War! The fear mongering is here, again!

@OmSigDAVID,

You can only have international laws for real if you have a international government that is the sovereign over all the nations states in the world.

It took a hundred years and a costly civil war for that to even be settle in the US as far as the relationship between the Federal government and the states is concern.

Hell we even have people to this day that are not happy over the Federal government being the overriding sovereign.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

That 's RIGHT and it 'd be only a matter of how fast
it coud n woud degenerate into a despotism -- a permanent world-wide despotism,
but this time Ike n Patton woud not come running to the rescue.

Year after year, surveillance by government woud technologically improve,
moving into infinite intrusion until we all become the Borg.

Man woud be re-defined as a colony-creature. I disapprove of that.

Everyone in A2K 'd be safe, protected by natural death,
but their grandchildren 'd be in a lot of trouble
b4 the turn of the next century. One World government is bad news for grandchildren.
It 'd make the totalitarianisms of the nazis n the commies
look innocent n trivial, by comparison.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

And you insist that your comments are over my head?

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

I don't want to turn this into a another thread consumed by the topic of so-called Zionism, and the evil of Israel, but do you really believe that if Israel "did alright" by the Palestinian people, as defined by either you or Iran, that Iran would cease trying to develop nuclear weapons?

The best solution to all problems would be to reject violence and rationally discuss conflicting points of view and interests; coming to a mutually agreeable arrangement.

Unfortunately that often doesn't work, and it obviously will not work in the case of Iran and its nuclear aspirations.

Whether or not you believe a nuclear Iran represents a significant threat to Israel (let alone the region and world), Israel does, and if sanctions work as well as diplomacy, which is to say not at all, Israel is not going to throw up its national hands and say "Oh well, I guess we're f*cked."

Since the "next step" alternatives would seem to be either covert violence and mayhem (i.e. computer viruses) or overt military action, it seems to me that the former should be preferable to all concerned (excepting perhaps Iranian nuclear scientists).

It's highly unlikely that senior Iranian nuclear scientists (the ones being knocked off) are not aware that they are working on nuclear weapons and so their innocence is not complete, and certainly less clear that the folks driving by one of these installments when the bombs drop.

In addition, the bombing of only one installment is likely to result in more collateral deaths than all of the top Iranian nuclear scientists (alive or killed) combined.

I don't think that assassinating these individuals is something to celebrate, but if the situation is going to lead to deaths (and it obviously already has) then better for the Iranian people that it be a dozen or so scientists who share responsibility for it than hundreds of truly innocent Iranians.

I appreciate a mindset that doesn't want to seem to endorse or even brand as acceptable, assassination. Unfortunately if it is possible to render such an approach off-limits to governments, then pressed hard enough, they will rely upon war.

Assassination still occurs. The very nation we are focused upon, Iran was just caught in an assassination plot against the Saudi Ambassador to the US. I seriously doubt that the United States government has not ordered assassinations in recent history (including the last three years). Peoples, however, aren't going to get all fired up about assassinations as they do war in the sense of supporting the violence. This is part of the very strange and often disturbing human culture of war that is only made more lethal by the so-called rules of war.

Unless it can be dressed up as legitimate warfare (e.g. the killing of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto during WWII and the recent end of Osama bin Laden), assassination is almost always seen as cowardly dirty business, while a nation can and often is proud of the deeds of its uniformed warriors.

It's interesting that the people who have the most to fear from assassination are the folks who have the least to fear from war: the powerful elite.

War often catches up with this group, but not before thousands of common folk have been slaughtered, and until it does, the war usually continues and more common folk die.

It seems to me far more sane and fair to accomplish the primary goal of wars via quick and essentially clean assassinations. Why should thousands, if not millions of common folk die to eliminate the powerful, elite enemies of another group of powerful elite?

0 Replies

@Irishk,

Pure speculation for the novel:

It is highly likely that president Obama will spend part of 2012 (at least until after November) talking up how seriously he and his administration is committed to the well being of Israel. He doesn't want to lose usually reliable Democrat Jewish votes.

