Don't try to weasel, McG--you didn't answer the question. You contend that: I personally feel that all countries are NOT equal in regards to the foreign aid they receive and that some countries are FAR more deserving of our blood and treasure. Why do you contend that Israel is more deserving of our aid than are our other friends in the middle east? If you don't contend that Israel is more derserving of aid than our other friends in the middle east, why did you stick your oar in?
Setanta wrote:Don't try to weasel, McG--you didn't answer the question. You contend that: I personally feel that all countries are NOT equal in regards to the foreign aid they receive and that some countries are FAR more deserving of our blood and treasure. Why do you contend that Israel is more deserving of our aid than are our other friends in the middle east? If you don't contend that Israel is more derserving of aid than our other friends in the middle east, why did you stick your oar in?
I asked first...
Are you suggesting that the US should not have a different foriegn policy for evey country, but rather some sort of generic thing?
You didn't "ask first," McG, which is why i expressed my resentment.
Oralloy suggested that we scrap the NPT, and give aid to Isreal to develop their nuclear program as a deterent to Iran. So i asked why should we extend such aid to them. He replied that they are our friend and ally. I pointed out that there are many nations in the region which are our friends and allies--based on the only criterion he provided, i asked why we would not extend the same aid to our other friends and allies, and particularly, to Turkey, which is part of a speical military treaty organization with us.
Therefore, if you're going to poke your nose into the conversation, and think to speak for Oralloy, or to address the question i asked him (and which he has not answered), then you asked nothing first.
If the United States were to scrap the NPT, and give aid to Israel in their development of nuclear weapons, because they are our friend and ally, why should we not extend the same aid to our other friends and allies in the region, and especailly to Turkey, which enjoys a treaty relationship with us which Isreal does not? If you're going to butt in, and make a contention that not all international relations are equal, then you have assumed the burden of explaining why Israel should enjoy a special relationship which our other friends and allies do not.
I see that you have nothing to offer on that topic, though, so i will assume, as i originally did, that you are just trying to stir up trouble, without actually discussing the issue which was raised between Oralloy and me, and just took an opportunity for a cheap shot sneer.
SierraSong wrote:
Although I'm not Jewish, I did find (as I'm sure many Jews would) your caricature tasteless. How long have you been a skinhead? Is Aryan Nation satisfying your need to feed on hate and bile?
I see you've managed to convince some of your friends and cohorts to come here and post their nonsense, as well.
It's a 'strategy' used by Jews to improve their current circumstances using the graves of their deceased co-religionists as a stepping stone?
Whats wrong with that ?
Oh and..I'm not a skinhead, who are my 'friends' and 'cohorts' ?
Most anti-semites think they're experts on "Jewish strategy" so why don't you just admit that you are, indeed, anti-semitic?
I can understand why you'd be embarrassed to admit your "skinhead" status, but since your comments on this site are filled with their usual rhetoric of hate and fear, you sure fit the description.
SierraSong wrote:Most anti-semites think they're experts on "Jewish strategy" so why don't you just admit that you are, indeed, anti-semitic?
I can understand why you'd be embarrassed to admit your "skinhead" status, but since your comments on this site are filled with their usual rhetoric of hate and fear, you sure fit the description.
Now you're playing the anti-Semitic card.
Are you sure you're not a Zoinist ?
I have nothing against Jews, they are great people, i'm against Zoinists.
I'm not a skinhead, i could be Jewish though.
those people dont look Jewish to me...
old europe wrote:oralloy wrote:Good. So, if sanctions are blocked...
Right. Just let me say that the US would be well-advised not to push for too dramatic actions in the Security Council. In my opinion, a resolution that would be supported by all the Security Council members would send a much stronger signal that the world is not divided over this issue than the US unilaterally trying to look tough, go for an unsupportable resolution, failing and subsequently having no choice left but going to war.
That can work both ways. If the only thing that can get through the Security Council is too weak, the Iranians will ignore the sanctions and keep developing nuclear weapons, which will eventually force us to chose a more unilateral option.
old europe wrote:And, just because you obviously failed to think in any other category than a military one so far,
Half of the options I've discussed have been non-military.
old europe wrote:you should maybe think about the political/tactical/strategic backlash of a unilateral US attack on Iran.
I expect the anti-American crowd will whine at us again.
