North Korea, and Iraq. Now how does that list sound off to you? What, Iran isnt a major worldwide concern now? Iraq - whose denying that Iraq was number one or two in the Middle East as far as crackpot dictators and a thirst for violence? Lastly, North Korea. They did try making another nuke shortly after the speech, but its really just a long, silly bluff. Fine. Make a nuke. You've only got enough enriched plutonium and half-starved scientists to make one really inconsequential, 1940's esque bomb. Do you really want to alienate everyone shipping you famine releif (which is what we do for them - its not widely publicized). So I dont know if I would have put them on the list. I would have put China. But we arent quite THAT honest, yet (or perhaps stupid. They're getting quite militarily built up). I would definitely address their human rights abuses, though.

Okay Sebastian. To borrow a Texas term, I'm shooting from the hip. I'm not particulary fond of Bush, but I dont hate him. He's surprisingly less slimey than most of the other politicians I've met. I consider myself, as I've said before, mildly pro-Bush. In my lifetime, independents and third parties will have a chance at the White House. Then I'll be excited. Until then, I'm just not buying the liberal or conservative blather. Its just too easy, and I do most things the hard way.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

Well said, HS.

I'm not going to post a response right now because i'm at work and frankly your missive made far too much sense for me to get worked up about it.

I really don't like the Bush administration's environmental record. It isn't necessarily only about Kyoto. It's about the plethora of other more insidious environmental crimes his administration is guilty of, like, for example, their manipulation of fuel economy standards which basically promote bigger trucks and more gas guzzling.

I understand what you're saying about China and India not getting on board Kyoto but their is a significant advantage to having the U.S. sign onto it...not only for the obvious benefit of reduced greenhouse gas emissions but also as a symbolic gesture which could help usher in a new era of responsible energy consumption. I mean, how can America and world bodies like the U.N. put pressure on China and India to reduce their emissions when they're still not doing all they can do. One leads by example, HS.

Global Warming is a bigger problem than most people realize. And it frightens me when people undermine efforts to try to keep it under control. Our way of life and possibly life altogether is under critical threat here and when the so-called "leader of the free world" is asleep at the wheel as we approach D-Day, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other if, deep down, he's a nice guy.

It will be interesting to see how this Iran question resolves itself. I really don't believe that nothing will happen until 2010. I don't think the west can allow it to go that long. I anticipate an Israeli surgical strike or an American "casus belli" pretext to sprout up in the next year or so.

HS, i must say i rather enjoyed your description of Bush and the Washington social millieu in general. I'm not one of those people who think all of the "Powers That Be" are in some sort of nefarious collusion with one another, and are cackling madly as they roll about in a swath of money, bathing each other in blood and other orgiastic delights. I can appreciate that they're real people and are, in fact, very similar in DNA to me and you. You're right when you criticize me for making "sweeping generalizations". Neither side should do that. I just get awfully frustrated sometimes and i have to regress to a more atavistic form of communication.

I must go, as i'm at work, but thanks for the response, and people please keep your opinions coming...

s.


----------



## dakotajo (Aug 10, 2004)

Due to dwindling support in the Iraq clusterfuck, Bush doesnt have enought politcial clout to do much of anything. Iran, like the rest of the world knows this, and is spouting off cause they know then can . Even if Bush could generate enough support, our military is stretched way too thin to start enough war. Bush and his republican party have sent out country into a tailspin.

Joe


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

"HS, i must say i rather enjoyed your description of Bush and the Washington social millieu in general. I'm not one of those people who think all of the "Powers That Be" are in some sort of nefarious collusion with one another, and are cackling madly as they roll about in a swath of money, bathing each other in blood and other orgiastic delights. I can appreciate that they're real people and are, in fact, very similar in DNA to me and you."

You can?? ( JK...kind of.)

Thanks to everyone for all their thoughts and the time spent in posting them. I really do think I'll make my next vote for president on the writings of most of you guys as opposed to any other form of communication.

Really good job.


----------



## Axel19 (Aug 11, 2004)

I've read the first half of this thread, and whilst I find his posts intereting and informative I couldn't be bothered to read Homeskooled most recent ones, so forgive me if this has already been said. 
What I'm about to say is based partly on fact, but mostly on opionion. 
As far as I know America's *Number 1* priority since the middle of the Second World War has been to maintain world supremacy. This, I understand, comes before all that democracy and freedom crap. It comes well before any concerns for the environment, and even the safety of its populace.

