Anyone who claims to read all that's published is certainly a liar, because it isn't possible. I've seen no evidence that those who are so quick to say that I'm out of touch, stupid, and an ignorant dupe of the Administration read any more than I do. What I see are mostly loud insulting smears that are expected to pass as truth.
Anon,
I think that I've already said that a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities could have serious negative effects, especially if the strike failed to seriously damage and delay their efforts to build a bomb.
We aren't hated or disliked by Iran, or any of the radical Islamic movement for our "meddling and interfering in their affairs, or for Supporting and backing repressive regimes". I believe that the evidence is that they would like to destroy us because our culture is materialistic and humanistic rather than in conformance with their idea of what God wants, in short because we are infidels. Of course, its more complicated than that. Theirs is a macho culture and it hurts their pride that they have been losers for at least the last hundred years while the evil Western World has become ever stronger and more popular with the world's people. They really do hate the Jews and Israel. Anyone who supports Israel over an Islamic State deserves no pity, consideration, or quarter. There is nothing that we could do as a nation that would make them any less anxious to destroy us. In fact almost any concession to their madness only confirms in them their opinion that Americans are soft, cowardly and in capable of rising to their standards. Radical religious ideologists are not generally nice people, and Islam at the moment seems determined to be the most zealous missionaries of the sword in the world.
I do not share your contempt for our elected officials, our government, nor the Intelligence Community. They do a very good job overall, though they are constrained from operating with much more than minimal effectiveness or efficiency. HUMINT is essential, yet the Congress and People, and the last half-dozen Administrations have virtually dictated that we not dirty our hands with spys and spying. There is only so much that can be gleaned from technical intelligence and open sources. Some of the constraints have been relaxed since 9/11, and as a result I believe that our information is better today than it was then.
Iran is highly unlikely to acquire nuclear weapons by purchasing them. The possible sellers are limited and their wares of uncertain reliability, even if a deal might be struck. The only credible place where Iran might buy a bomb, is Pakistan and even there the probabilities are against them. Building a bomb just isn't that easy, especially if you haven't weapons-grade fissionables. It is within the realm of possiblity that Iran might buy an old soviet warhead, or work a deal with the DPRK, but both sources are highly problematical.
A preemptive strike on Iran would certainly raise a public outcry, especially among those who are dedicated Pacifists, anti-American, or for some other reason in sympathy with radical Islam. Of Russia and China, I think China would be most upset. China wants the Iranian oil, so they are going to side with Iran on a lot of issues. China would likely lead the pack in condemning a preemptive conventional strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. However, I do not believe that China's displeasure would manifest itself in any military way. I don't foresee Chinese troops in Iran, or supporting Iran elsewhere in Asia. Diplomatic ties would certainly be strained for some time afterwards. All of this might be an acceptable price to pay, if Iran's nuclear weapons program is significantly damaged and delayed.
Frankly, I don't personally like the odds much whether we make any preemptive strike, or leave the Iranians to produce a nuclear arsenal. Either course is risky, and no one can tell in advance which is be better course. The decision is going to be made in Washington, not on A2K. Isn't it better to hope for the best, regardless of what the NCA decision is?
Asherman
Quote:We aren't hated or disliked by Iran, or any of the radical Islamic movement for our "meddling and interfering in their affairs, or for Supporting and backing repressive regimes". I believe that the evidence is that they would like to destroy us because our culture is materialistic and humanistic rather than in conformance with their idea of what God wants, in short because we are infidels.
That is the biggest bull s*** sold to the American people.
It's true that you haven't been reading.
The US Defense Department released a report by the Defense Science Board that is highly critical of the administration’s efforts in the war on terror and in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Quote:‘Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies [the report says]. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.’”
We’re finally getting somewhere.
“MSNBC notes that the report, in a comment that directly goes against statements made by President Bush and senior cabinet members, says the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have united otherwise-divided Muslim extremists and given terrorists organizations like Al Qaeda a boost by “raising their stature.” In fact, Wired News reported the board as saying, the US has not only failed to separate “the vast majority of nonviolent Muslims from the radical-militant Islamist-Jihadists,” but American efforts may have “achieved the opposite of what they intended.”
No surpirse here.
” As columnist Thomas Freidman of The New York Times wrote Monday in an opinion piece, the lack of planning and a ‘clear channel of communication to the Muslim world’ means that the US is losing the PR war to people that “saw off the heads of other Muslims.” Wars are fought for political ends. Soldiers can only do so much. And the last mile in every war is about claiming the political fruits. The bad guys in Iraq can lose every mile on every road, but if they beat America on the last mile – because they are able to intimidate better than America is able to coordinate, protect, inform, invest and motivate – they will win and America will lose.
The New York Times reported last Wednesday that although the board’s report does not constitute official government policy, it captures “the essential themes of a debate that is now roiling not just the Defense Department but the entire United States government.”
Any specualtion on whether or not this debate will go public? Or will the Bushites simply reject and ignore the report, like the one about human-rights violations in Guantanamo?
quotes from ‘They Hate Our Policies, Not Our Freedom’ By Tom Regan
The Christian Science Monitor.
Dec 2004
Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force Strategic.pdf
Your credibility has been flushed down the toilet.
Oh, did I ever have any credibility with you? I don't know if I can stand the disappointment and pain lthat loss of your belief in my opinions entails.
Asherman says: "Frankly, I don't personally like the odds much whether we make any preemptive strike, or leave the Iranians to produce a nuclear arsenal. Either course is risky, and no one can tell in advance which is be better course."
