ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Gunga, what mental institution are you posting from?

Darwinism???

Secular humanism???

Your out of your freekin mind.

The question (Buchanan's) was whether or not operating an empire was what brought England from where it was 100 years ago to where it is now. Buchanan seems to be claiming it is; I claim it is not.

Between the end of the Napoleanic wars and 1914, a century had gone by without a major war in Europe, and Europe basically had most of the world by the balls. They didn't even have to think; all they had to do was go on doing what they HAD BEEN doing, parades, board room meetings, balls, OktoberFests, and they'd still be running most of the world.

Instead of doing that, however, they listened to a handful of losers like Chuck Darwin, Thomas Malthus, and Nietzsche about "survival of the fittest" being the only moral law in nature and what not, embarked upon out of control arms races, and two catastrophic wars, and now there is a very real danger of the entire continent being put undar sharia law because they're either afraid to have children any more or they've forgotten how to.

Operating an empire however, had nothing to do with any of that; Pat Buchanan is basically an idiot on top of being basically a nazi.

In this world there is nothing softer
or thinner than water
But to compel the hard and unyielding,
It has no equal.
That the weak overcomes the strong,
That the hard gives way to the gentle -
This everyone knows,
Yet no one acts accordingly.
--Lao Tzu 6th c. B.C.

Foxfyre wrote:
quote
I believe that Islamic terrorists will stop at nothing in their mad quest to rule the globe. As a result, World War III has started, whether we like it or not. It will continue, whether we fight back or not. But if we think we can win by not fighting, then we're not just wrong. We're nuts. As in nutmeg. "

end of quote

I think Foxfyre may be familiar with the writings of the foremost expert on Islam in the USA, Dr. Bernard Lewis. Dr. Lewis has written that the fanatics in power in Iran actually believe that an Apocalypse will soon take place which will allow the return of the Twelfth Imam who will unite all humanity under the rule of Islam.


Those who doubt this have only to read the following which is in the same vein of the fringe fundamentalists in the USA who believe in the Rapture:

quote
While Ahmadinejad has not drawn an explicit connection between his desire to see Israel wiped off the map and an activist belief in the Twelfth Imam's return, the dots are there to be connected once one understands the tyrannical "logic" behind someone who, perhaps viewing himself as a self-proclaimed deputy for the Twelfth Imam, might wish to effect Mahdi's return. The deputy would promote Iran's nuclear capabilities for they are key to effecting chaos in the world. The deputy would also purge diplomats, dozens of deputy ministers and heads of government banks and businesses, and challenge the Iranian ruling clerical establishment. All these moves push the regime toward a "coup d'état" (according to one Iranian source) or at least a constitutional crisis. But a constitutional crisis would be a mere stepping stone for a president for whom the Twelfth Imam does not require an Islamic republic to return.

Western observers need to be able to understand the ideological and religious overtones of the current situation in Iran. Ahmadinejad's peculiar references to the Twelfth Imam are no mere eccentricity to be taken lightly. Nor do they seem to be the rhetorical ploy of a politician manipulating the excitable masses (as some have interpreted Saddam Hussein's embrace of Islamism in the later part of his rule). Minimally, Ahmadinejad's speeches and actions portend a constitutional crisis for the Iranian regime. Maximally, there are times when one should take bombastic statements not as double-talk, but for what they are.

John von Heyking is an associate professor of political science at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada.

And the warning from the US expert on Islam is most disturbing-

I think we ignore it at our own peril:

August 8, 2006
Op-Ed: August 22

by Bernard Lewis
The Wall Street Journal

During the Cold War, both sides possessed weapons of mass destruction, but neither side used them, deterred by what was known as MAD, mutual assured destruction. Similar constraints have no doubt prevented their use in the confrontation between India and Pakistan. In our own day a new such confrontation seems to be looming between a nuclear-armed Iran and its favorite enemies, named by the late Ayatollah Khomeini as the Great Satan and the Little Satan, i.e., the United States and Israel. Against the U.S. the bombs might be delivered by terrorists, a method having the advantage of bearing no return address. Against Israel, the target is small enough to attempt obliteration by direct bombardment.

