Susan's Place Transgender Resources

US 'Iran attack plans' revealed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6376639.stm)

"US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned."

To not have a plan would be unwise methinks.  However.... they're going to have a really hard time convincing us there is a believeable need to send troops in.

Cindi

That's my thinking.  It just seems a bit ominous for this information to floating around.

It's going to a tough sell to attack, considering we do not have spare troops for them to draw from.

How do I wake up from this horrible nightmare!

Reid: "This war is a serious situation. It involves the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of this country."

McCain: "I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history."

Could this administration be any more misguided? To even entertain the vaguest of notions regarding any action in Iran is folly beyond words...IMHO.

Kelly

I fear my cousin will never be sent home from this "war..." He's in Iraq now (well past the time he was supposed to leave), god knows where he'll be next if they start some nonsense with Iran.

Short of troops?  Are you kidding?  We've got millions here that can be drafted! We've got plenty!

We can't afford it?  Are you kidding?  We can put everyone to work in the munitions factories.  We can ration gasoline.  We can ration bread and butter.

And remember... there's just one "decision maker" who is "reading a book" that Kissenger gave him.  Yup, that's right.  The pres finally decided to read a book to try and understand what's going on.  Bully for him!  Let's rally round our esteemed leader.  He's reading a book!  I wonder if he's colored in it yet.

Oh... we can go a long ways.  Be scared, be very scared.  Don't believe the mosters if they lie to us again.  Check out their stories folks very carefully.

Cindi

I just wonder if their "reliable sources" regarding Iran supplying insurgents is the same one that gave us the info about weapons of mass destruction. It wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Karen Lyn     :icon_female:

Quote from: Kaelin on February 19, 2007, 07:25:41 PM
US 'Iran attack plans' revealed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6376639.stm)

"US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned."

This is in some respect "old news". The US Military plays simulated war games continuously in one of several centers around the US with joint operations of the Defense Department, now Homeland Security, CIA, NSA, State, etal. They're always ready with plans and recommendations for any (well, almost any) contingency the other nations provide. All except insurgent warfare, it's the one that can't really fully understand and grasp (obviously) because it doesn't involve international situations but intra-nation conditions.

And how do I have some (slight) insight? A friend of mine, now retired, worked in the Naval War Games Center in Conneticut from time to time (they rotate people in/out) to keep ideas and work fresh. You can bet the President has had a variety of war plans for Iran "on the table" now for several years, as he had with Iraq shortly after coming into office in 2001, and only waited for the "trigger" to sell it to the UN and Americans. While he said as late as 2002 he didn't have any war plans for Iraq "on his desk", he had them in his briefcase.

The only question now is if Congress will approve a declaration for war with Iran or will GW "decide" (remember he is "the decider") previous authorizations for Afghanistan and Iraq covers any attack on Iran under the guise of supporting terrorism or protecting American soldiers. And the question is if Congress, especially the Senate has the nerve to follow the American voters to squash any effort in this direction. Considering the failure of the non-binding resolution, too many Senators are afraid of their own shadow. Where is Senator Byrd when we need him again?

Why a reporter hasn't asked, "Mr. President, why are there two carrier groups in the vicinity of Iraq if not for preparing for war with Iran?" You don't need two carrier groups to fight an insurgency, but to prepare for expanded hostilities of a new kind. But, as the military has advised the President, Iran isn't Iraq (2/2003), Iran has a good air defense system with lots of ground to air missles, a decent Air Force (compliments of US and Russia), a huge army just next door to Iraq with strong support inside Iraq, lots of ground to ground missles to target US facilities in Iraq and Kuwait, and worst of all, a small, decent, and quick navy with ship/ground/air to ship missles, good enough to inflict significant damage to our Navy including carriers.

In short they're not stupid, we and the Russians trained them, and neither is our military. The question is the President and VP. And as Rusty Wallace said, "Stay tuned Hot Rod, we're just getting started." I'll park the soapbox now.

--Susan--

Quote from: Cindi Jones on February 20, 2007, 04:33:58 AM
And remember... there's just one "decision maker" who is "reading a book" that Kissenger gave him.  Yup, that's right.  The pres finally decided to read a book to try and understand what's going on.  Bully for him!  Let's rally round our esteemed leader.  He's reading a book!  I wonder if he's colored in it yet.

I was under the impression he had to be read to...with lots of splaining.

Quote from: KarenLyn on February 20, 2007, 06:10:54 AM
I just wonder if their "reliable sources" regarding Iran supplying insurgents is the same one that gave us the info about weapons of mass destruction. It wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Karen Lyn     :icon_female:

Or those forged Niger documents about yellow cake...

Quote from: Cindi Jones on February 19, 2007, 07:30:05 PM
To not have a plan would be unwise methinks.  However.... they're going to have a really hard time convincing us there is a believeable need to send troops in.

Cindi

Convincing "us" maybe, but not heir base of rubber stampers...beware of the next false flag event. My dreams are increasing in frequency. I believe we are on the brink of a major event to happen in 6 wks or less, no more than 3 mo.

Quote from: Kaelin on February 19, 2007, 07:35:53 PM
That's my thinking.  It just seems a bit ominous for this information to floating around.

It's going to a tough sell to attack, considering we do not have spare troops for them to draw from.

Hmm the "Surge" was a tough sell...Congress said "no" even...Der Bush did it anyway...

Quote from: SusanK on February 20, 2007, 08:02:23 AM

Quote from: Kaelin on February 19, 2007, 07:25:41 PM
US 'Iran attack plans' revealed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6376639.stm)

"US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned."

This is in some respect "old news".

but, this isn't...Second US aircraft carrier arrives near Iran http://www.rawstory.com//news/2007/Second_US_aircraft_carrier_arrives_near_0220.html   (http://second%20us%20aircraft%20carrier%20arrives%20near%20iran%20http://www.rawstory.com//news/2007/Second_US_aircraft_carrier_arrives_near_0220.html)

Forgive me if i sound a little blunt but it's not my intention and it is not intended as a criticism of the citizens of the US, but more of a commentary.  As an outsider looking in I would have thought by now that US foreign policy in that neck of the woods would have changed by now, but it's still all about oil.

The US involvement has been a failure from the start.  Beginning with their support of the Shar of Iran.  He was overthrown because the Shar did nothing for his country but rape it, so Islamic fundamentalist took control and installed Khomeini.  So having lost that country the US then turned to Iraq and became the ally of Sodamn Insane and backed his war against Iran, which ended in a stalemate as of course the then Soviet Union was backing Iran.  Iraq lost so much, that it needed to restock it's coffers so it turned to Kuwait help and as we all know everything went to hell in a handbag.  Funnily enough a lot of the high tech fighter planes that Iran has to counter US threats are from Iraq, US planes sold to Iraq, flown to Iran for safe keeping when the US invaded Iraq.

The worlds a funny place.

Steph

Quote from: Steph on February 20, 2007, 12:57:48 PM
Forgive me if i sound a little blunt but it's not my intention and it is not intended as a criticism of the citizens of the US, but more of a commentary...

Well, when you put it like that...golly, we look kind of silly don't we. Yep, government by the people, for the people...what a f-ing crock! Not to sound negative, of course. ::)

I'm just curious to see if we can stop before we are the butt of every joke. Soooo, any openings up there in the great-white-north? ;D

Quote from: Kelly-47 on February 20, 2007, 01:22:18 PM


I'm just curious to see if we can stop before we are the butt of every joke. Soooo, any openings up there in the great-white-north? ;D

I don't care about the jokes so much as wishing we could take our own country back before the bombs start dropping here.

The saddest thing of all is that I have to admit to an enormous ignorance of the government and politics, but that I can speak for the majority of my generation when I say this. It was something that was simply never taught to me. Everything painted in blue and red so to speak. And now all I can do is look around and wonder "what the hell is going on and how can I even do anything to stop it?"  So, large piece of humble pie here, where do I begin to understand these things? What do I need to read? A history book? I need a serious crash course in where all this began and what exactly is going on now. Where do I find this?

Quote from: angelsgirl on February 20, 2007, 02:22:16 PM
The saddest thing of all is that I have to admit to an enormous ignorance of the government and politics, but that I can speak for the majority of my generation when I say this. It was something that was simply never taught to me. Everything painted in blue and red so to speak. And now all I can do is look around and wonder "what the hell is going on and how can I even do anything to stop it?"  So, large piece of humble pie here, where do I begin to understand these things? What do I need to read? A history book? I need a serious crash course in where all this began and what exactly is going on now. Where do I find this?

