New roll-out (propaganda campaign) for war with Iran?

Bernie-

Isn't it evidence of our side's humanity that we fight with most of our claws, which we have developed at great expense, in cotton wool.

Do you think the other side would show the same reserve.

I saw an American advising us to nuke Argentina to save us all that trouble we went to in the Falkland Islands.

War is no holds barred surely. All's fair in love and war. Thus this isn't really a war. When does a war segue into a Police action?

There are plenty of people alleging "pussyfooting". They did all through the IRA problem.

Not me though. I go with the Government.

You can't keep walking away from your opponents with a flung insult. Why don't you explain why nuking Tehran is not an option for any number of reasons. Unless you do that you connive at him going around preaching a foolish policy. Out of pique.

McGentrix wrote:

They were Muslim terrorists who happened to be born in Saudi Arabia, I wasn't aware that was in doubt.

I am sure you guys know that, but the truthiness of what you said is much better for your little jabs, huh?

I was actually directing my response to oralloy McG....but thanks for your response anyway. I needed to hear you say truthiness just one more time on this board. It has not quite gotten old yet....

Oralloy claimed that "they" (presumably meaning Muslims) launched a greivous attack on his country, and feels that a counter strike against "them" is/was in order. That part was obvious.

I wanted clarification on who precisely you strike out against. If there is a "them" that one can refer to, then fine. I thought the "them" was bin Laden and al Qaeda....but, as we have come to realize, Bush is no longer concerned with bin Laden....or al Qaeda. He just doesn't "spend that much time on him..."
From whitehouse.gov

I guess if I was oralloy, and aggravated with the attacks "they" orchestrated against my country....and my government knew who the perpetrators were....I'd be a little more than aggravated that my President simply became disinterested in bringing to justice the perpetrators of the horrors of 9/11.

To fill in some blanks McG..."they" are bin Laden's al Qaeda. "They" were Saudi's. Make me understand why "they" are not in the crosshairs. Make me understand why Saddam, who has since been proven to have had no connection to 9/11, bin Laden or al Qaeda was given military priority over bin Laden and al Qaeda. The "war" in Afghanistan is a joke....it was given a fraction of the interest of Iraq. Make me understand.

If Bush were no longer interested in him, we wouldn't still have considerable resources in the region looking for him, they would be in Iraq rooting out Muslim terrorists.

"they" are not Muslims. You use that word and try to include the entire religion when that's just not the truth. You feel it is, despite and facts to the contrary. "they" are Muslim terrorists. Say that out loud, maybe it will sink in. Muslim Terrorists attacked the US on 9/11. Doesn't matter if they were Saudi or not. The Saudi government certainly didn't back them so why would we attack Saudi Arabia? That's an ignorant conclusion at best.

McGentrix wrote:

"they" are not Muslims. You use that word and try to include the entire religion when that's just not the truth. You feel it is, despite and facts to the contrary. "they" are Muslim terrorists. Say that out loud, maybe it will sink in. Muslim Terrorists attacked the US on 9/11. Doesn't matter if they were Saudi or not. The Saudi government certainly didn't back them so why would we attack Saudi Arabia? That's an ignorant conclusion at best.

First of all, they are terrorists. That they are Muslim is highly irrelevant to me. Mcveigh was a terrorist, it mattered not what his religion was. Terror is terror whether it's from a Muslim group or if it's CIA backed or CIA sponsored. If their religion mattered, so would their motives...but we have seen that motives do not matter. No one cares why bin Laden attacked NYC. No one cares why Mcveigh blew up OC.

I am the last person to lump an entire religion into one convenient package. This is the mentality that gives one the moral imperative to nuke an entire country--they do not and can not distinguish Muslim terrorist from Muslim university student from Muslim mother.

What you have above stated is inconsistent with the "logic" of the administration.
If they were in fact generically "Muslim terrorists", there would have been no need to force a connection between Iraq and bin Laden and 9/11. There would also be no need to invade Afghanistan....at least no more a need to invade them than there would be to invade Saudi Arabia.

If you prefer to generically label them Muslim terrorists, then that is what they are, but it makes little sense to condemn the possibiity of attacking Saudi Arabia for one reason while supporting the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq for the very same reason.

How does committing an atrocity against millions of innocent Iranian civilians somehow become more acceptable and more palatable than the motives behind 9/11?

No surprise there. Most liberals are afraid to call them Muslim Terrorists. I guess it offends some insecure side of them or something. I doubt McVeigh yelled about Jesus as he drove away from his attack. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the term "Allahu Akbar". It may be the last thing you hear someday.