It seems increasingly likely that the Iranians either have or very soon will have nuclear weapons at their disposal, thanks to their own researches (which began some 15 years ago), to some of their obliging neighbors, and to the ever-helpful rulers of North Korea. The language used by Iranian President Ahmadinejad would seem to indicate the reality and indeed the imminence of this threat.

Would the same constraints, the same fear of mutual assured destruction, restrain a nuclear-armed Iran from using such weapons against the U.S. or against Israel

they are fighting for thier homeland freedom
Robert Fisk: This draft shows who is running America's policy... Israel
Published: 07 August 2006


So the great and the good on the East River laboured at the United Nations Security Council - and brought forth a lemon. You could almost hear the Lebanese groan at this draft resolution, a document of such bias and mendacity that a close Lebanese friend read carefully through it yesterday, cursed and uttered the immortal question: "Don't these bastards learn anything from history?"

And there it all was again, the warmed-up peace proposals of Israel's 1982 invasion, full of buffer zones and disarmament and "strict respect by all parties" - a rousing chortle here, no doubt, from Hizbollah members - and the need for Lebanese sovereignty. It didn't even demand the withdrawal of Israeli forces, a point that Walid Moallem, Syria's Foreign Minister - and the man the Americans will eventually have to negotiate with - seized upon with more than alacrity. It was a dead UN resolution without a total Israeli retreat, he said on a strategic trip to Beirut.

A close analysis of the American-French draft - the fingerprints of John Bolton, the US ambassador to the UN, were almost smudging the paragraphs - showed just who is running Washington's Middle East policy: Israel. And one wondered how even Tony Blair would want to associate himself with this nonsense. It made no reference to the obscenely disproportionate violence employed by Israel - just a sleek reference to "hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides" - and it made only passing reference to Hizbollah's demand that it would only release the two Israeli soldiers it captured on 12 July in return for Lebanese and other Arab prisoners in Israeli jails.

The Security Council said it was "mindful of the sensitivity of the issue of prisoners and encouraging the efforts aimed at settling the issue [sic] of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel". I bet Hizbollah were impressed by the "mindful" bit, not to mention the "sensitivity" and the soft, slippery word "settle" - an issue which can be "settled" in maybe 20 years' time. Then came the real coup de grâce. A demand for the "total cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks" and the "immediate cessation" by Israel of "all offensive military operations". Bit of a problem there, as Hizbollah spotted at once. They have to lay down their arms.

Had the council demanded an immediate resolution on the future of the Shebaa farms, the Israeli-occupied territory which once belonged to mandate Lebanon - and for whose "liberation" the Hizbollah have fought - the whole fandango might have stood a chance. After all, Shebaa is the only raison d'être that the Hizbollah can produce for continuing their reckless, ruthless, illegal war across the UN blue line in southern Lebanon. But the UN document wished only to see a delineation of Lebanon's borders "including in the Shebaa farms area". There was even a wonderful paragraph - Number 9 for aficionados of UN bumf - which "calls on all parties to co-operate ... with the Security Council". So the Hizbollah are to co-operate, are they, with the austere diplomats of this august and wise body? Isn't that exalting a guerrilla army a little bit more upmarket than it deserves?

No one was fooled and few disagreed with Syria's Walid Moallem when he said the UN's draft resolution was "a recipe for continuing the war". As both the Hizbollah and the Israelis did yesterday, the former killing 13 Israelis and the latter bombing houses in Ansar - once an Israeli POW camp - which destroyed five more Lebanese civilian lives. Mohamed Fneish, a Hizbollah government minister - who scarcely represents all Lebanese but talks as if he does - thundered away about how "we" [presumably the Hizbollah, rather than the Lebanese] will abide by it [the resolution] on condition that no Israeli soldiers remains inside Lebanese land."

There were more Israeli air attacks on Beirut's southern suburbs yesterday - though heaven knows what is left there to destroy - ensuring that even more Shia Muslim civilians will remain refugees. Fearful that the Israelis will bomb their trucks and claim they were carrying missiles, the garbage collectors of this city have abandoned their vehicles and the familiar 1982 stench of burning rubbish now drifts through the evening streets. Petrol is now so scarce that a tank-full yesterday cost £250.