That's easy...I have posted tons of info and resources here in the activism forum for one.
Best link you and anyone else can read is this entire 89 pg doc called Rebuilding America's Defenses aka the PNAC RAD doc:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

everything that we have done since Bush took office is in that document pretty much..,.funny how it was publised before he took office..
Oh BTW, after ya all read it compare it to the Bush Doctrine of June 2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine which then became the The National Security Strategy of the United States of America in Sept 2002 http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

This is a good place to start to understand what has happened over the past 6 yrs or so...then we go from there...as for other things to do...get involved.
Lemme know if I can help...this is what I do ;)



BTW even old Hans Blix knows it's coming any day...tic toc tic toc tic...

Will the United States Attack Iran?
by Hans Blix
Will the United States use armed force against Iran? Hardly any foreign policy issue is hotter right now. American planes are reported to be patrolling along the border between Iraq and Iran, and U.S. forces have been authorized to kill Iranian agents in Iraq. Two U.S. aircraft carriers are in the Gulf and missile defenses have been installed in Gulf states. The military buildup is either to scare Tehran or to prepare for American attacks on Iran.
Many remember that there was a U.S. military buildup in the Gulf during the autumn of 2002 and the first months of 2003 and that the U.S. attack on Iraq followed in March. Is something similar underway now?
Most commentators note that a large part of the American people would disapprove of more military adventures. Yet many worry that the Bush administration might be tempted to play up Iran's activities as an important reason for the anarchy in Iraq and to reduce the attention to the debacle in Iraq by opening a........
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0219-21.htm

But recent reports of large-scale Iranian arms transfers to other non-state groups suggest that such shipments are part of a coordinated government effort to advance key foreign policy goals, not low-level pilfering. In November 2006, UN investigators accused the government of Iran of providing three large shipments of arms and ammunition to the Islamic Courts Union in Somalia. According to the investigators, the shipments contained, inter alia, 1000 PKM machine guns and grenade launchers, 200 boxes of machine gun ammunition, dozens of shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles and rocket launchers, mines, and military uniforms, all of which was transferred in violation of a UN arms embargo.
--Strategic Security Blog (http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/02/questions_about_iranian_weapon.php)

The article is rather long and takes a look at various possibilities.

Quote from: Steph on February 20, 2007, 12:57:48 PM
Forgive me if i sound a little blunt but it's not my intention and it is not intended as a criticism of the citizens of the US, but more of a commentary.  As an outsider looking in I would have thought by now that US foreign policy in that neck of the woods would have changed by now, but it's still all about oil.

The US involvement has been a failure from the start.  Beginning with their support of the Shar of Iran.  He was overthrown because the Shar did nothing for his country but rape it, so Islamic fundamentalist took control and installed Khomeini.  So having lost that country the US then turned to Iraq and became the ally of Sodamn Insane and backed his war against Iran, which ended in a stalemate as of course the then Soviet Union was backing Iran.  Iraq lost so much, that it needed to restock it's coffers so it turned to Kuwait help and as we all know everything went to hell in a handbag.  Funnily enough a lot of the high tech fighter planes that Iran has to counter US threats are from Iraq, US planes sold to Iraq, flown to Iran for safe keeping when the US invaded Iraq.

The worlds a funny place.

Steph

It's not just Iran. There have been tens of others... unless we've had a clear enemy to defeat, our foreign policy has been a complete disaster in every country where we've been involved.  We've made major mistakes in  just about every eastern block country, several in South America, and let us not forget Korea and the Nam.  No, we don't play well in our sandbox.  We can kick everyone out... but we can't get along unless it is clear that it IS OUR SANDBOX.

It's not necessarily about the oil.  It's about fostering support for the big multi-national corporations now.  They used to be US based companies, but now they are not.  We don't give a hoot about the oil.  We just want the corporations we like to control the sale of the comodity.  That's the "we" part of the equation.  GWB wanted this gig to prove something to his daddy.... or something like that.  He's in it to be a "war president".  He has the worst reason of all.

Now that we have provoked everyone in the Middle East with our stupidity, we are truly exposed.  They know how to fight us.  We only know how to drop bombs..... great for huge armies... totally hopeless against very small groups of people intent on commiting suicide.

Yeah!  Go team!

Cindi

Quote from: Cindi Jones on February 20, 2007, 05:58:39 PM

Quote from: Steph on February 20, 2007, 12:57:48 PM
Forgive me if i sound a little blunt but it's not my intention and it is not intended as a criticism of the citizens of the US, but more of a commentary.  As an outsider looking in I would have thought by now that US foreign policy in that neck of the woods would have changed by now, but it's still all about oil.

The US involvement has been a failure from the start.  Beginning with their support of the Shar of Iran.  He was overthrown because the Shar did nothing for his country but rape it, so Islamic fundamentalist took control and installed Khomeini.  So having lost that country the US then turned to Iraq and became the ally of Sodamn Insane and backed his war against Iran, which ended in a stalemate as of course the then Soviet Union was backing Iran.  Iraq lost so much, that it needed to restock it's coffers so it turned to Kuwait help and as we all know everything went to hell in a handbag.  Funnily enough a lot of the high tech fighter planes that Iran has to counter US threats are from Iraq, US planes sold to Iraq, flown to Iran for safe keeping when the US invaded Iraq.

The worlds a funny place.

Steph

It's not just Iran. There have been tens of others... unless we've had a clear enemy to defeat, our foreign policy has been a complete disaster in every country where we've been involved.  We've made major mistakes in  just about every eastern block country, several in South America, and let us not forget Korea and the Nam.  No, we don't play well in our sandbox.  We can kick everyone out... but we can't get along unless it is clear that it IS OUR SANDBOX.

It's not necessarily about the oil.  It's about fostering support for the big multi-national corporations now.  They used to be US based companies, but now they are not.  We don't give a hoot about the oil.  We just want the corporations we like to control the sale of the comodity.  That's the "we" part of the equation.  GWB wanted this gig to prove something to his daddy.... or something like that.  He's in it to be a "war president".  He has the worst reason of all.

Now that we have provoked everyone in the Middle East with our stupidity, we are truly exposed.  They know how to fight us.  We only know how to drop bombs..... great for huge armies... totally hopeless against very small groups of people intent on commiting suicide.

Yeah!  Go team!

Cindi

You folks had it right during the war of independence when the guerilla tactics you used defeated the huge british conventional armies of the day.  It's too bad that the joint chiefs didn't realize this.  As the worlds super power the US can indeed defeat any enemy in a conventional or nuclear confrontation, but it's when the other side uses unconventional tactics when things go awry.  Vietnam, The Iraq insurgency, Afghanistan, even the huge Soviet Union couldn't tame Afghanistan after they invaded.

Steph

It all boils down to this:  You can not kill an idea.  Once a people hold on to an idea, they fight and die for it until they win.  There is no stopping an idea... death only solidifies it (think of Christianity in its early years with the Romans for example).  Our version of facism isn't going to work.... we know countries that tried it.  It ain't gonna work for us either.  It's just a little too much to expect our people to stand behind the interests of the corporations for much longer.  There's just not much in it worth dying for.

Cindi

Quote from: Cindi Jones on February 20, 2007, 06:56:40 PM
It all boils down to this:  You can not kill an idea.  Once a people hold on to an idea, they fight and die for it until they win.  There is no stopping an idea... death only solidifies it (think of Christianity in its early years with the Romans for example).  Our version of facism isn't going to work.... we know countries that tried it.  It ain't gonna work for us either.  It's just a little too much to expect our people to stand behind the interests of the corporations for much longer.  There's just not much in it worth dying for.

Cindi

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi10.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa139%2Fthisischer%2FIMAG0157.jpg&hash=9fd0ffc3d33fa562bb479500f4210d615d5dbed0)

Quote from: Cindi Jones on February 20, 2007, 06:56:40 PM
It's just a little too much to expect our people to stand behind the interests of the corporations for much longer.

I long for the day the pendulum starts heading in the other direction.

Another interesting facet of this whole Law of Attraction thingy...war on terror, more terror; war on drugs, more drugs; the more we fight anything...okay, I'll stop now. Kelly climbs down off her soapbox.

Quote from: togetherwecan on February 20, 2007, 10:36:41 AM

Quote from: SusanK on February 20, 2007, 08:02:23 AM

Quote from: Kaelin on February 19, 2007, 07:25:41 PM
US 'Iran attack plans' revealed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6376639.stm)

"US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned."