At the same time, he very much doesn't want Israel to bomb Iran during 2012. If it does, he will have to either condemn or support it and either approach could cost him votes.

Additionally, an Israeli strike against Iran could easily result in escalation that will have a very bad effect on the US economy. Clearly he doesn't want that.

So as much as he may want to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes (if he does at all), he wants to keep Israel from attacking Iran even more.

What to do?

Here's the speculative part:

Israel has made it clear to Obama that it will strike Iran in 2012 if nothing serious is done to significantly delay or eliminate its nuclear program. US officials are certain they are not bluffing.

Obama tells Bibi "Sit tight, my guys will take steps that should finally make you happy"

He then has the CIA launch a comprehensive covert operation against Iran's nuclear program including the introduction of computer viruses, facility sabotage and targeted assassinations of key nuclear scientists.

Leon Panetta, as head of the CIA is not very supportive of the operation and doesn't want his name attached to it. Obama moves him to DOD and brings in a military guy to run the agency; someone less squeamish about covert violence and who really doesn't want to see more American service men and women lose their lives and limbs in the Middle East.

Obviously Obama is scared sh*tless that Iran will somehow be able to prove the US is behind the operation, but the spooks assure him that with help from friendly countries like Israel and the UK, they can avoid any direct connections.

Now for the plot's develoment:

At some point in time in 2012, something goes terribly wrong with one of the operational missions and hundreds of innocent Iranians are killed with radioactive contamination being released. One of the operators is captured, and it’s only a matter of time before the Iranians will break him under torture.

Scenario #1: Panetta is disgusted, horrified and scared he will be implicated, and leaks information on Operation 4 More Years to a friendly reporter at the NY Times who assures him he will be certain to paint Panetta in the best of lights. International and domestic outrage blossoms and Obama loses the election.

Problem: The NY Times would never publish the story, and Obama's supporters will believe he had no choice because of the mess Bush left him - he still could win

Scenario #2: By promising to offer no opposition to Russia's retaking of the former Soviet states in Eastern European and Western Asia, Obama gets Putin to agree to do whatever it takes via his Iranian connections and his own intelligence services to have the blame laid on Somali Pirates.

Problem: Putin knows he doesn't need to cut any deals with Obama to retake the Soviet Empire, he just needs to do it.

Scenario #3: By promising Iran to give them actual nukes in 2013, plus a trillion dollars in cross-cultural development aid he persuades The Supreme Leader to make Iranian Opposition forces the fall-guy. The mullahs then launch a violent purge against any and all Iranians who may even smell like they oppose them, and Obama condemns the terrorist actions of the Iranian Opposition and refuses to interfere in the internal politics of Iran.

(Problem: None. This is how the novel ends along with the DNC assassination of the story's handsome and beautiful protagonists who know the truth and drive to Washington DC to spill the beans at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial)

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

And you insist that your comments are over my head?

Not when I spell it out like that.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

You really do like constructing paranoid paper tigers don't you. Stop listening to Bill, there's something seriously wrong with his medication. Respecting international law has nothing to do with world government. We foreigners aren't going to come in and take your guns from you. I don't really give a monkeys whether or not you've got a gun, you don't live in my neighbourhood.

The Nurembourg trials were one of the great successes of international law, Germany had been controlled by a gang of criminals for too long, and needed to see the rule of law. What happened was a terrorist act, America has rightly condemned it, in the same way Iran condemned 9/11.

Do you remember those days after 9/11 when there was so much goodwill knocking about for the USA? That was when Jack Straw flew out to Tehran and started constructive dialogue with a far more moderate Iranian govenment than there is today. There was talk of working together to defeat the Taliban, and normalise relations. Then Dubya made his Axis Of Evil speech. That speech is more responsible for the stand off today than any amount of uranium enrichment.

1 Reply

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

I don't want to turn this into a another thread consumed by the topic of so-called Zionism, and the evil of Israel, but do you really believe that if Israel "did alright" by the Palestinian people, as defined by either you or Iran, that Iran would cease trying to develop nuclear weapons?