About the only gift to Lebanon in the UN resolution was the expressed need to provide the UN with remaining Israeli maps of landmines in Lebanon. But Israel has again dropped lethal ordnance all over southern Lebanon. Oh yes, and as usual, the UN draft on these ambitious, hopelessly conceived ideas "decides to remain actively seized of the matter". You bet it does. And so, as they say, the war goes on.

What the UN wants...

* A full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;

* Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution based on the following principles and elements:

* Strict respect by all parties for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Israel and Lebanon;

* Full respect for the Blue Line by both parties;

* Delineation of the international borders of Lebanon, especially in those areas where the border is disputed or uncertain, including in the Shebaa farms area;

* Security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Lebanese armed and security forces, and of UN-mandated international forces;

* Full implementation of the relevant provisions ... that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon;

* Deployment of an international force in Lebanon;

* The Secretary General to develop, in liaison with key international actors and the concerned parties, proposals to implement the relevant provisions ... and to present those proposals to the Security Council within 30 days;

* The UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), upon cessation of hostilities, to monitor its implementation and extend assistance to ensure humanitarian access to civilians and the safe return of displaced persons;

* The government of Lebanon to ensure arms or related material are not imported into Lebanon without its consent and requests UNIFIL, conditions permitting, to assist the government of Lebanon at its request;

* The Secretary-General to report to the Council within one week on the implementation and provide any relevant information in light of the Council's intention to adopt a further resolution.

So the great and the good on the East River laboured at the United Nations Security Council - and brought forth a lemon. You could almost hear the Lebanese groan at this draft resolution, a document of such bias and mendacity that a close Lebanese friend read carefully through it yesterday, cursed and uttered the immortal question: "Don't these bastards learn anything from history?"

And there it all was again, the warmed-up peace proposals of Israel's 1982 invasion, full of buffer zones and disarmament and "strict respect by all parties" - a rousing chortle here, no doubt, from Hizbollah members - and the need for Lebanese sovereignty. It didn't even demand the withdrawal of Israeli forces, a point that Walid Moallem, Syria's Foreign Minister - and the man the Americans will eventually have to negotiate with - seized upon with more than alacrity. It was a dead UN resolution without a total Israeli retreat, he said on a strategic trip to Beirut.

A close analysis of the American-French draft - the fingerprints of John Bolton, the US ambassador to the UN, were almost smudging the paragraphs - showed just who is running Washington's Middle East policy: Israel. And one wondered how even Tony Blair would want to associate himself with this nonsense. It made no reference to the obscenely disproportionate violence employed by Israel - just a sleek reference to "hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides" - and it made only passing reference to Hizbollah's demand that it would only release the two Israeli soldiers it captured on 12 July in return for Lebanese and other Arab prisoners in Israeli jails.

The Security Council said it was "mindful of the sensitivity of the issue of prisoners and encouraging the efforts aimed at settling the issue [sic] of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel". I bet Hizbollah were impressed by the "mindful" bit, not to mention the "sensitivity" and the soft, slippery word "settle" - an issue which can be "settled" in maybe 20 years' time. Then came the real coup de grâce. A demand for the "total cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks" and the "immediate cessation" by Israel of "all offensive military operations". Bit of a problem there, as Hizbollah spotted at once. They have to lay down their arms.

Had the council demanded an immediate resolution on the future of the Shebaa farms, the Israeli-occupied territory which once belonged to mandate Lebanon - and for whose "liberation" the Hizbollah have fought - the whole fandango might have stood a chance. After all, Shebaa is the only raison d'être that the Hizbollah can produce for continuing their reckless, ruthless, illegal war across the UN blue line in southern Lebanon. But the UN document wished only to see a delineation of Lebanon's borders "including in the Shebaa farms area". There was even a wonderful paragraph - Number 9 for aficionados of UN bumf - which "calls on all parties to co-operate ... with the Security Council". So the Hizbollah are to co-operate, are they, with the austere diplomats of this august and wise body? Isn't that exalting a guerrilla army a little bit more upmarket than it deserves?