This is in some respect "old news".

but, this isn't...Second US aircraft carrier arrives near Iran http://www.rawstory.com//news/2007/Second_US_aircraft_carrier_arrives_near_0220.html   (http://second%20us%20aircraft%20carrier%20arrives%20near%20iran%20http://www.rawstory.com//news/2007/Second_US_aircraft_carrier_arrives_near_0220.html)

The second carrier group is news, but the war plans isn't news, which is what I was referring to. The US military plays strategic and tactical simulated war games and updates war plans against any "hostile" nation continuously to give the President military options as part of the President's choices. They've had war plans against Iran probably since the overthrow of the Shah, and now has been updating them with Iraq and Kuwait in mind along with the reactions of the other Middle East nations and the UN. I'm sure they have a multi-layered war plan from tactical strikes on nuclear and military targets to all-out invasion and ground offensive. That's what they do. That was what I was referring to, they're the military, and despite the often blind and narrow goals and agenda, they're still smart and smart enough to have the plans in the President's briefcase for his review.

The Hans Blix response is interesting and noteworthy. One thing Bush and Cheney can make for war is to fight terrorism and divert attention from Iraq. But an interview on CNN (Lou Dobbs) a retired general experienced in the war games made it clear war with Iran would be "messy and ugly" and likely very unpleasant for the American people to swallow the loss of lives for no obvious reasons. And as noted, it would require the draft and lots of money to rebuild the military, but he also pointed out, that's what they're in the business of doing, waging war. And the biggest business in the world is military hardware.

The question is who has the President's attention to help him decide. Truthfully, it's scary to think there are people in the White House who want another war. God help the troops in Iraq, which is more reason to find a solution to exit Iraq and let the Iraqi's solve their own problems. They're not lacking anything except our exit. Almost every middle-eastern expert has said the sooner we exit, the better they can get on with their country, for better or worse, it's theirs, not ours. Something some Americans seem to forget.

I'll make my last point and park the soapbox. If any American had to suffer the damage we've inflicted on Iraq, and especially Bagdad, and had to live under the fear and occupation they live now, there would be a revolution. Would anyone in the US want to live they way they do now? No one doubts things are slowly getting better (although the Brooks Institute say it's been about the same for the last 3 years), but at what point can you expect real progress than the appearance with lots of money gone, and much unaccounted for. But then maybe that was the real goal, money and oil? And as long as it can be sold for the taxpayers to foot the bill and the corporations get rich, who's to say who's the fool?

Enuf said, folded and parked.

--Susan--

If you take any world history course, you will see that countries are ever-evolving.  What this means is that there will be wars to win land and there will be some countries.  Borders are always changing.  This could be a farce to gain more area for the united states over in the middle east.  US already has control of iraq and I bet they will attemp to take control of Iran.  It's been over a hundred years since we fought for more land and I wouldn't be surprised if this is what is happening.  I just hope GWB isn't being another Napoleon and taking over other countries, because ultimately it failed and too many people died for nothing.

Melissa

I predict we will be targeting Iran in 6 wks or less, surely no more than 3 months...my guess is mid march.

Quote from: Cindi Jones on February 20, 2007, 06:56:40 PM
It all boils down to this:  You can not kill an idea.  Once a people hold on to an idea, they fight and die for it until they win.  There is no stopping an idea... death only solidifies it (think of Christianity in its early years with the Romans for example).  Our version of facism isn't going to work.... we know countries that tried it.  It ain't gonna work for us either.  It's just a little too much to expect our people to stand behind the interests of the corporations for much longer.  There's just not much in it worth dying for.

Cindi

You can kill an idea.  The idea of Nazism is dead.  The idea of the divinity of the Japanese emperor -- and all the things these two ideas led to -- is dead, and the US (with some help) killed them both.

But to kill an idea like that, you have to be willing to wreak unholy destruction far beyond the things the "world community" is calling Bush another Hitler for.  And you have to know you are right to do it, beyond a shadow of a doubt, whatever anyone may say.

Likewise, it is possible, with pure force and destruction, to kill the idea of Islamic jihad being destined to take over the world.  But it won't be done.  What it would take is too horrible for politicians to contemplate.

But terrorism cannot survive without the governments that fund it.  A serious president would take the money being wasted in Iraq and put it into researching other sources of energy than oil.  Not depending on governments that fund terrorism is real national security.  Like Kennedy declaring that America would have a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s, a real leader would call for the US to become independent of Arab oil -- terror oil.  And it would be, quite soon. 

But Bush has no integrity to speak the truth and say "terror oil" -- instead, he keeps pretending Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are friends of the US.

QuoteAnother interesting facet of this whole Law of Attraction thingy...war on terror, more terror; war on drugs, more drugs; the more we fight anything...okay, I'll stop now. Kelly climbs down off her soapbox.

The "War on Drugs" has all the same effects Prohibition had.  Ending that deadly farce would be a great step for the US.  That's why I'm supporting Ron Paul for President of the US -- he's the only candidate who would even consider ending the "War on Drugs."  He also voted against the "USA PATRIOT" (more like USSR COMRADE) act, the undeclared war in Iraq, the "Federal Marriage Amendment", and many other attempts to put the federal government where it doesn't belong.  He's a strict constitutionalist passing as a Republican in the House of Representatives.

Quote from: ChildOfTheLight on February 21, 2007, 12:08:05 PM

The "War on Drugs" has all the same effects Prohibition had.  Ending that deadly farce would be a great step for the US.  That's why I'm supporting Ron Paul for President of the US -- he's the only candidate who would even consider ending the "War on Drugs."  He also voted against the "USA PATRIOT" (more like USSR COMRADE) act, the undeclared war in Iraq, the "Federal Marriage Amendment", and many other attempts to put the federal government where it doesn't belong.  He's a strict constitutionalist passing as a Republican in the House of Representatives.

you would support a candidate over a single issue?

That he would end the "War on Drugs" is not the whole reason.  The whole reason is in four words toward the end of my post: "He's a strict constitutionalist."  Everything else, ending the "War on Drugs" and all, follows from that.

Just to play Devil's Advocate...

What happens when Iran completes their development of nuclear weapons?  Does anyone think the guy running Iran, who doesn't believe the Nazi holocaust really happened, will be any more reasonable than he is now?

And, if we keep insisting on fighting wars where no one is allowed to be killed or die fighting, how are we going to deal with people who are willing to strap a bomb on themselves and walk into any large gathering and blow themselves up?  How do you respond when someone captures innocent people and chops off their heads just because they disagree with their religion?

I'm not saying we Should be in Iraq ('cause we probably shouldn't), but the fact remains that we are.  So, how do we resolve this mess?  And, IMO, just packing up and leaving ain't the answer.  And what should our response be to nutcase dictators and their sabre-rattling, be it Iran, North Korea or some other place?  You can talk till you are blue in the face, but all the diplomacy in the world won't help without a real physical threat...reminds me of the joke about cops in England who aren't allowed to carry guns, only whistles...Stop or I'll toot!

......Laurie (stirring the ant pile with a stick)

If you're suggesting that we wage war with every single country that wants to create a nuclear capabilities, there's just no way the US (or even US + EU) is going to overthrow them *and* install a government in each one afterwards.  It's a policy we are applying in Iraq, but it is not one we can enforce consistently (heck, we can't even enforce it in Iraq).  We could try that policy for all of the Afghanistans (which we are failing to do, but we probably could if not for Iraq), but it just doesn't work for every country that looks at us wrong.

Our general options seem to be strong diplomacy, or just leveling defiant countries and leave them to pick up the pieces on their own.  The latter is a problem because it'll turn those countries into breeding grounds for bad things in general.  The former *can* work, but we have to make certain adjustments before it will work in the Middle East.  In particular, we need to stop depending on their oil.  We need to research alternative energy (and mostly clean energy such as solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal) aggressively; it's a good idea to develop clean energy anyway, because pollution is a serious and growing problem.  The goal isn't to make us a completely self-reliant country, but it should give us leverage against other countries -- when we place hard diplomatic restrictions against Iran or whoever else, we won't give a damn if they cut off their oil exports.

It won't undo Iraq, but it gives us a means of dealing with other countries.

QuoteAnd, if we keep insisting on fighting wars where no one is allowed to be killed or die fighting, how are we going to deal with people who are willing to strap a bomb on themselves and walk into any large gathering and blow themselves up?  How do you respond when someone captures innocent people and chops off their heads just because they disagree with their religion?

When we decide to wage war, it should be to win.  Victory must be absolute and total.  Now, if we can't do that, we shouldn't be starting one.  We didn't learn in Korea, we didn't learn in Viet Nam, we still haven't learned that in Iraq.  Unless we can commit to total victory at all cost, we shouldn't be there.  In the case of Iraq and Iran, the cost would be very high in terms of human life, but it can be done. And in the process, we would kill millions.

Now, before wars start, we should find out why we tend to piss the world off.  It makes much more sense to prevent a war than it is to start one.

The weapons in Iran?  I don't know.  There is a solution somewhere. But parking the US army on their boarder and our mighty fleets off their coasts.... don't you think for just a little bit that they feel threatened?  No... this again is a lesson we still haven't learned.  We did this to the Soviets.  They were terrified of us planting tactical nukes on their boarders... so they built a bunch more.  

