US military, intelligence officials raise concern about possible preparations for Iran strike
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/US_military_seen_ready_for_Iran_0511.html
Xingu asked: Question here, and this may have been covered somewhere else.
Does Bush have the legal right to attack another country without consent from Congress?
Has Congress given Bush consent to attack Iran or any country Bush chooses?
Does not the constitution require us to declare war on a country before we attack it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, Clinton attacked Iraq in Dec. 1998 raining missles on Baghdad.
He got no Congressional Approval.
Many forget, or do not want to remember, that the Congress of the United States gave overwheling and bipartisan AUTHORITY to President Bush on Oct. 10th and 11th, 2001 to attack Iraq.
____________________________________________________________
What would happen if Iran struck at Israel with a nuclear device?
I fervently pray that such would not happen because millions of innocents would be killed both in Israel( which, because of its size, would probably be completely wiped out along with a goodly number of Palestinians). But the US and Europe would not let this occur before taking non-military steps in the UN and the Security Council.
Europe and the US are very aware that not only would millions of innocents die in an Iranian attack on Isreal but the consequent blockage of the Straits of Homuz would devastate the economies of both the USA and Europe. Yes, Europe depends on Middle Eastern Oil also.
We shall see what occurs in the UN and the Security Council in the next several months with regard to Iran.
BernardR wrote:What would happen if Iran struck at Israel with a nuclear device?
That easy we are all fu**ed. But seriously why would they want to?
Steve: You may be aware that the leaders of Iran, both civil and religious, although some say there is no difference, have declared that Israel must be destroyed.
BernardR wrote:Steve: You may be aware that the leaders of Iran, both civil and religious, although some say there is no difference, have declared that Israel must be destroyed.
So do quite a few American Jews
Quote:In recognition of this bitter day on which so many others celebrate the creation of this vile Zionist regime in 1948, a number of speakers will give lectures in Williamsburg, Brooklyn.
On Tuesday evening, May 2, 2006, there will be an assembly of the peopleat the *Satmar /Yetev Lev /Synagogue, 152 Rodney Street, Brooklyn, NY at 8:45 pm.*
Wednesday evening there will be an assembly of people at the *Nesivos Olam Synagogue, 205 Hewes St., Brooklyn, NY at 6 pm* to recite Psalms for the peaceful dismantling of the Zionist State. Several Rabbis will speak to those assembled during the evening.
Visit our web site at
*Jews Against Zionism*
www.jewsagainstzionism.com <http>
Well, it's as plain as the nose on your face.
We should nuke New York.
Yeah, setanta, but first evacuate the citizenry to Branson , Missouri.
Steve- Please be so good as to quote any American Jews who say that Isreal should be destroyed with a nuclear weapon. I would also appreciate it if you would show the number of Jews who believe that.
Every group has its kooks. There are even some Roman Catholics who believe that the "fiction" in the DaVinci book is true.
Again, A country of more than 70,000,000 people(Iran) has declared that Israel must be destroyed. You trivialize the threat when you post nonsense.
BernardR wrote:Steve- Please be so good as to quote any American Jews who say that Isreal should be destroyed with a nuclear weapon. I would also appreciate it if you would show the number of Jews who believe that.
Every group has its kooks. There are even some Roman Catholics who believe that the "fiction" in the DaVinci book is true.
Again, A country of more than 70,000,000 people(Iran) has declared that Israel must be destroyed. You trivialize the threat when you post nonsense.
I don't know anyone who has said that Israel should be destroyed with a nuclear weapon, American Jewish or otherwise. You can probably come up with some inbred neo-nazi voicing some inanities along those lines, but who cares what he thinks? Your challenge is a straw man, as well as a red herring, and it is nonsense.
As for your claim that "A country of more than 70,000,000 people(Iran) has declared that Israel must be destroyed," what is your reference? There is evidence that much of what the Iran president has said has been mistranslated in the Western media. From what I've read he says that the Zionist regime, the occupying regime emplaced by the world oppressor, the US, must be eliminated in much the same way that the hostile regime, that of the Shah's, emplaced by the selfsame world oppressor was eliminated from Iran. Certainly, Ahmadinejad isn't saying that Iran was destroyed, he is saying that the hostile regime was removed. He believes that the Zionist regime must be removed also. He doesn't say that "Israel must be destroyed."
I am afraid you are correct, InfraBlue. All that Admadinejad wants is for "Israel to be wiped out from the map of the world". That's all. It would probably be a peaceful thing. The Jewish state would be removed--to somewhere in the interior of Australia, perhaps? and, according to the article, insisted that a new series of attacks will destroy the Jewish state.
How stupid of me to think that Admadinejad had negative feelings about Isreal-
Quote below from CNN
Iranian leader: Wipe out Israel
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran's new president has repeated a remark from a former ayatollah that Israel should be "wiped out from the map," insisting that a new series of attacks will destroy the Jewish state, and lashing out at Muslim countries and leaders that acknowledge Israel.