I am a little concerned about the possibility that Iran has Sunburn (and maybe Sizzler) anti-ship missiles.
Setanta wrote:You continue to indulge in special pleading on behalf of Israel.
Yes, I do.
First, I like Israel. And second, they are the only ones in the area who I think are at a grave risk from Iranian nukes.
However, I would support a big buildup of nukes in Turkey too, provided that we could do it in a way that threatened Iran without antagonizing Russia.
I would support arming the others on your list with advanced conventional weapons, but not with nukes.
Quote:I think are at a grave risk from Iranian nukes.
What nukes ?
Am I missing out on something?
I thought Israel had the nukes.
Dont worry, i think i found them, they're camouflaged
oralloy wrote:Setanta wrote:You continue to indulge in special pleading on behalf of Israel.
Yes, I do.
First, I like Israel...
Why? Many Jews dont...see above.
Your likes or dislikes does not justify initiating another illegal aggressive and possibly nuclear war against a country that poses no threat to you.
oralloy wrote:Setanta wrote:You continue to indulge in special pleading on behalf of Israel.
Yes, I do.
First, I like Israel. And second, they are the only ones in the area who I think are at a grave risk from Iranian nukes.
However, I would support a big buildup of nukes in Turkey too, provided that we could do it in a way that threatened Iran without antagonizing Russia.
I would support arming the others on your list with advanced conventional weapons, but not with nukes.
Well, we're making some progress here. Frankly, i would consider Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Afghanistan to be too big a threat of fanaticism to want to see them with nukes. But then, i feel that way about the Israelis, too.
Oh, and Steve is absolutely right--whether or not you "like" Israel is no cogent basis for making a crucial decision of international policy.
Jack Straw's demotion from the Foreign Office ministry in the UK appears to spell worrying signs on Iran...
Quote:Iran is the key to Jack Straw's demotion
He said a military strike against Iran was inconceivable. His problem is that Tony Blair thinks differently.
The key to the demotion of Jack Straw from foreign secretary is Iran. Mr Straw for more than a year, in his favourite outlet the BBC Today programme or at various press conferences, said repeatedly a military strike on Iran was inconceivable. [..]
He was reflecting the reality of British domestic politics. Against the background of the Iraq debacle, Mr Straw knew it would be difficult to win support for the military option in cabinet and that it would create even more upheaval among the membership of the already weakened Labour party.
The problem for Mr Straw is that Tony Blair does not view Iran the same way. He regards the threat posed by Iran as the most serious in the world today, and is even more messianic on the issue than George Bush. That does not mean that a military strike will happen but Mr Blair, like Mr Bush, thinks it is a good idea to keep the option on the table, if only to keep Iran guessing.
Downing Street phoned the Foreign Office several times to ask Mr Straw to stop being so categoric in ruling out a military strike. And the White House also phoned Downing Street to ask why Mr Straw kept saying these things. And that was before Mr Straw dismissed as "nuts" the prospect of a tactical nuclear strike on Iran, an option that Mr Bush subsequently refused to remove from the table.
Quote:The two crucial mistakes that cost Straw his job
Jack Straw made two crucial mistakes in his dealings with Tony Blair: one involved the prime minister's relationship with Gordon Brown and the other Iran. Mr Straw has said repeatedly that it is "inconceivable" that there will be a military strike on Iran and last month dismissed as "nuts" a report that George Bush was keeping on the table the option of using tactical nuclear weapons against Tehran's nuclear plants.
But Mr Blair, who sees Iran as the world's biggest threat, does not agree with his former foreign secretary. The prime minister argues that, at the very least, nothing should be ruled out in order to keep Iran guessing. Downing Street phoned the Foreign Office several times to suggest Mr Straw stop going on the BBC Today programme and ruling it out so categorically. His fate was sealed when the White House called Mr Blair and asked why the foreign secretary kept saying these things.
I suppose nothing about Poodle Blair should surprise us by now.
nimh
I read those pieces too, but don't grant the two relevant notions (why Straw went, increased liklihood of attack on Iran with or without nukes) credence. One can easily imagine Straw going in the post-election reshuffle simply because he's the highest profile individual in Blair's cabinet and because he, more than anyone else other than Blair, is associated with the Iraq mess AND with the close Brit/US ties (which most Brits are deeply unhappy regarding).