Negotiation and compromise should ALWAYS be at least tried first.  We don't even try.  We just rattle our big stick.  And if that we are going to do, then the full might of that big stick should be yielded when we fire the first weapon.

It might help our people if we could understand what we are fighting for.  The suicide bombers know what they are fighting for.  We sure don't.

Cindi

Cindi, I think a lot of the problem is that we are the superpower and we come across as an arrogant nation.  The problem is that not all of us are arrogant, but there are people in other countries that think precisely that.  The other part of the reason we piss the world off is for the reasons you mentioned.

Melissa

I think if you ever get a chance to live in a third world country, you'll get a better perspective on the good ole USA.  We wonder why people hate us.  For we don't see what really goes on.

We rape the resources of third world countries.  We buy their drugs on one hand and castigate them for selling on the other.  We bomb houses, promise to rebuild them, and then never do.  We send our corporations in to kill local companies.  We make some people exceedingly rich while pushing the impoverished further into the mud. We strong arm countries to abide by our policies.  We destroy and build governments of our chosing.

As citizens, we go to their countries and flash money around as tourists. We are rude and crude. No one appreciates our arrogant manners.

It can all be summed up by the words of our esteemed leader:  "You're either with us or agin us."

Most people of the world have chosen the latter.

Cindi

Kaelin,  You are right about developing alternative energies to free us from a dependence on oil.  The entire world economy is based on oil.  It is required for the shipping of goods and services, not to mention all the electricity required to watch TV and power our Playstations.  ;D  Sadly, all these things are years away, so what do we do for right now?  Conserve where possible, yes, but realistically, these are the cards we have been dealt.

And no, I am not suggesting we start wars/conflicts/police actions/whatever with folks who disagree with us.  But there is a reality to the fact that there are folks in the world who want to destroy this and other countries.  The real problem, as I see it, is that we have no answer on how to deal with people who not only are unafraid to die for their cause, but that is the only way to be sure they get to Heaven.  The way the Western culture resolves conflicts is by depending on both parties to want to stay alive and unharmed...we just don't have a clue how to reason with someone who is happy to strap on a bomb and blow themselves up so they can be assured a place at the side of The Prophet...I'm not even sure you can.

Melissa,
I agree.  We currently are the superpower, therefore we have a big target on our back.  And, for some reason, it also makes us believe we have to be the world's cops...and we all know how most folks feel about cops--we respect the job they do, but they also scare the crap out of us.

Cindi,
Have Americans, both government and private sector, done many disgusting, horrible and reprehensible things?  Yes.  Have they done fantastic and wonderful things?  Yes.  Problem is, good news doesn't sell newspapers, so little of the great things we are doing in Iraq and around the world get reported.

You made the comment that we don't even try to negoiate, just "rattle our big stick".  I disagree.  There were at least 17 UN resolutions (with severe military penalties) against Iraq demanding they show that they had destroyed the WMDs...all of which were ignored.  Were they there?  Who knows...we know they had them (because they used them)...but were they destroyed or shipped elsewhere?  Nobody is talking.  At what point do you decide talking isn't working and you have to take stronger actions?

I know I sound like I support everything that is going on...I don't.  But I also can't just jump on the bandwagon that says everything we do is wrong.  I have many problems with the way (and direction) "W" is leading the country, but it is not enough to just say he is wrong...alternative viable solutions need to be proposed.  Sadly, when I listen to the Democrats who want to lead the country, I hear a lot of "Bush is wrong" and very little of how to fix it.  It is not enough to just say it should be fixed, or that a solution will be found, give me some specifics on how they would fix it.  Conversely, when I hear the Republicans talking, most have their heads buried so deeply in the sand (yes, I cleaned it up) that they aren't even aware that there is a problem.  And most of the citizens are so apathetic or uninformed that 5 minutes of CNN tells them everything they need to know about the world...I guess it really is true that we deserve the leaders we elect. 

As always, these are my opinions and if you disagree, great...let's discuss.  I probably won't convince you and you probably won't convince me, but rational, intelligent conversation about these issues helps everyone, (and often can be highly entertaining).

......Laurie

Laurie,  yes... let's discuss.  I promise I won't get mad. For you see, I have what I believe, but that changes as the facts roll in.  And you may have some in your pocket.  You may even have a different perspective I might want to adopt. I believe we need to be able to discuss these issues. It is enlightening to do so.  So yes.  Let's discuss.

Let's pick one issue out of one of the many listed above. Your choice. And let's analyze it.

Cindi

Hi.

I just thought I'd stop in and say that ever since I saw Iran's president interviewed on 60 Minutes, I've fallen in love with him and want to have his babies.

Seriously.  I'm not kidding.

So, yes, I'm very much against the United States stomping off to another exercise in stupidity.  I don't want them to hurt my hubby.  *teardrop*

~ Blair

Hey Cindi...let's have some fun.  Since the title of this thread is Iran...might as well talk about them, and the Daddy of Blair's children.

Couple of starting points:
1 - I am not advocating military action against Iran, but I also understand the possibility that it may be called for.
2 - I freely admit that the United States has its share of the blame in this whole mess, but I do not agree that we are entirely to blame.

What we have here is a "bit of a pickle".  Iran has stated that they are close to developing nuclear weapons.  They have also stated that given an opportunity, they would wipe Israel off the map.  And, if that's not enough, there are some indications that a lot of the weapons and bomb components being used against us in Iraq can be traced back to Iran.  Are any or all of these true?  Beats me, but this is what is being reported from multiple sources, both inside and outside the US, so I have to accept them until proven otherwise.

So, what do we do?  Consider this hypothetical situation:

Obviously the first step is to talk to them.  Basically, we go in there and say "Stop it" and they say "Go pound sand", or "Make me" or something like that.  So, we step up the talking..."Stop it or else", and they say "or else what?"  That's where things break down.

Based on how spectacularly the "Oil for Food" program failed with Iraq and the number of countries that ignored the sanctions and sold goods and services to Iraq, I would propose that any economic sanctions against Iran will be ineffective.  So, we don't buy their oil, they sell it to China...whoopee.  They need parts and help with the nuclear program, we say "no way Jose" and they get it from the folks who are currently providing it (Russia, Pakistan??).  So, economic sanctions won't stop them. 

So, telling them to stop doesn't work.  Economic sanctions don't work.  Next stop, threaten to kick their rears and send in the military...oh wait, we can't do that, the people in the US won't stand for it.  Not only can we not send the military, we can't even threaten to send it...OK, take the Army off the table.  Chances are, if we actually tried to use it there, it would be the start of WWIII as I believe the whole region would errupt in war.

So what's left?  Send a couple of squads of Special Forces??  Send in the spies??  Isn't that the kind of stuff we've done in the past the makes the whole world hate us?

The solution?  I don't know, but by eliminating the threat of military action, we severely limit our negotiating position.  Do I want us to start fighting there?  No.  Do I understand that you have to be able to threaten and occassionally take some action?  Yes.  Anybody who has seen the mom in the grocery store telling Jr over and over again "Stop that or I'll spank you" knows that occassionally you have to spank them.

So, we don't do anything (except talk on and on) until Iran completes building their nukes.  Then, we just have to pray that they don't give/sell one to some terrorist group.  I don't believe Iran would openly attack Israel or the US, but I wouldn't bet my life that they aren't above some covert actions...Ahmadinejad has been too vocal in his hatred.

OK.  That is a starting point.  I don't have any answers, but I am open to other opinions.  How we got here may have some part in this discussion, but I would much rather limit it to what do we do now?  Whether we elect a Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever as our next President, that person will have to deal with this.  It has been going on since before Bush, so you can't just blame it on George (even if he may have made it worse, I don't know).

I've summed up the situation as best as I see it.  If you disagree with the starting point, bring it up, I'm easy (yes, I really did say that).  So, kick back, have a drink, and let's play...I don't care whether I bring you around, you bring me around, or we both just agree to disagree...who knows, we may already agree and don't know it.  In any case, have fun and let me have it. 

Everyone is free to join in, just remember, THIS IS FOR FUN.  If you find yourself getting angry at someone or the position they espouse, you are missing the fun of this, and I would suggest that you may want to consider either drinking more or drinking less before reading this...recreational pharmaceuticals may also be good idea.

......Laurie




 

Quote from: LaurieO on February 26, 2007, 10:06:55 PM
The solution?  I don't know, but by eliminating the threat of military action, we severely limit our negotiating position.  Do I want us to start fighting there?  No.  Do I understand that you have to be able to threaten and occassionally take some action?  Yes.  Anybody who has seen the mom in the grocery store telling Jr over and over again "Stop that or I'll spank you" knows that occassionally you have to spank them.