No need to invade Afghanistan... Can you do me small favor? Go look out the window and tell me what color the sky is in your world. I am just curious if it's the same as in reality.

candid wrote-

Quote:

How does committing an atrocity against millions of innocent Iranian civilians somehow become more acceptable and more palatable than the motives behind 9/11?

You seem to have misunderstood my post.

Bernie-

Isn't it evidence of our side's humanity that we fight with most of our claws, which we have developed at great expense, in cotton wool.

Do you think the other side would show the same reserve.

I saw an American advising us to nuke Argentina to save us all that trouble we went to in the Falkland Islands.

War is no holds barred surely. All's fair in love and war. Thus this isn't really a war. When does a war segue into a Police action?

There are plenty of people alleging "pussyfooting". They did all through the IRA problem.

Not me though. I go with the Government.

You can't keep walking away from your opponents with a flung insult. Why don't you explain why nuking Tehran is not an option for any number of reasons. Unless you do that you connive at him going around preaching a foolish policy. Out of pique.

In fact, Pletka's observation probably reflects growing tensions between AEI's corporate contributors, many of whom are represented on its board of trustees, on the one hand, and, on the other, the hard-line neo-conservative views of its foreign-policy fellows, such as Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, Michael Rubin, Joshua Muravchik, and Pletka herself; academic advisers, such as Gertrude Himmelfarb, Eliot Cohen, and Jeremy Rabkin; and its board chairman, Bruce Kovner.

As AEI jumped on the divestment bandwagon initiated by Perle protégé Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy (CSP) earlier this spring with its publication of a list of evil-enabling companies, some of its corporate contributors with interests in some of those same companies ?- or in countries where those companies are based ?- objected. After all, multinational corporations, such as ExxonMobil, Motorola, American Express, State Farm Insurance, Dow Chemical, Merck & Co., Dell Inc. - all of which are represented in various ways on AEI's board of trustees - not to mention General Electic, Amoco, Kraft, Ford Motor, General Motors, Eastman Kodak, Metropolitan Life, Proctor & Gamble, Shell, General Mills, Pillsbury, Prudential, Corning Glass Works, Morgan Guarantee, and Alcoa - all of whose foundations have reportedly contributed significant amounts of money to AEI - generally oppose economic sanctions that interfere with their investment and commerce, especially if they are unilateral and especially if they result in many jurisdictions (i.e. states) enacting different sanctions with which companies must comply.

"I know for a fact that some companies who are AEI contributors have complained to the president of AEI [Christopher DeMuth] about AEI's involvement in this," said William Reinsch, the president of the National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC), an association of some 550 of the biggest U.S. companies that, among other things, opposes unilateral economic sanctions. "There has been a significant level of upset by a number of [them]." In some cases, he added, companies complained about their inclusion on the list posted by AEI, while "others believe that it's not an appropriate activity for AEI to be engaged in."

Indeed, it is very strange that a think tank purportedly devoted to "limited government," "private enterprise," free markets and other neo-liberal ideals and funded in major part by the foundations of multinational corporations is actively leading a campaign to impose unilateral sanctions (and divestment) against multinational corporations like themselves and, in some cases, their own subsidiaries. After all, the history of such sanctions - against the Soviet Union, Cuba, and Iran itself, for example ?- shows that they often result in both resentment and retaliation - not just by the target country (Iran in this case), but also by friendly governments whose own companies stand to be negatively affected. That, in fact, was the point of the FT article whose lead sentence ran: "European governments are warning Congress that US legislation aimed at Iran could hit European energy groups, undermine transatlantic unity on Tehran's nuclear programme and provoke a dispute at the World Trade Organisation."

I can't think of one organism in the whole of recorded history that would suffer casualties and not get all its teeth bared except one that had been brought up as a Christian. Name me one.

In 1961, Mandela became the leader of the ANC's armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (translated as Spear of the Nation, also abbreviated as MK), which he co-founded. He coordinated a sabotage campaign against military and government targets, and made plans for a possible guerrilla war if sabotage failed to end apartheid. A few decades later, MK did wage a guerrilla war against the regime, especially during the 1980s, in which many civilians were killed. Mandela also raised funds for MK abroad, and arranged for paramilitary training, visiting various African governments.

Mandela explains the move to embark on armed struggle as a last resort, when increasing repression and violence from the state convinced him that many years of non-violent protest against apartheid had achieved nothing and could not succeed.

Mandela later admitted that the ANC, in its struggle against apartheid, also violated human rights, and has sharply criticised attempts by parts of his party to remove statements supporting this fact from the reports of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.