Your question is based on begging the question concerning Iran trying to develop nuclear weapons. I'll play along though. I do not believe that Iran would cease trying to develop nuclear weapons. If Israel did what's right concerning the Palestinians there would be no concern in regard to their trying to develop nuclear weapons seeing as how them trying to develop nuclear weapons is a direct response to Israel's and her guard dog's (read: US) nuclear weapons.

Quote:

The best solution to all problems would be to reject violence and rationally discuss conflicting points of view and interests; coming to a mutually agreeable arrangement.

Unfortunately that often doesn't work, and it obviously will not work in the case of Iran and its nuclear aspirations.

More question begging. Seeing as how Iran's alleged "nuclear aspirations" are directly tied with the existence of the necessarily oppressive and discriminatory Zionist regime and its recalcitrance in regard to rational discussion of conflicting points of view and coming to mutually agreeable arrangements, these most obviously do not work.

Quote:

Whether or not you believe a nuclear Iran represents a significant threat to Israel (let alone the region and world), Israel does, and if sanctions work as well as diplomacy, which is to say not at all, Israel is not going to throw up its national hands and say "Oh well, I guess we're f*cked."

Of course Israel isn’t going to throw up its national hands and say “oh well, I guess we’re fucked.” In all likelihood they are going to go down defending their necessarily oppressive and discriminatory regime in a regional war involving nuclear weapons.

Quote:

Since the "next step" alternatives would seem to be either covert violence and mayhem (i.e. computer viruses) or overt military action, it seems to me that the former should be preferable to all concerned (excepting perhaps Iranian nuclear scientists).
. . .

It seems to me far more sane and fair to accomplish the primary goal of wars via quick and essentially clean assassinations. Why should thousands, if not millions of common folk die to eliminate the powerful, elite enemies of another group of powerful elite?

But then, in regard to Iran’s alleged nuclear aspirations, all of this would leave the problem of the existence of the necessarily oppressive and discriminatory Zionist regime and their tort against the Palestinian peoples unaddressed. Merely, you would be addressing the symptoms of the disease and not the disease itself, as it were. Verily, you speak only to the idea of assassinations vs. bombings, and completely ignore the crux of the conflict, refusing to address it from the very beginning of your post.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Glad you decided to "play along" and not climb on your soap box about the Zionist Entity.

Your basing the Iranian quest for nukes on the Palestianian issue is ridiculous.

As if Iran would no longer seek nuclear weapons if Israel gave in to every demand made by the Palestinians.

Saudi Arabia is quite unhappy with the situation, but they are not seeking nukes, and the same can be said of Jordan and Egypt.

If every nation that criticized Israel had to obtain nukes to protect themselves from Israeli and US nukes, proliferation would increase exponentially.

I'm hardly ducking "the question" of Israeli oppression. I don't buy the charges and have spoken to them on numerous other threads. This is not another thread on Israeli treatment of Palestinians, and your convoluted attempt to connect the situation to the Iranian nuclear weapons program won't make it so.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

And you insist that your comments are over my head?

Not when I spell it out like that.

Even that was over your head.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I had been contemplating such a reponse, and i agree with Finn on this. I'm not going to go over the reasons the Persians have for hating the Israelis, i've done it too many times in these fora, and two or three times recently. It has nothing to do with the Palestinians. The mere fact that Israel has nukes is enough of a justification for Iran.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Glad you decided to "play along" and not climb on your soap box about the Zionist Entity.

Quote:

Your basing the Iranian quest for nukes on the Palestianian issue is ridiculous.

As if Iran would no longer seek nuclear weapons if Israel gave in to every demand made by the Palestinians.

I’m not basing Iran’s supposed quest for nuclear weapons on the Palestinian issue.
I specifically said that I didn’t think that Iran would cease trying to develop nuclear weapons were Israel to “do alright by the Palestinian people.”
Once again, if Israel did what's right concerning the Palestinians there would be no concern in regard to their trying to develop nuclear weapons seeing as how them trying to develop nuclear weapons is a direct response to Israel's and her guard dog's (read: US) nuclear weapons.
To be more explicit, an Israel that has “done alright by the Palestinian people” would not present nearly the same animosity towards Iran that Israel presently does, and would present a situation that would encourage a reconcilliation between the two countries.