No one was fooled and few disagreed with Syria's Walid Moallem when he said the UN's draft resolution was "a recipe for continuing the war". As both the Hizbollah and the Israelis did yesterday, the former killing 13 Israelis and the latter bombing houses in Ansar - once an Israeli POW camp - which destroyed five more Lebanese civilian lives. Mohamed Fneish, a Hizbollah government minister - who scarcely represents all Lebanese but talks as if he does - thundered away about how "we" [presumably the Hizbollah, rather than the Lebanese] will abide by it [the resolution] on condition that no Israeli soldiers remains inside Lebanese land."


THE INDEPENDENT

Steven Gibson wrote:

So the great and the good on the East River laboured at the United Nations Security Council - and brought forth a lemon. You could almost hear the Lebanese groan at this draft resolution, a document of such bias and mendacity that a close Lebanese friend read carefully through it yesterday, cursed and uttered the immortal question: "Don't these bastards learn anything from history"?


end of quote

Yes, they learned that when someone asked them to board the trains that would take them to the labor camps and then to the showers for delousing, they would be exterminated.

That will never happen again--even if there is nuclear chaos!!!

Count on it!!!!

You didn't really bother to read up on Hezbollah, did you? I wonder how you reached the conclusion that it is Hezbollah's stated goal to "exterminate Israel, the USA, and Europe and establish Islam as the ruling authority in all the world". Care to explain?

The movement first emerged during Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, in which between twelve and nineteen thousand Lebanese died, most of them civilians and many of them Shiites. Militant followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini, Hezbollah's original cadres were organized and trained by a 1,500-member contingent of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, who arrived in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley in the summer of 1982, with the permission of the Syrian government. For Iran, whose efforts to spread the Islamic revolution to the Arab world had been stymied by its war with Iraq, Hezbollah provided a means of gaining a foothold in Middle East politics.

end of quote

ANY GROUP TRAINED BY THE FANATIC BASTARDS FROM IRAN WHO ARE DEDICATED TO THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL MUST BE, IN MY OPINION DECIMATED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT POSSIBLE!!!!

Re: they are fighting for thier homeland freedom


I got that far anyways...

Re: they are fighting for thier homeland freedom


Yeah, he wrote a piece a couple weeks ago on the conlfict that was simply pathetic drivel.

God no! You two do NOT want to be reading anyone who has lived and worked for most of his adult life in the region he writes about.

You want to read Krauthammer on the middle east or listen to Rush. They got the goods. Really knows what they are talking about.

Actually, I just don't want to read words from someone as insane as Fisk. He is a terrorist sympathizer pure and simple.

Exactly, if he weren't he wouldn't be allowed to tromp around where he does and then proceed to write with the slant in which he writes.

Its funny this writer thought to link Iraq with the conflict of Israel and Hezbollah considering the Shiites in Iraq are favorable to Hezbollah. I don't believe Saddam Hussein was, although I expect to hear some phony links in the future from the usual suspects. (To borrow a phrase)

The rest of the article concerning Iraq belongs in another thread.

I think you completely missed the point about what he is saying, and what he is saying is completely relevent to this thread.

You might wish to check out this guys credentials.

Actually foxfrye it was entirely to the point. From the standpoint of those who supported the war in Iraq because they wanted to "fight Islamic terrorism" (or whatever) it is just ironic that the removal of Saddam Hussien put in place a government that is so closely aligned with Iran/Hezbollah.

We all know that the Islamists are peaceful people who would never target civilians. However, be sure that the Islamist next to you on the plane doesn't start mixing liquids.

I think the present government of Iraq is in no way closely aligned with Iran or Hezbollah. The present government in Iraq is as anti-Israel as you are though and so takes Hezbollah's side. I would think you would think it was great.

How many Arabs...Islamists... are pro-Israel? Probably little to none, so whether the people of Iraq are pro-Israel is a pretty pointless question.