Truer words I have never read.
Edgar said...
Quote:Asherman says: "Frankly, I don't personally like the odds much whether we make any preemptive strike, or leave the Iranians to produce a nuclear arsenal. Either course is risky, and no one can tell in advance which is be better course."
Truer words I have never read.
Well,
At least one person on here knows what would be the best scenario.
I quote...
Quote:Best case scenario ... they detonate in Kansas!
Anon
So,we know that anon would rather see Americans killed then anyone else,and we have his own words to prove it.
So no matter what the US govt does about Iran,if Americans arent killed,then anon wont be happy and will say the govt screwed up.
There ya go, Asherman, the next time you want to make claims about the tendentious and insulting proclivities of "the other side of the aisle," come back and read that post.
Setanta wrote:There ya go, Asherman, the next time you want to make claims about the tendentious and insulting proclivities of "the other side of the aisle," come back and read that post.
Set,
I insulted nobody.
That was a direct quote,taken from earlier on this thread.
All I did was copy and paste it.
Are you saying now that using somebody else's EXACT WORDS is now an insult?
Setanta wrote:There ya go, Asherman, the next time you want to make claims about the tendentious and insulting proclivities of "the other side of the aisle," come back and read that post.
Ya gotta love him, don't ya. Notice what my statement was, and what he editorialized it to be! You can't call him ignorant or stupid, that would be a horrible insult to the ignorant and stupid!
Anon
freedom4free wrote:Asherman
Quote:We aren't hated or disliked by Iran, or any of the radical Islamic movement for our "meddling and interfering in their affairs, or for Supporting and backing repressive regimes". I believe that the evidence is that they would like to destroy us because our culture is materialistic and humanistic rather than in conformance with their idea of what God wants, in short because we are infidels.
That is the biggest bull s*** sold to the American people.
No, f4f, Asherman is exactly right. He could have mentioned that our women bare their faces and ankles in public.
Anon-Voter wrote:Setanta wrote:There ya go, Asherman, the next time you want to make claims about the tendentious and insulting proclivities of "the other side of the aisle," come back and read that post.
Ya gotta love him, don't ya. Notice what my statement was, and what he editorialized it to be! You can't call him ignorant or stupid, that would be a horrible insult to the ignorant and stupid!
Anon
Notice how anon blames others when he gets caught??
Here is the whole quote,in context...
Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 17:09 Post: 1982176 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ticomaya wrote:
Worst case scenario: Iran has a nuclear bomb in 4 years (2009)
Best case scenario ... they detonate in Kansas!
Anon
So anon,tell me how I edited it or changed it at all???
Its on page 26 of this thread,2nd post from the top,right under Tico's.
So,I will ask anyone else to read it,then please tell me how I changed it,edited it,or did anything else to change what he wrote.
Do we really need a name calling fest, when the topic itself is far more interesting?
edgarblythe wrote:Do we really need a name calling fest, when the topic itself is far more interesting?
I'm not calling names at all.
The claim was made that I altered someones post,for editorial purposes.
I am simply defending myself by posting the entire original post,and telling peopole exactly where that post is.
Now,other people can read the exact quote and judge for themselves if I changed it or not.
I think we all are literate enough to have already read the preceding posts with relative accuracy.
edgarblythe wrote:Do we really need a name calling fest, when the topic itself is far more interesting?
You notice I don't respond to him any more. don't blame me!! :wink:
Anon
Excerpt from the Nuclear non proliferation treaty
Article IV
1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty.
2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also cooperate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.
Has Iran violated this article of the treaty?
I don't know enough nuclear treaties to be able to comment if I think what they are doing is legal or not.
I do find if interesting that not long ago they did offer to sign something to the effect they would not make high level enrichment but that proposal was rebuffed.
(most of this is way out of my league (if I have one) but I am struggling anyway since if we go to war I want to know what it is about)
Quote:"The Islamic Republic is neither trying to brag to the world nor is it trying to deal politically with its people and say, 'well, we arrived at this point so now we'll suspend [uranium enrichment work]'," he said.
"Iran is pursuing the third path, which is what both our people and our leaders want.
"We want, without creating tensions or threats, to defend our national interest - which is to have the nuclear fuel cycle in our country for production of fuel for our reactors."
Aliasghar Soltanieh, Iran's ambassador to the IAEA in Vienna, has said his country offered last March to temporarily suspend large-scale enrichment, but that the proposal was rebuffed.
"We were able to [offer a] compromise to suspend large-scale enrichment and discuss ways and means to assure there won't be any ambiguities left and that this will be for peaceful purposes," he said in a telephone interview late last month.
"We gave a generous offer that gave a lot of compromise, provided this issue was not sent to the UN Security Council - but this historical opportunity was not taken into consideration by our European colleagues."
When asked if Iran would consider making the same offer again, he replied: "To the best of my knowledge, it won't be possible."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4911178.stm
Anon-Voter wrote:edgarblythe wrote:Do we really need a name calling fest, when the topic itself is far more interesting?
You notice I don't respond to him any more. don't blame me!! :wink:
Anon
The good old "stick your head in the sand" tactic. Gotta love it.
cjhsa wrote:Anon-Voter wrote:edgarblythe wrote:Do we really need a name calling fest, when the topic itself is far more interesting?
You notice I don't respond to him any more. don't blame me!! :wink:
Anon
The good old "stick your head in the sand" tactic. Gotta love it.
Nope - it's the "ignore an idiot" tactic.