It's safe to say I think that the Iraq war was not about WMDs, but about oil. God knows what came of the invasion of Afghanistan, but it probably had something to do with oil as well. Iran has a lot of oil, I doubt the politics surrounding Iran in America at the moment have anything to do with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suddenly deciding to fire nukes at America. It just seems so utterly daft. No doubt he has some contempt for America, but I can think of no logical reason for him wanting to nuke anyone. I could be wrong. If Iran has no intentions of nuking anyone, then I don't see why they shouldn't be left to develop nuclear arms just like India and Pakistan were left to do so. Nukes are here to stay unfortunately, and I reckon nothing but shrewd diplomacy is going to keep them at bay. Invading Iran is not very diplomatic.

The greatest threat to any super power besides another super power is general public opinion. Propoganda is the weapon used againts the masses. That's what I see this as. Every now and again we hear on the news how that crazy bearded Iranian guy has said something terribly vague about Israel or retaliation against America. In what context does he say these things, can we go to foxnews.com and download the whole speech, I doubt it. The comments about Israel inparticular were taken way out of context. Whilst what he said was stupid, he was in fact saying that Israel should be wiped off the map as a recognized political state. I do not agree with this of course, but we do have to remember that Israel only became an independant Jewish state less than sixty years ago, in disregard for the Arab population. Israel is responsible for human rights abuses to this day. Viewd from this point of view comments about it being wiped off the politcal map might not seem so crazy after all. I'm not saying I agree that it should in any way, rather that it is a position that can be understood to some extent.

Of course he probably is just as bad as Bush, but I seriously doubt he is as deranged as some people imagine. This is why I believe it is just propoganda to get the masses to support yet another war to maintain America's supremacy. One thing I can say for definite is that I have not been presented with any real persuasive evidence that Iran is any more of a threat to the world than France.

Reading back over my post, it probably isn't very well argued, but hopefully you get the point. Essentially I believe that this is just all scare mongering to get us all to support an invasion, the aim of which would be to secure oil deposits. Whilst I haven't presented any evidence for my case, neither have the politicians bothered to present any real evidence that Iran is a threat to the world.

Lastly I would just like to say that I don't really understand where terrorism comes into all of this. We are told that Iran harbor's terrorists. What the f*ck does that mean really? America harbors terrorists, so does Britain and France and just about every country on the planet. What exactly is involved in this harboring? Frankly I'm sick of this vagueness, leaving the rest of us to formulate poor and totally uniformed specualtions on forums, without a f*cking clue what's really going on.

Should America bomb Iran? I have not been presented with one good reason why they should.

Did I mention I'm half Iranian, and the prospect of my grandmother getting vaporized by some ungodly Yankee bomb doesn't sit very well with me.


----------



## Axel19 (Aug 11, 2004)

Ok serious question here, why is Iran percieved so badly in the West's eye?


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Axel, 
First of all, let me say that I'm actually glad to hear that you are half-Iranian. I havent actually heard that Iran, verbatim, harbors terrorists, and this would not be the reason for an invasion. This excuse was used against Sadaam. That being said, it is very reasonable to assume that the since the mullahs in Iran have been teaching violent, fundamentalist, anti-western propaganda to children since a young age, that there are quite a few budding terrorists there, and certainly a great deal of anti-American sentiment. The Iranian hostage crisis in the late 70s neatly underscored this. This grievious situation had mostly passed from the minds of Americans until 9/11...and even afterwards wasnt widely thought of. Until the new President, an avid philosopher of a fundamentalist Islam school, came to power. His speeches are peppered with religious invective - which I'm actually not against at all. But I dont think that this is genuine spirituality. Besides pursuing a "nuclear power plant", which is almost certainly a ruse to get at fissionable atomic materials, as he has kicked out all UN inspectors and built facilities underground, he has threatened to "annihilate the Zionists (ie, Israel)". A country like Japan or Germany, both forbidden to have nukes, getting a hold of them, eventhough they are considered "friendly" nations, would still be a cause for concern. You have the power to start a world war, or decimate an entire country with atomic weapons. You dont let people who encourage anti-semitic hate or anti-hemispheric hate (note the "Kill the West" film footage from Teheran) handle these things. If America was interested in world domination, it would have occurred long ago. The game of diplomacy is about keeping your enemies at bay, and America does this well, and did it well in the Cold War. There is great difference between a country having heavy influence and a country eschewing that influence for direct control. The one is called the diplomacy, the other, conquest. I respect the fact that the new president is young, idealistic, and religious. I am dismayed by the fact that his ideals and religious values seem to encourage hate and the getting of weapons of mass death. It is true that if the world were perfect, noone would have these weapons. But the world is not perfect, and the best we can do is allow countries who reach a certain level of maturity to possess them. Atomic truly are not necessary, except for the "big brothers" on the world scene - this is what alliances are for. A smaller country offers a larger something it needs, in exchange for protection, etc...I am pro-Iranian but I am anti current Iranian politics.