It is almost impossible to imagine either Blair or Bush now setting to a military adventure re Iran. In both cases, the electoral consequences would almost certainly be devastating - in great part because both governments have lost the trust of their electorates re war, re intelligence, and re competence so the drum-beating won't work this time. As maniacal as Bush might seem, I think his actions are pretty cleanly constrained by the desire of those about and supporting his administration to preserve as much movement dominance as possible - in other words, elections are everything. They will pretend and play puffed up soldier but that's all.
As much dislike as I've built up for Straw and his pro-Bush lies, his recent unambiguous statements re use of nukes slides him back towards the goodguy column. I think it likely, with the connections he will have established now within the military and foreign office departments, that if some madmen were to push a nuke use plan forward seriously, he'd hear about it and go public. We ought to note his close friendship with Rice too and all of the people within the sane parts of the American government who would simply not permit a nuke-use plan to proceed.
You analysis suffers from a lack of understanding of the Shrub's future, Mr. Mountie. After the mid-terms, he may well decide he'll attack Iran, and have no further electoral worries, since he'll be a lame duck, and the consequences for the Republican Party will be meaningless for him.
Setanta wrote:You analysis suffers from a lack of understanding of the Shrub's future, Mr. Mountie. After the mid-terms, he may well decide he'll attack Iran, and have no further electoral worries, since he'll be a lame duck, and the consequences for the Republican Party will be meaningless for him.
Set
I understand the lame-duck dynamic, but consider that it applies less for Bush than it might in almost any other circumstance and with almost any other Presidency. As Woodward's book noted, decisions got made after Bush visited Cheney's office. There are many reasons to consider this President more of a figurehead than probably anyone else in US history. I consider it quite possible, for example, that he was fed the idea that he is "the decider".
Though he may consider that anything which happens after his Presidency is over to of little concern (I don't think that is so), there are too many powerful and influential constituencies propping up his administration (and benefiting from it) which desire to maintain their grasp on power. I consider those constituencies determinative here.
oralloy wrote:old europe wrote:oralloy wrote:Good. So, if sanctions are blocked...
Right. Just let me say that the US would be well-advised not to push for too dramatic actions in the Security Council. In my opinion, a resolution that would be supported by all the Security Council members would send a much stronger signal that the world is not divided over this issue than the US unilaterally trying to look tough, go for an unsupportable resolution, failing and subsequently having no choice left but going to war.
That can work both ways. If the only thing that can get through the Security Council is too weak, the Iranians will ignore the sanctions and keep developing nuclear weapons, which will eventually force us to chose a more unilateral option.
It could certainly by successful - or not. However, Iran's plea to transfer the case back from the Security Council (which can issue resolutions) to the IAEA (which has no such means available) in exchange for allowing IAEA inspectors back in might be a hint that Iran
does, indeed, care about what's going on in the rest of the world.
However, saying that an approach that could be supported by all members should not be tried at first - just because Iran might not care too much about it - is the most stupid thing I've heard recently.
blatham wrote:Setanta wrote:You analysis suffers from a lack of understanding of the Shrub's future, Mr. Mountie. After the mid-terms, he may well decide he'll attack Iran, and have no further electoral worries, since he'll be a lame duck, and the consequences for the Republican Party will be meaningless for him.
Set
I understand the lame-duck dynamic, but consider that it applies less for Bush than it might in almost any other circumstance and with almost any other Presidency. As Woodward's book noted, decisions got made after Bush visited Cheney's office. There are many reasons to consider this President more of a figurehead than probably anyone else in US history. I consider it quite possible, for example, that he was fed the idea that he is "the decider".
Though he may consider that anything which happens after his Presidency is over to of little concern (I don't think that is so), there are too many powerful and influential constituencies propping up his administration (and benefiting from it) which desire to maintain their grasp on power. I consider those constituencies determinative here.
First, i would note that King-makers surrender the ultimate power having made their King, for whatever their intent. Second, i would point out that after the mid-term elections, neither the Shrub nor any member of his administration any longer needs to cater to those constituencies, the more so as it is so unlikely that any member of this administration--Cheney least of all--has any prospect of attempting to secure the Republican nomination. On that basis, i consider this rogue administration to be far more dangerous as a lame duck than any other i've seen in my lifetime.