But how much of a threat is military action? Our latest military offensive (yes pun absolutely intended) has not been a glaring success. I can't help but think we are looking a tad impotent, and arrogant...now there's a combo, rattling a flacid sabre. You can watch the evening news and see how our mighty military machine is spread too thin already. Who are we going to send in there, the Boy Scouts?  ;D

Just havin some fun, sorta,

Kelly

Maybe we're trying to achieve Peace through Comedy.  Maybe we're trying to make them laugh so hard they just say "Forget it, we don't need nukes."

And I loved the "flacid sabre" comment....LMAO

....Laurie

Laurie,

I may pick a very few points with you on your presentation,  but I pretty much concur with your point of view.  We've got a royal cluster-.... in the making.  So we had better be doing EVERYTHING we can to prevent military action.  We should have people over there full time negotiating.  We should be pushing a 100 percent effort in the UN and NATO to get other countries interested in this problem.  If we could get a real coalition together, it might have some clout to it.  I do agree that we are in a heck of a mess.

I don't think that we should ever retire the threat of using our military.  We have it and it is a resource.  But I do believe that it should be the very last thing used both in threat and actual implementation.  It seems to be on the forefront of options for everything we consider it seems.

Yea... it's a real mess.  And with reports of Iranian arms leaking into Iraq, I wonder what that may lead to.  Perhaps it won't rile us too much.  We've seen this sort of thing in every conflict we've had in the last half century where either China or the USSR provided weapons to our enemies.

The bottom line on all this.... I agree with you on your points.  From the political perspective, we'd be twinners.

Cindi

Quote from: LaurieO on February 26, 2007, 10:06:55 PM
Hey Cindi...let's have some fun.  Since the title of this thread is Iran...might as well talk about them, and the Daddy of Blair's children.

Hmm, have some fun?  ok >:D

How about this:
I saw Blair's children and Iran, Iran so far away ay ay.  >:D

Melissa

Quote from: Melissa on February 26, 2007, 11:55:42 PM

Quote from: LaurieO on February 26, 2007, 10:06:55 PM
Hey Cindi...let's have some fun.  Since the title of this thread is Iran...might as well talk about them, and the Daddy of Blair's children.

Hmm, have some fun?  ok >:D

How about this:
I saw Blair's children and Iran, Iran so far away ay ay.  >:D

Melissa

Har har har.

I'm not joking.  That man has my respect.  If you haven't seen his interview, look it up.  As for wiping Israel off the map, I hope he does.  Those American armed, child-killing, fanatical jerks (one of my best friends is full-blooded Lebanese and had just gotten back from visiting her family there when Israel decided to layer civilian farmland with cluster bombs) can suck a stump for all I care.  I can only hope the idiots around me can get off the "Jew-hater!" stint long enough to acknowledge completely immoral and murderous behavior when they see it.  Then again, expecting any average American to have the ability to identify something beyond what Fox News tells them is a bit of a tall order, I suppose.

It's not just stupidity anymore.  It's a population that has been completely, utterly lobotomized and rendered near-catatonic.  The fact that "The Matrix" was one of the most popular movies of my teenage years is too ironic for me to bear.

Sometimes, when I think about how pathetic this entire social situation is, I literally cackle.

~ Blair

Quote from: Blair on February 27, 2007, 01:48:43 AM

Har har har.

I'm not joking.  That man has my respect.  If you haven't seen his interview, look it up.  As for wiping Israel off the map, I hope he does.  ~ Blair

I can never justify killing for any reason.  Statements like this eventually find their way to a rifle and a trigger.  It may not be you.  But a shared sentiment is all too easily passed on.  How many people will read your statement?  How many will agree?  Words can indeed be a most powerful weapon.

Cindi

Quote from: Cindi Jones on February 27, 2007, 02:16:00 AM

Quote from: Blair on February 27, 2007, 01:48:43 AM

Har har har.

I'm not joking.  That man has my respect.  If you haven't seen his interview, look it up.  As for wiping Israel off the map, I hope he does.  ~ Blair

I can never justify killing for any reason.  Statements like this eventually find their way to a rifle and a trigger.  It may not be you.  But a shared sentiment is all too easily passed on.  How many people will read your statement?  How many will agree?  Words can indeed be a most powerful weapon.

Cindi

I've never heard of Israel ever doing anything even remotely productive or positive towards humanity's development.  I understand that total war is certainly not the answer to any dispute, but bloody Hell, I do not like the horrid things Israel and a lot of other countries have been doing.  I'm sick of children dying.  I'm sick of watching my species commit widescale self-mutilation by continuing this idiocy.  Mankind, presently, is just one big emo kid cutting and cutting and cutting.  I suppose if it was possible to simply wipe Israel, the state that has make me nauseus in the past, off the map and not the hundreds of thousands of innocents who live there, then I'd be all for it.

It's extremely tricky how human beings work.  We are very much capable of violence towards ideas, governments, concepts and symbols, but not towards other human beings, per se.  The greater the detachment, the further the distance and the thicker the cloak of idealogical hatred, the easier it is to pull the trigger.

This is why modern warfare terrifies me so much.  It's too distant.  It's too easy to be completely inhuman, because you're not forced to stare into the raw humanity boiling in the eyes of the man you just ran through or clubbed.  Even I'm guilty of falling into this trap, as we just saw in my previous post.  It's easy for me to be enthusiastic about "Israel" as it were, and all the negative things I identify with it, being destroyed.  However, when I actually think, and clutch my hand to my heart and remember what innocence looks like, I pause, and in this case, I back up.

I'm ashamed.

~ Blair

Israel has never done anything for the world?  Shall I give you a list?

Modern Israeli Inventions
http://www.inreview.com/archive/topic/15785.html ^

Posted on 03/21/2006 7:33:57 AM PST by fishtank

Israel, the 100th smallest country, with less than 1/1000th of the world's population, can lay claim to the following:

Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees to the population in the world.

Israel produces more scientific papers per capita than any other nation by a large margin - 109 per 10,000 people - as well as one of the highest per capita rates of patents filed.

In proportion to its population, Israel has the largest number of startup companies in the world. In absolute terms, Israel has the largest number of startup companies than any other country in the world, except the US (3,500 companies mostly in hi-tech).

Israel is ranked #2 in the world for venture capital funds right behind the US.

Outside the United States and Canada, Israel has the largest number of NASDAQ listed companies.

Israel has the highest average living standards in the Middle East. The per capita income in 2000 was over $17,500, exceeding that of the UK.

With an aerial arsenal of over 250 F-16s, Israel has the largest fleet of the aircraft outside of the US.

Israel's $100 billion economy is larger than all of its immediate neighbors combined.

On a per capita basis, Israel has the largest number of biotech start-ups.

Twenty-four percent of Israel's workforce holds university degrees - ranking third in the industrialized world, after the United States and Holland - and 12 percent hold advanced degrees.

Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East.

In 1984 and 1991, Israel airlifted a total of 22,000 Ethiopian Jews at risk in Ethiopia to safety in Israel.

When Golda Meir was elected Prime Minister of Israel in 1969, she became the world's second elected female leader in modern times.

When the U. S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya was bombed in 1998, Israeli rescue teams were on the scene within a day - and saved three victims from the rubble.

Israel has the third highest rate of entrepreneurship - and the highest rate among women and among people over 55 - in the world.

Relative to its population, Israel is the largest immigrant-absorbing nation on earth. Immigrants come in search of democracy, religious freedom, and economic opportunity.

Israel was the first nation in the world to adopt the Kimberly process, an international standard that certifies diamonds as "conflict free."

According to industry officials, Israel designed the airline industry's most impenetrable flight security. U. S. officials now look to Israel for advice on how to handle airborne security threats.

In 1991, during the Gulf War, the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra played a concert wearing gas masks as scud missiles fired by Saddam Hussein fell on Tel Aviv.

Israel has the world's second highest per capita of new books.

Israel is the only country in the world that entered the 21st century with a net gain in its number of trees, made more remarkable because this was achieved in an area considered mainly desert.

Israel has more museums per capita than any other country.

Medicine... Israeli scientists developed the first fully computerized,no-radiation, diagnostic instrumentation for breast cancer.

An Israeli company developed a computerized system for ensuring proper

administration of medications, thus removing human error from medical treatment. Every year in U. S. hospitals 7,000 patients die from treatment mistakes.

Israel's Givun imaging developed the first ingestible video camera, so small it fits inside a pill. Used to view the small intestine from the inside, the camera helps doctors diagnose cancer and digestive disorders.

Researchers in Israel developed a new device that directly helps the heart pump blood, an innovation with the potential to save lives among those with heart failure. The new device is synchronized with the heart's mechanical operations through a sophisticated system of sensors.