Peace
Homeskooled

PS - It is Israel that has threatened to nuke. I have a feeling we would either invade or use bunker busting bombs...if anything happens, it will probably be the latter.


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

I can't see even why people arguing the point.

YEAH, WOOO...GO ON, GO AND BOMB THEM. That would sort everything out, and make the Americans and their Poodles (f*****g us) even more popular and safe. And another reason for us to get tearful at the sound of our national anthems and the sight of our flags, fluttering over the charred corpses of innocent Iranian children.

Jesus wept.


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

I just want to reiterate, I am against _any_ country having nuclear weapons, and I'm also against the Iranian nuclear crisis being solved any way other than diplomatically, because as Martin points out, even in targeting bunkers, there will still be collateral damage.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

I think, says Martin enigmatically, that the solution to the problem is quite simple:

Seperate Church and State.

Make Governments entirely accountable to the public.

Divide volatile countries up on ethnic/tribal grounds (I'm not advocating ethnic cleansing here BTW)

Keep Nuclear Weapons as a deterent. If America, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, Russia and England have them, on what grounds do we deny everyone else to have them? If EVERY country had them, and I include The Solomon Islands in this, then we'd all live happily ever after.

Sorted.


----------



## Epiphany (Apr 28, 2006)

I'm with you Martin...

It really annoys the crap out of me that we Poodles are so reliant on the decisions that a man with absolutely no concept of morality (let alone be smart enough to have any morals) makes. Our countries sit back and wait to see what "moral stance" Bush and his cronies are going to take so we can stick our hand up and say...oh yeah, me too...I wanna be just like you, Bushy....count us in.

I don't see anything moral about the slaughter of all the innocent people in any country because of a minority of extremists (who just so happen to run it)...I'm just not up for the whole...lets bomb them before they bomb anyone else mentality. It's madness.

Although Martin...most of these volitile countries are already divided up on ethnic / religious grounds...which creates problems within itself...the whole "mob mentality" thing...they all feed of each others hatred for the other groups. I say intersperse them all...sure there'd be a huge spate of deaths there for a while, but eventually they'd begin to see that "our neighbour Joe is a really friendly guy who loves his kids just like we do".

Anyway...why are we all so worried about Iran...China or North Korea will probably be the ones to blow us all out of the water. At least we know what Iran has...these other two are much better prepared for the next world war!!!

Hubby and I went on a recent trip to Macau and a local guy took us to the top of a hill and pointed out China just across the water. In particular he drew our attention to a humungous highway that had just been built. He said it the road was made much thicker than normal and the giant lightpoles down the middle were all removable so the highway could be utilised as a giant runway for army aircraft in the event of a national / world threat. He said...they are very well prepared!!!! Scared the bejesus out of me. Especially with the knowledge that they already have nuclear weapons and have had for years.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Martinelv said:


> I think, says Martin enigmatically, that the solution to the problem is quite simple:
> 
> Seperate Church and State.


How in anyone's God's name do we do this? There are a multitude of countries, and the Middle Eastern countries are a major example of this, that "Mosque and State" is completely entwined -- they are one and the same. You're beating up on the Yanks and the Poodles and we aren't doing half bad in comparison!

And many citizens of these countries are trying to do just that trying to separate some of Mosque and State integration? -- part of that comes from womens' rights, citizens dying left and right from lack of health care, etc. No education. Young men running rampant without direction and so they join terrorist groups to form their identities, as young men in Western Countries join gangs... or rather as young men do in many countries.

*Terrorists are by enlarge (please correct me if I'm wrong) disenfranchised, unemployed young men. So are gang members. They are lacking in family structure, education, and employment.*

I don't know that is possible anymore than it is to make people give up their Faith and remove it completely from their daily lives -- that's what religion is. *Politics is a religion. A religion is a "way of living, a set of beliefs".*

How do we get the world on the same page here?