The remarks by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- reported by Islamic Republic News Agency -- coincide with a month-long protest against Israel called "World without Zionism" and with the approach of Jerusalem Day.
World without Zionism is a nationwide event the planners intend to hold annually, and Ahmadinejad made the remarks during a meeting with protesting students at the Interior Ministry.
Ahmadinejad quoted a remark from Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, who said that Israel "must be wiped out from the map of the world."
So the Iranians booted CNN from covering the news in thier country!!!!
It reminds me of Herr Goebbles who met each day with the editors of Berlin Newspapers to tell them what should be featured in the newspapers and what should not be covered.
I note that the quotation by the Ayatollah which said that "Israel should be wiped off the map" was not in question!!!
BernardR wrote:So the Iranians booted CNN from covering the news in thier country!!!!
It reminds me of Herr Goebbles who met each day with the editors of Berlin Newspapers to tell them what should be featured in the newspapers and what should not be covered.
I note that the quotation by the Ayatollah which said that "Israel should be wiped off the map" was not in question!!!
First off, I don't believe that Ahmadinejad is the Ayatollah and second, it is actually a misquotation which has just been accepted as truth. The true quotation is: "This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
Quote: "This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope-- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government.
http://mondoweiss.observer.com/2006/05/defending-juan-cole.html
Herr Goebbles is alive and well in the Bush administration.
Quote:
The War on Al Jazeera
by JEREMY SCAHILL
[from the December 19, 2005 issue]
If the classified memo detailing President Bush's alleged proposal to bomb the headquarters of Al Jazeera is provided to The Nation, we will publish the relevant sections. Why is it so vital that this information be made available to the American people? Because if a President who claims to be using the US military to liberate countries in order to spread freedom then conspires to destroy media that fail to echo his sentiments, he does not merely disgrace his office and soil the reputation of his country. He attacks a fundamental principle, freedom of the press--particularly a dissenting and disagreeable press--upon which that country was founded. --The Editors
Nothing puts the lie to the Bush Administration's absurd claim that it invaded Iraq to spread democracy throughout the Middle East more decisively than its ceaseless attacks on Al Jazeera, the institution that has done more than any other to break the stranglehold over information previously held by authoritarian forces, whether monarchs, military strongmen, occupiers or ayatollahs. The United States bombed its offices in Afghanistan in 2001, shelled the Basra hotel where Al Jazeera journalists were the only guests in April 2003, killed Iraq correspondent Tareq Ayoub a few days later in Baghdad and imprisoned several Al Jazeera reporters (including at Guantánamo), some of whom say they were tortured. In addition to the military attacks, the US-backed Iraqi government banned the network from reporting in Iraq.
Then in late November came a startling development: Britain's Daily Mirror reported that during an April 2004 White House meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, George W. Bush floated the idea of bombing Al Jazeera's international headquarters in Qatar. This allegation was based on leaked "Top Secret" minutes of the Bush-Blair summit. British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith has activated the Official Secrets Act, threatening any publication that publishes any portion of the memo (he has already brought charges against a former Cabinet staffer and a former parliamentary aide). So while we don't yet know the contents of the memo, we do know that at the time of Bush's meeting with Blair, the Administration was in the throes of a very public, high-level temper tantrum directed against Al Jazeera. The meeting took place on April 16, at the peak of the first US siege of Falluja, and Al Jazeera was one of the few news outlets broadcasting from inside the city. Its exclusive footage was being broadcast by every network from CNN to the BBC.
The Falluja offensive, one of the bloodiest assaults of the US occupation, was a turning point. In two weeks that April, thirty marines were killed as local guerrillas resisted US attempts to capture the city. Some 600 Iraqis died, many of them women and children. Al Jazeera broadcast from inside the besieged city, beaming images to the world. On live TV the network gave graphic documentary evidence disproving US denials that it was killing civilians. It was a public relations disaster, and the United States responded by attacking the messenger.
Just a few days before Bush allegedly proposed bombing the network, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Falluja, Ahmed Mansour, reported live on the air, "Last night we were targeted by some tanks, twice...but we escaped. The US wants us out of Falluja, but we will stay." On April 9 Washington demanded that Al Jazeera leave the city as a condition for a cease-fire. The network refused. Mansour wrote that the next day "American fighter jets fired around our new location, and they bombed the house where we had spent the night before, causing the death of the house owner Mr. Hussein Samir. Due to the serious threats we had to stop broadcasting for few days because every time we tried to broadcast the fighter jets spotted us we became under their fire."
On April 11 senior military spokesperson Mark Kimmitt declared, "The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are not legitimate news sources. That is propaganda, and that is lies." On April 15 Donald Rumsfeld echoed those remarks in distinctly undiplomatic terms, calling Al Jazeera's reporting "vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable.... It's disgraceful what that station is doing." It was the very next day, according to the Daily Mirror, that Bush told Blair of his plan. "He made clear he wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere," a source told the Mirror. "There's no doubt what Bush wanted to do--and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it."