Technology... With more than 3,000 high-tech companies and start-ups, Israel has the highest concentration of hi-tech companies in the world (apart from the Silicon Valley).

In response to serious water shortages, Israeli engineers and agriculturalists developed a revolutionary drip irrigation system to minimize the amount of water used to grow crops.

Israel has the highest percentage in the world of home computers per capita.

Israel leads the world in the number of scientists and technicians in the workforce, with 145 per 10,000, as opposed to 85 in the U. S., over 70 in Japan, and less than 60 in Germany. With over 25% of its work force employed in technical professions. Israel places first in this category as well.

The cell phone was developed in Israel by Motorola, which has its largest development center in Israel.

Most of the Windows NT operating system was developed by Microsoft-Israel.

The Pentium MMX Chip technology was designed in Israel at Intel.

Voice mail technology was developed in Israel.

Both Microsoft and Cisco built their only R&D facilities outside the US in Israel.

The AOL Instant Messenger was developed in 1996 by four young Israelis.

A new acne treatment developed in Israel, the ClearLight device,produces a high-intensity, ultraviolet-light-free, narrow-band blue light that causes acne bacteria to self-destruct - all without damaging surroundings skin or tissue.

An Israeli company was the first to develop and install a large-scale solar-powered and fully functional electricity generating plant, in southern California's Mojave desert."

All the above while engaged in regular wars with an implacable enemy that seeks its destruction, and an economy continuously under strain by having to spend more per capita on its own protection than any other country on earth. This from a country just 55 years young having started off life on a very frontiers-like basis, whose population had mostly just emerged from the devastating World War II years.

Quote from: Cindi Jones on February 19, 2007, 07:30:05 PM
To not have a plan would be unwise methinks.  However.... they're going to have a really hard time convincing us there is a believeable need to send troops in.

Cindi

Don't get me started on this.

We should never have gone into Iraq in the first place and now these geniuses in the Whitehouse want to launch nukes into Iran??

"RNEP"s, that is: "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator"s (nuclear 'bunker busters').

They abysmally miscalculated what would ensue when Saddam was ejected and now they want to do this?

I have a feeling that a goodly number of military people are actually in opposition to such idiocy.

I might wind up going to the Middle East after all. I'm just grateful that I'm not working C-130's anymore.

How many more people will be uselessly sent to die?

Laurie, with respect to conservation and environmental research, the US is really not doing a whole in that regard.  EU countries have been much more aggressive about reducing emissions, which in part involves relying less on oil, in order to comply with the Kyoto treaty, which the US has disregarded.

With respect to economic sanctions, they are admittedly only going to work to the extent the rest of the UN cooperates.  However, the catch here is that in order to be able to earn that influence over Russia and China, we have to stop acting on our own.

With regard to military action being an option, it should always be an option.  However, it should done in the spirit Cindi describes.  It must be saved for a last resort, and when we do choose to use it, we pull all the stops to do it right, calling on the draft if there is any remote possibility our enlistment numbers will not be enough.  Iraq is a half-spirited effort (and the administration is largely to blame for selling the conflict as an easy slam-dunk objective -- it only sets up everyone for disappointment), and war is never a place for it.

That said, there is admittedly the matter of to what extent we should be interfering with other countries developing nuclear capabilities.  If US, France, Britain, Russia, China, India, and Pakistan can create nukes (and it's tacitly assumed Israel has bought nukes from the United States), why can't other countries join the party?  It is possible for us to stop a few countries, but we can't police the entire world on this matter, and countries are entitled to a level of autonomy.  Perhaps a more realistic goal is have oversight of nuclear programs, so that we keep the nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of splinter groups.  Of course, it wouldn't be in Iran's best interest to distribute their nukes to a terrorist group, because the entire world would reduce Iran to rubble if they allowed any of their nukes to be used against an enemy.  The big question is whether Iran would sacrifice its existence in order to *try* to wipe out Israel, but it is probably just a matter of time before we have to face this problem.

Blair, regarding the President of Iran, he recently ran a conference that questioned whether the holocaust ever happened -- that's BS on the highest level.  He does have some fair points to offer (Iran is entitled to self-govern), but even the Bush administration will say some true things from time to time.  I think we are better off elevating the discourse above what either "side" is currently offering, rather than choosing between the two corrupt options.

Of course, I suppose the main point to overcome is that you would like Israel destroyed.  Why single them out?  Why should jewish people be destroyed and not muslims and christians?  Heck, why not destroy any country substantially shaped by religious fanboys (and you better believe it's the boys)?

Quote from: ChildOfTheLight on February 27, 2007, 03:07:48 AM
Israel has never done anything for the world?  Shall I give you a list?

Modern Israeli Inventions
http://www.inreview.com/archive/topic/15785.html ^

Posted on 03/21/2006 7:33:57 AM PST by fishtank

Israel, the 100th smallest country, with less than 1/1000th of the world's population, can lay claim to the following:

Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees to the population in the world.

Israel produces more scientific papers per capita than any other nation by a large margin - 109 per 10,000 people - as well as one of the highest per capita rates of patents filed.

In proportion to its population, Israel has the largest number of startup companies in the world. In absolute terms, Israel has the largest number of startup companies than any other country in the world, except the US (3,500 companies mostly in hi-tech).

Israel is ranked #2 in the world for venture capital funds right behind the US.

Outside the United States and Canada, Israel has the largest number of NASDAQ listed companies.

Israel has the highest average living standards in the Middle East. The per capita income in 2000 was over $17,500, exceeding that of the UK.

With an aerial arsenal of over 250 F-16s, Israel has the largest fleet of the aircraft outside of the US.

Israel's $100 billion economy is larger than all of its immediate neighbors combined.

On a per capita basis, Israel has the largest number of biotech start-ups.

Twenty-four percent of Israel's workforce holds university degrees - ranking third in the industrialized world, after the United States and Holland - and 12 percent hold advanced degrees.

Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East.

In 1984 and 1991, Israel airlifted a total of 22,000 Ethiopian Jews at risk in Ethiopia to safety in Israel.

When Golda Meir was elected Prime Minister of Israel in 1969, she became the world's second elected female leader in modern times.

When the U. S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya was bombed in 1998, Israeli rescue teams were on the scene within a day - and saved three victims from the rubble.

Israel has the third highest rate of entrepreneurship - and the highest rate among women and among people over 55 - in the world.

Relative to its population, Israel is the largest immigrant-absorbing nation on earth. Immigrants come in search of democracy, religious freedom, and economic opportunity.

Israel was the first nation in the world to adopt the Kimberly process, an international standard that certifies diamonds as "conflict free."

According to industry officials, Israel designed the airline industry's most impenetrable flight security. U. S. officials now look to Israel for advice on how to handle airborne security threats.

In 1991, during the Gulf War, the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra played a concert wearing gas masks as scud missiles fired by Saddam Hussein fell on Tel Aviv.

Israel has the world's second highest per capita of new books.

Israel is the only country in the world that entered the 21st century with a net gain in its number of trees, made more remarkable because this was achieved in an area considered mainly desert.

Israel has more museums per capita than any other country.

Medicine... Israeli scientists developed the first fully computerized,no-radiation, diagnostic instrumentation for breast cancer.

An Israeli company developed a computerized system for ensuring proper

administration of medications, thus removing human error from medical treatment. Every year in U. S. hospitals 7,000 patients die from treatment mistakes.

Israel's Givun imaging developed the first ingestible video camera, so small it fits inside a pill. Used to view the small intestine from the inside, the camera helps doctors diagnose cancer and digestive disorders.

Researchers in Israel developed a new device that directly helps the heart pump blood, an innovation with the potential to save lives among those with heart failure. The new device is synchronized with the heart's mechanical operations through a sophisticated system of sensors.

Technology... With more than 3,000 high-tech companies and start-ups, Israel has the highest concentration of hi-tech companies in the world (apart from the Silicon Valley).

In response to serious water shortages, Israeli engineers and agriculturalists developed a revolutionary drip irrigation system to minimize the amount of water used to grow crops.

Israel has the highest percentage in the world of home computers per capita.

Israel leads the world in the number of scientists and technicians in the workforce, with 145 per 10,000, as opposed to 85 in the U. S., over 70 in Japan, and less than 60 in Germany. With over 25% of its work force employed in technical professions. Israel places first in this category as well.

The cell phone was developed in Israel by Motorola, which has its largest development center in Israel.

Most of the Windows NT operating system was developed by Microsoft-Israel.

The Pentium MMX Chip technology was designed in Israel at Intel.

Voice mail technology was developed in Israel.

Both Microsoft and Cisco built their only R&D facilities outside the US in Israel.