Quote:

Saudi Arabia is quite unhappy with the situation, but they are not seeking nukes, and the same can be said of Jordan and Egypt.

But then again there isn’t the level of animosity between Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt and Iran as there is between Israel and Iran.

Quote:

If every nation that criticized Israel had to obtain nukes to protect themselves from Israeli and US nukes, proliferation would increase exponentially.

But then again every nation that criticizes Israel doesn’t have the level of animosity that exists between Israel and Iran.

Quote:

I'm hardly ducking "the question" of Israeli oppression. I don't buy the charges and have spoken to them on numerous other threads. This is not another thread on Israeli treatment of Palestinians, and your convoluted attempt to connect the situation to the Iranian nuclear weapons program won't make it so.

That you don’t buy the charges against Israel in regard to their oppression and discrimination against the Palestinian peoples does not negate the fact that Israel oppresses and discriminates against the Palestinian peoples. Your supposition that Iran is seeking nukes is squarely based on their animosity towards Israel’s Zionist regime (and the US’ lap dog defense thereof) and its illegitimacy which for the most part is due to the very fact of its oppression of and discrimination against the Palestinian peoples.

The only way Israel can save itself is to “do alright by the Palestinian people.”

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Also could have been the Saudis. They aren't keen on Iran getting the bomb and they've got the cash. (And possibly some type of network already in place).

When you think about it, there's quite a few 'it could have beens'! (As long as we're purely speculating).

Gabriel Allon Smile

(Except Daniel Silva would never put two guys on a motorcycle with a magnetic bomb -- too sloppy)! Had to be internal lol.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

You really do like constructing paranoid paper tigers don't you.

Definitionally my comments cannot be "paranoid" because my ego is not involved, even remotely.
I contemplated the misfortunes of generations yet unborn.
I will be safely beyond the reach of that worldwide despotism
by having been long dead b4 it falls on future generations.
I look forward to your explanation of HOW that can be "paranoid".

izzythepush wrote:

Stop listening to Bill, there's something seriously wrong with his medication.

Y do u think that I listened to Bill and about WHAT ??
He is a Democrat. I am a libertarian conservative Republican.
We don 't agree on much, as a general rule.

izzythepush wrote:

Respecting international law has nothing to do with world government.
We foreigners aren't going to come in and take your guns from you.

Believe THAT!

izzythepush wrote:

I don't really give a monkeys whether or not you've got a gun, you don't live in my neighbourhood.

(I woud not accept a monkey.)
I am very pleased to stay away from socialist naborhoods.
I don 't deem it likely that a visit to England is in my future
(except maybe more stops at the airport).
In one way that 's a little sad, in that I 'll not be able to c
my grandfather's town or city (?) of "Devon Shire"
whence he left in the 18OOs. I imagine that it has probably changed since then, but I dunno.

izzythepush wrote:

The Nurembourg trials were one of the great successes of international law,

There were some treaties violated, but it was the winners bullying
the losers because thay were mad at them n thay were able to DO it.
Karl Donitz successfully pointed out that charges of conduct
against him (unrestricted submarine warfare) were practiced
by the US Navy against the Japs.

izzythepush wrote:

Germany had been controlled by a gang of criminals for too long, and needed to see the rule of law.

I oppose authoritarianism and all collectivism, but I 'm pretty sure that there was no "rule of law"
of what government Germany had to have between the first 2 world wars.
Rule of WHAT law?????

izzythepush wrote:

What happened was a terrorist act,

WHICH act ??

izzythepush wrote:

America has rightly condemned it, in the same way Iran condemned 9/11.

?

izzythepush wrote:

Do you remember those days after 9/11 when there was so much goodwill knocking about for the USA?