Al Jazeera's real transgression during the "war on terror" is a simple one: being there. While critical of the Bush Administration and US policy, it is not anti-American--it is independent. In fact, it has angered almost every Arab government at one point or another and has been kicked out of or sanctioned by many Arab countries. It holds the rare distinction of being shut down by both Saddam and the new US-backed government. It was the first Arab station to broadcast interviews with Israeli officials. It is hardly the Al Qaeda mouthpiece the Administration has wanted us to believe it is. The real threat Al Jazeera poses is in its unembedded journalism--precisely what is needed now to uncover the truth about the Bush-Blair meeting.
Conservative British MP Boris Johnson, who is by trade a journalist and is editor of The Spectator magazine, has offered to publish the memo if it is leaked to him. It should be published, and if any journal is prosecuted for doing so, it should be backed up by media organizations everywhere. The war against Al Jazeera and other unembedded journalists has been conducted with far too little outcry from the powerful media organizations of the world. It shouldn't take another bombing for this to be a story.
SOURCE
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9663
Quote: Another CNN sheep ?
So now the left opposes CNN?
Or is it just you?
Isnt this the same CNN that the left was praising when they reported stories negative to Bush?
Isnt this the same CNN that the left trusted as gospel when they were reporting on the previous admin?
Since you oppose CNN,Fox,all of the major papers,Reuters,and every other major news source,exactly what news organizations do you trust?
Tell us that,that way when a conservative posts from one of the sources you trust,you will have to believe it,no matter what.
Good God ! ! !
There's so many strawmen in that last post, if somebody dropped a match, the whole place would go up in flames in seconds ! ! !
Setanta wrote:Good God ! ! !
There's so many strawmen in that last post, if somebody dropped a match, the whole place would go up in flames in seconds ! ! !
Since the questions werent directed at you,feel free to ignore them.
F4F made a comment,I questioned him about it.
I just don't want to be trampled when the place goes up in flames. Anyway, bite me . . .
A "strawman" fallacy is when an inappropriate analogy is presented and then destroyed/glorified, thus "proving" the presenter's point without reference to the actual case. Key is that the analogy be inappropriate, and that the presenter makes his case on the analogy while ignoring the actual case.
Does this mean that one should never use an analogy to illustrate some point? Rather than criticize the person making the analogy (ad hominem fallacy), why not directly address the "inappropriateness" of their example?
In MM's post above there are four questions:
Isn't this the same CNN that the left was praising when they reported stories negative to Bush? Clearly a question, not an analogy appropriate or otherwise. Has the left praised CNN reports negative to President Bush? Clearly CNN has made such reports, and leftish/liberal posters here have quoted those stories with glee. I don't think that MM's question is problematical. MM's second use of the same question related to the first President Bush is, in my opinion overkill.
Since you oppose CNN,Fox,all of the major papers,Reuters,and every other major news source,exactly what news organizations do you trust? MM is addressing a specific person, not the left/liberals as a class, so the question may be appropriate to F4F. F4F does appear to applaud and credit any news report negative to the President, and tends to accuse the same sources as dupes, idiots, or fellow-travelers (now there's a term that has become almost obsolete) when a story supports an Administration policy or decision. Reports from sources who support radical Islamic terrorist attacks on the United States seem to be generally admired and believed, over conflicting reports from the free press of the West. MM, again it seems to me, is asking pretty reasonably for F4F to stop praising or condemning sources based apparently only on his own prejudices. That MM posed his remark in the form of a question is more a question of style than it is a "proof" that F4Fas argument "Another CNN sheep" (reducio ad absurdem, and generalization fallacies) is wrong. MM isn't, I don't think, trying to disprove F4Fs "argument", but is calling for something more substantial and consistent.
Tell us that,that way when a conservative posts from one of the sources you trust,you will have to believe it,no matter what. This question is the natural, if overkill, follow-on to MM's points above. MM already has formed an opinion (nothing wrong with that) that F4F will have no valid response. With this "question" and challenge, MM rests his case that F4F, and many others here, cherry-pick stories to support their points of view. Don't we all? MM's point is that using ad hominem references to make the sources of their chosen stories appear more authoritativeve/less believable, is nonsense. Seems reasonable to me.
I suppose that by a bit of creative stretch a Strawman might be asserted, but it is a stretch. MY POINT is that enough already with folks trying to appear completely rational by pointing out possible classical fallacies is overdone and often wrong to boot. None of us is always rational, and we all on occasion step over the lines drawn in formal logic. That ain't necessarily bad, nor a reason to dismiss an argument. Less argument and more discussion. Dialogue is good, but it requires having at least minimal respect for those we disagree with. Blanket condemnation, or demonization of the "other" blinds us to the possibility that we might be wrong. Enough. Enough. If we will all just put as much effort into understanding one another as we do in provoking, we might learn something .... or maybe not.
BTW, Set is this, that I regard as a call to reason, a "flame"?
Another CNN sheep ?