The AOL Instant Messenger was developed in 1996 by four young Israelis.

A new acne treatment developed in Israel, the ClearLight device,produces a high-intensity, ultraviolet-light-free, narrow-band blue light that causes acne bacteria to self-destruct - all without damaging surroundings skin or tissue.

An Israeli company was the first to develop and install a large-scale solar-powered and fully functional electricity generating plant, in southern California's Mojave desert."

All the above while engaged in regular wars with an implacable enemy that seeks its destruction, and an economy continuously under strain by having to spend more per capita on its own protection than any other country on earth. This from a country just 55 years young having started off life on a very frontiers-like basis, whose population had mostly just emerged from the devastating World War II years.

So I have the Israelis to thank for pill cameras, AIM, acne treatments, their being particularily educated and wealthy, Windows NT (Windows NT!  Oh my!), they have...  wait...

They have the highest average of home computers per capita!?  Stop the presses!  My God!  They truly are helping humanity!

Why, who needs things like progression towards social justice, figureheads like Ghandi and MLK, a government that doesn't do heinous things to people and other countries, and a sense of artistic, human decency?  Honestly, I mean, really.  AIM.  They helped make AIM.  Awesome.

What a contribution to humanity.

And in response to the last part of your post, there was also a country that emerged as a superpower after suffering a devastating (and humiliating) World War.  They called it Germany, and they kicked asses.  They did very, very bad things, but they became one of the greatest industrial powers of the time, and are still producing some of the greatest scientific minds in the world.

So, uh, I don't know about you, but I don't measure contributions to humanity in gadgets and software.  I measure it in wisdom, art, justice and not scattering cluster bombs in Lebanese farmland.  Or killing Jews, in Germany's case.

But wait, what am I saying.  Microsoft and Cisco built their R&D facilities in Israel.

Good golly.  They must be good.  All this amazing proof you've given me, really.  I...  I'm just astounded.

But in all seriousness, I said contributions to humanity, and you gave me a list of some of the most trivial, unimportant things I think I've ever heard.  Get a clue.  This world needs common sense, community and sanity, not bragging rights to diamond cutting standards and venture capital funds.  If this is how you measure human success, then you are one of the most backwards, screwed up, hopeless people I've ever heard of.

"We're torturing prisoners and layering civilian farmland with bombs!  Wooo!  But it's okay!  It's okay! We built a solar plant in California!"

Well, I live in California, and we still have an energy crisis.  Thanks Israel! 

~ Blair

P.S.  And Cell phones too?!  Like, ohmygod, wow! 

Blair, many of these communication tools have helped people become closer to each other.  Take cell phones for instance.  I sure by allowing easier access to communication, there have been some great things that have come of humanity.

Melissa

P.S. There's at least one person on these forums that I know of that visits Israel regularly.

Quote from: Kaelin on February 27, 2007, 08:19:26 AM
Blair, regarding the President of Iran, he recently ran a conference that questioned whether the holocaust ever happened -- that's BS on the highest level.  He does have some fair points to offer (Iran is entitled to self-govern), but even the Bush administration will say some true things from time to time.  I think we are better off elevating the discourse above what either "side" is currently offering, rather than choosing between the two corrupt options.

Of course, I suppose the main point to overcome is that you would like Israel destroyed.  Why single them out?  Why should jewish people be destroyed and not muslims and christians?  Heck, why not destroy any country substantially shaped by religious fanboys (and you better believe it's the boys)?

Sure, he's got his quirks, but I like him a lot better than Dubya.  At least he questions things instead of picking his nose and staring off into space.

And the dislike for Israel has nothing to do with race or religion.  Why the Hell do people seem to be so quick to think such paltry things?  The reason I would like to see Israel disarmed, neutralized or outright slapped is because they've been doing horrid things.  Just like the US.  I'm not calling for the US to be wiped out or disarmed, because I know it's going to implode eventually anyways (there's such a huge division between the working poor and the rich in this country, I might as well be living in a 13th century monarchy.)

I am immediately suspicious and watchful of any country the United States enjoys arming and backing politically.  Anyone familiar with history would be.

~ Blair

Quote from: Melissa on February 27, 2007, 11:45:37 AM
Blair, many of these communication tools have helped people become closer to each other.  Take cell phones for instance.  I sure by allowing easier access to communication, there have been some great things that have come of humanity.

Melissa

P.S. There's at least one person on these forums that I know of that visits Israel regularly.

Melissa, I like you, and I'd like to think you're just avoiding my point to be polite.

The fact is, we have scientists sitting around going, "Oh man!  We should totally get guys on Mars!  Shouldn't we?  Shouldn't we do that?  Wouldn't it be awesome, it'd be like that movie, you know the one, when the guys are on Mars?  Man!  That'd be sweet!"

While in the space of that sentence, several children have died of starvation.

My point, and what I mean when I say contributions to humanity, is that mankind, today, has its priorities so completely twisted that it makes me want to vomit.

That's all.

~ Blair

P.S.  I actually would love to see space exploration continue, it's great.  But as a responsible human being, I can't stand for resources to be poured into something so frivolous when we're just exiting what has been the bloodiest century in human history (and it may get bloodier.)

If your point is saying the the US is messed up, that kind of goes without saying.  The problem is a bunch of greedy republicans (republicans are very pro-business and tend to be well off enough to have some investments in business) voted for GWB just so they could pay less taxes and have their businesses grow.  It could have been an honest mistake the first time he was voted in.  I was totally against him at that time.  He proved to be a failure as a president and then people STILL voted for him to be president again.  In his second term, he has caused far more damage to this country.  In fact, overall he has caused far more damage to this country than any president (perhaps than any person) has ever done in history.  And it was all so republicans could grow some business investments.  That's what pisses me off about the whole thing.

Melissa

P.S.  Not ALL republicans are greedy, but I find the very nature of what republicans stand for to be greedy.

It is hatred for another people, disgust for another country, and a lack of disrespect for other peoples that create these problems in the first place.  I can't comprehend a desire to attack any country without cause.

As far as nuclear capability is concerned.....

There is this nuclear technology... it's called a fast neutron reactor.  It will burn any nuclear fuel.  It will not breed plutonium.  In fact, we could use the nuclear waste that we currently have in stockpiles in the good ole US to power such reactors to supply ALL of our energy needs for the next couple hundred years.  It will take nuclear products that have a half life of tens of thousands of years, burn 99 percent of it and the remaining waste has a half life of a few hundred years.  See an article about it in December 2005 issue of Scientific American.

If these countries (like Iran) want nuclear energy for electricity, as they say, then why in the world can we not be selling them the technology?  Why would we not develop this technology for ourselves?

There are several answers in the answer.  First of all, "we" still need the material to make weapons.  That's from the military side.  From the  environmentalist side, the technology has "nuclear" in the name and is automatically dismissed for that reason.  The fact is, this fast neutron technology is better for the environment and prevents weapons grade material from being produced.

You want to keep nations from developing weapons?  Give them a cheap source of clean energy... yes even those that have oil.

Yet, no one knows about it.  No one wants to know.

Cindi

How are we going to ever achieve world harmony (more likely than world peace) if we keep killing?

Melissa

Quote from: Melissa on February 27, 2007, 12:05:21 PM
If your point is saying the the US is messed up, that kind of goes without saying.  The problem is a bunch of greedy republicans (republicans are very pro-business and tend to be well off enough to have some investments in business) voted for GWB just so they could pay less taxes and have their businesses grow.  It could have been an honest mistake the first time he was voted in.  I was totally against him at that time.  He proved to be a failure as a president and then people STILL voted for him to be president again.  In his second term, he has caused far more damage to this country.  In fact, overall he has caused far more damage to this country than any president (perhaps than any person) has ever done in history.  And it was all so republicans could grow some business investments.  That's what pisses me off about the whole thing.

Melissa

P.S.  Not ALL republicans are greedy, but I find the very nature of what republicans stand for to be greedy.

You're right.  But it's not even just republicans anymore.  They seem to have succeeded in mesmerizing the majority of the citizenry into an army of obedient, paranoid, groaning sleepwalkers.  Seriously.  Paranoid. (See the link in my sig.)

Republicans and democrats are the same to me.  Profit has been the motivation for this country since its inception.  We wrote slavery into the constitution (although modern businessmen and economists will tell you that the current system of working poor and sweatshops is far more reliable and effective than slavery ever was), and that very document was forged by 55 of the country's elite and wealthy.  It certainly was NOT written by "ordinary citizens" as most would have you believe.

By the dollar, for the dollar.  Since birth.

~ Blair

Quote from: Cindi Jones on February 27, 2007, 12:10:17 PM
It is hatred for another people, disgust for another country, and a lack of disrespect for other peoples that create these problems in the first place.  I can't comprehend a desire to attack any country without cause.