I found that distasteful and rejected it, as well as possible.

izzythepush wrote:

That was when Jack Straw flew out to Tehran and started constructive dialogue with a far more moderate Iranian govenment than there is today. There was talk of working together to defeat the Taliban, and normalise relations. Then Dubya [ W ] made his Axis Of Evil speech. That speech is more responsible for the stand off today than any amount of uranium enrichment.

The president of Iran is a fanatical Moslem that will nuke us as soon as he possibly CAN.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

do u think that I listened to Bill and about WHAT ??
He is a Democrat. I am a libertarian conservative Republican.
We don 't agree on much, as a general rule

We both are holders of CCW licenses and carry firearms I do believe but other then that you are correct.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Jesus Christ, talk about irrational. First, near the beginning of your post, you write:

Quote:

I’m not basing Iran’s supposed quest for nuclear weapons on the Palestinian issue.

Then, near the end of your post, you write:

Quote:

Your supposition that Iran is seeking nukes is squarely based on their animosity towards Israel’s Zionist regime (and the US’ lap dog defense thereof) and its illegitimacy which for the most part is due to the very fact of its oppression of and discrimination against the Palestinian peoples.

This is after Finn has categorically denied that that is his position. Do you think about what you are posting before you hit submit? It is complete bullshit that Iran's animosity toward Israel has anything to do with the Palestinian situation--you're making **** up. You're obsessed with riding a hobby horse which you cherish, and which has nothing to do with this thread.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

DAVID wrote:

do u think that I listened to Bill and about WHAT ??
He is a Democrat. I am a libertarian conservative Republican.
We don 't agree on much, as a general rule

I remain ignorant of WHAT it is to which Izzy refers qua my listening to u.

BillRM wrote:

We both are holders of CCW licenses and carry firearms I do believe

In other words: we both agree on remaining INTACT.

BillRM wrote:

but other then that you are correct.

Note that I said: "much" and "as a general rule"; I did not say that we never agree.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

The president of Iran is a fanatical Moslem that will nuke us as soon as he possibly CAN.

You really have lost it Dave. I don't know what you watch to get your news but you're living in a fantasy world. The president of Iran has very little power, he's involved in a power struggle with the Ayatollah and his cronies. He's more of a pragmatist than a fanatic.

Devon, we usually drop the shire is a county, not a town or village. No one in their right mind would describe this country as Socialist, especially not with Cameron in charge.

You are living in a fantasy world. Seek some form of mental health counselling before it's too late.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

The president of Iran is a fanatical Moslem that will nuke us as soon as he possibly CAN.

izzythepush wrote:

You really have lost it Dave. I don't know what you watch to get your news but you're living in a fantasy world.
The president of Iran has very little power, he's involved in a power struggle with the Ayatollah and his cronies.

Moslem fanatics r intolerably dangerous.
We in NY learned that on 9/11/1.
We don't need to learn it AGAIN. 1ce was enuf.
We don't need a nuclear post-graduate course.
Maybe U think that the professional Moslems will slow him down; I don't.
In theory, thay shud, since thay know
that we know where thay live (I have in mind Mecca n Medina).
Theirs is a geografy-based religion.
If thay get us mad enuf, we can make big holes
where Mecca n Medina used to be; holes that glow in the dark (ez to find for a haj).

izzythepush wrote:

He's more of a pragmatist than a fanatic.

HIM? I don 't c it that way.

izzythepush wrote:

Devon, we usually drop the shire is a county, not a town or village.

I hope its a nice place.

izzythepush wrote:

No one in their right mind would describe this country as Socialist,
especially not with Cameron in charge.

I 'd like to believe u.
I 'm an optimist, by nature.
I wonder if Winston Churchill 'd agree with u.

izzythepush wrote:

You are living in a fantasy world. Seek some form of mental health counselling before it's too late.

Too late for what ?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

David, I never knew people like you actually existed until I came on A2K. I thought they were just acted as stooges for comedians. It's one thing holding your bizarre political views, but they should be based on reality. The world you describe is a paranoid fantasy. The fact that you're terrified of visiting your grandfather's birthplace without being armed, shows how far from reality you've allowed yourself to drift.

2 Replies

War! The fear mongering is here, again!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know