> Make Governments entirely accountable to the public.


Western governments are terrible about being entirely accountable. But again, look at dictatorships in so many countries. Just think of Saddam. He had 8 palaces or something, and his people were impoverished, there was no infrastructure to the country -- electricity or water.

The country HAD MONEY. It was simply scooped up by a vicious dictator. And don't mess with a dictator, you get shot in the head.

What about countries such as China who are still battling with freedm of press and freedom of INTERNET access.



> Divide volatile countries up on ethnic/tribal grounds (I'm not advocating ethnic cleansing here BTW)


But you *will* get ethinic cleansing. It's happening on it's own already. Tribal divisions exist the world over. Battles of tribe against tribe -- think Africa.

Think of Isreal and Palestine. They have been fighting over a "tribal" division for how many years? Giving Irael it's own plot of land in 1948 has been the bane of everyone's existance ever since. But in essense that's what was attempted -- with good intentions. NO ONE has gotten over it YET.

Now there is a wall dividing the city! Sounds like Berlin!



> Keep Nuclear Weapons as a deterent. If America, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, Russia and England have them, on what grounds do we deny everyone else to have them? If EVERY country had them, and I include The Solomon Islands in this, then we'd all live happily ever after.
> 
> Sorted.


I think that was a joke. I am very anti nuclear weapons. But for environmental purposes we need nuclear energy. How in the world are we going to control this in every different country?

*You have to read the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to get even a vague sense of what this is all about ... why certain states have nuclear weapons and others don't.*

You can read the damned thing and at some point not understand it at all.

"History is doomed to repeat itself" and I don't see humans changing radically in the near future. It's interesting but many of the "up and coming countries" such as India and China have to go through the same steps as Western countries to become more responsible. And that takes time. Centuries!

And Western countries are still learning.

Human existence here on Earth... we've only been THINKING a short time. A very short time. We are children. We have so much to learn. And we forget so easily.

Martin, I think you're being sarcastic. I wish all of your suggestions were so easy to implement as saying "this is all we have to do."

D
Sigh


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

I wasn't being deliberatly sarcastic Dreamland, although I understand that because of the total and utter certainty that none of them will ever happen, as you rightly said, my post was tinged with sarcasm.

I have NO idea how to do it. And I don't expect it to happen. I am consumed by apathy. In my view the human race is a terrible evolutionary accident, so there is no long term hope.


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

> No one has answered my question about Tony Blair. Doesn't he have some culpability? I wish someone would just explain that to me. Give me a POV on his involvement. It seemed to be more than simply being a strong ally. I think he was also hoodwinked into the WMD business. But does he have no respect for the sovereignty of other nations?


I can't envisage a situation where the British Government, of any politcal flavour, would nuke another country. I just can't see that happening. Our population would be in utter uproar. The only situation I can imagine it happening is if, I dunno, something incredibly threatening and bizarre, like China deciding to invade us...then, I think, we might rattle our Polaris.

Saying that, did you know that before the Falklands War started, during the Argentinian occupation, Thatcher did actually threaten Argentina with Nuclear Weapons, specifically Buenos Aieres, unless they pulled out. The Americans (who, bless you, were desperartly trying to negotiate a settlement), went ape-s**t when they heard about it, and your secretary of state at the time, apparently, told her that we would have no trouble defeating them conventionally, and if we used nuclear weapons they would try and get us kicked out of the UN. Good show, and bloody right. Thank god it didn't come to that.


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

> Good show, and bloody right. Thank god it didn't come to that.


Is this a positive statement about the US?

Please reply as I need some encouragement that we are not
always disliked.

Thanks.
t*


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

It's a compliment in a way Terri*, but, as always with American governments, I'm sure their main concern was their own interests. Nuking Argentina would have sent shivers all the way up to Venezelua and Peru, and all their lovely oil.

The most annoying thing about the Falklands War, apart from the death and complete futility of it all, was that our dear comrades, the FRENCH, were still selling the argies their exorcet missiles. Even when the fighting began!!

Gotta love those horse eaters.

I felt quite sad for the argies actually, watching it. As their propeller driven 'fighter' aircraft chugged around the islands being chased by our jet fighters. Still, they fought like tigers and inflicted some serious damage on our ships.


----------