As far as nuclear capability is concerned.....

There is this nuclear technology... it's called a fast neutron reactor.  It will burn any nuclear fuel.  It will not breed plutonium.  In fact, we could use the nuclear waste that we currently have in stockpiles in the good ole US to power such reactors to supply ALL of our energy needs for the next couple hundred years.  It will take nuclear products that have a half life of tens of thousands of years, burn 99 percent of it and the remaining waste has a half life of a few hundred years.  See an article about it in December 2005 issue of Scientific American.

If these countries (like Iran) want nuclear energy for electricity, as they say, then why in the world can we not be selling them the technology?  Why would we not develop this technology for ourselves?

There are several answers in the answer.  First of all, "we" still need the material to make weapons.  That's from the military side.  From the  environmentalist side, the technology has "nuclear" in the name and is automatically dismissed for that reason.  The fact is, this fast neutron technology is better for the environment and prevents weapons grade material from being produced.

You want to keep nations from developing weapons?  Give them a cheap source of clean energy... yes even those that have oil.

Yet, no one knows about it.  No one wants to know.

Cindi

You mean we'd be burning something we could be using to make weapons of an utterly idiotic scale!?  Cindi!  How dare you!

And you say it's a clean, reliable energy source?!  And cheap?!  Cindi!  Where's your good old American price gouging spirit?  Where's your sense of business?!  Where's your motivation for profit?

Well, profit.  Profit.  In California, we're paving over some of the richest farmland in the world for real estate.  I asked my wealthy uncle, "Why are we doing this?  Don't we need food?" and his response was, "Real estate is more profitable than farmland."

Huh.  So, uh, I guess we need to redefine profit.  Profit is inflated food costs and starvation for lower classes?  Profit is...  profit is human suffering!  Of course!  Businesses have made money creating shoddy working conditions and paying bare bones wages for centuries.  I think it should be clear to anyone with a scrap of decency that the definition of the word profit, in the modern era, is nothing short of human suffering.

Hoo-rah.

~ Blair

We offered to Iran to help them get setup with a reactor that would not allow them to make weapons grade plutonium.  they declined the offer.

Right now it appears that they want nukes.  Sure, they say energy but then...
The president of Iran keeps threatening to wipe another nation off the face of the earth using nukes.

Right now Iran should not have nukes in any way, shape, or form but that is what they want.  We should do everything possible to make sure that they do not obtain this technology.  Diplomacy can work if the other countries kick in, but they will not.  However, it should be used until no other option is left.

If push comes to shove then strategic bombing of both the known sites and the leadership will have to be done.  I would rather see that then to have the possibility of a nuclear blast going off in an attempt of genocide.

Blair, I think that we should attack Honduras.  After all, what have they ever done for humanity's sake?

.... the argument doesn't wash for me.

When we attack, it better be for a damned good reason.  And we should do it with overwhelming force.  The opposition should be completely wiped out.  And unfortunately, in this day and age, countless innocents must suffer the same fate.  We must absolutely and resolutely crush their will to fight back.  Think of Germany and Japan.  Those worked.  Until we are ready to do that, we need to explore every single possibility with every resource we have to prevent it.  Even then, with the religious backing of today's form of opposition, I'm extremely doubtfull that any permanent victory is possible. Those ideas are hard to kill.

Cindi


Blair... we certainly agree on the profit thing.  But we can't discuss that.... ;)  For....

We Are Right

Cindi
LIT,

I'm pretty sure that those reactors will not come on line.  We'll either bomb them or let Israel do it.  It's going to be a tough one since they've spread their technology all over the map and concealed it well.

Cindi

Quote
It would also be nice to have a leader who will actually listen to those whose business is to carry out a war and not to others.  Imagine how much better Iraq might be right now if we went in with more people (like the Pentagon wanted) and secured most of the borders (like the Pentagon wanted) from the get go.

Politics in the US are more geared towards the "keep me in office" mindset more than "duty to the people" for the last two administrations (and many other congress critters).  here's hoping that will come to an end.

Yup.  It boggles my mind to think that they don't know their own history. They can not comprehend what it takes to wage and complete war.  They are very stupid people.  If they had made that commitment, we would not have supported it.  And we wouldn't have been in this mess.

Cindi

Quote from: LostInTime on February 27, 2007, 12:37:32 PM
Politics in the US are more geared towards the "keep me in office" mindset more than "duty to the people" for the last two administrations (and many other congress critters).  here's hoping that will come to an end.

I bet if politicians weren't paid so much this might be different. ;)

Melissa

I have thought that myself more than a few times.   ;D

I wonder if a bigger paycheck might help keep them from bowing to outside influences.  I don't know. I think that money isn't the key thing here.  I think that it is power.  Power is the best drug.

Cindi

My point was, there wouldn't be such a financial motivation to be a politician and the ones who truly wanted to make a difference would be the ones going into politics.  In essence, it would get rid of a lot of greedy people.  I personally don't think paying them more money would have *any* positive influence.

Melissa

The problem is, as I see it, this.  Iran is predominately Shia and part of their belief is the return of the 12th Iman, Abu al-Qasim Muhammad also called Muhammad al Mahdi.  For this return to happen, there must be an apocalypse and chaos in the world.  President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, is deeply committed to the Islamic Messiah, al Mahdi and has said that he was "directed by Allah to pave the way for the glorious appearance of the Mahdi".  Back during the bad old days of the Cold War, the US and USSR were basically held in check by MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) but this guy would welcome destruction.  Personally a madman like Ahmadinejad who is dedicated to creating such chaos with his finger on the "button" of nuclear weapons scares the hell out of me.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/14/ixworld.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/14/ixworld.html)

Oh, btw, don't get me wrong.  I think we have a madman at the helm here also.  And as for paranoid Israel, well if someone had lined up as many TG people as they could find, marched us into "showers" and gassed us, we would probably be a little paranoid, too.

Bev

Bev,

Wouldn't it have been nice had our leaders at least understood these things before we committed troops there?  They didn't even know the difference between Sheite and Suni. We couldn't even place people who spoke the language there.

Yea, we're in a mess. Violence begets violence. We have a memory that lasts only two generations. Then we forget. They have a memory that lasts tens of generations. They never forget.

Cindi

Quote from: Cindi Jones on February 27, 2007, 03:12:50 PM
We have a memory that lasts only two generations. Then we forget. They have a memory that lasts tens of generations. They never forget.

One of my political science professors loved the quote, "Those who don't remember their history are doomed to repeat it's mistakes." 

Seems like Deja Vu all over again.

Bev

What?  You mean we shouldn't pay politicians a lot of money?  You mean...  people should be motivated to do things in order to achieve spiritual and societal wealth (respect, dignity, honor) rather than material wealth?  Are you insane?  Are you cracked like that socialist wierdo, Blair?!

Sound the alarm!

~ Blair

I can not fathom while we, the "American Cowboy", have such such a short social memory. Quite honestly, I believe it is because we don't read. Our society is fairly loosely attached in all aspects. Without the reading and study, we tend to forget.

I am amazed by a new program being offered on the tube which really accentuates my point.  I don't remember the title and I probably will never watch it but I did see an ad for it.  I think it is something like "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?"  And it has a woman fumbling over some stupid trivial fact that any adult should know.  Yes, this epitomizes our society. As we dumb down, our fundamentalist beliefs will push us forward (as they do in the middle east).  I would rather knowledge and understanding would be that impetus.

Chin up!

Cindi

Quote from: Cindi Jones on February 27, 2007, 12:35:57 PMWhen we attack, it better be for a damned good reason.  And we should do it with overwhelming force.  The opposition should be completely wiped out.  And unfortunately, in this day and age, countless innocents must suffer the same fate.  We must absolutely and resolutely crush their will to fight back.  Think of Germany and Japan.  Those worked.  Until we are ready to do that, we need to explore every single possibility with every resource we have to prevent it.  Even then, with the religious backing of today's form of opposition, I'm extremely doubtfull that any permanent victory is possible. Those ideas are hard to kill.

Cindi

Absolutely right.  Unless we can do that, and know for all time that we made the right decision, despite all the people who will die -- and innocent people will always die -- we have no business going to war.

In their defense, Iranians aren't very happy with Iran (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6416789.stm), either.  A couple more of the articles on the right will further support this point.

Quote from: Cindi Jones on February 27, 2007, 03:12:50 PM
Bev,

Wouldn't it have been nice had our leaders at least understood these things before we committed troops there?  They didn't even know the difference between Sheite and Suni. We couldn't even place people who spoke the language there.

Yea, we're in a mess. Violence begets violence. We have a memory that lasts only two generations. Then we forget. They have a memory that lasts tens of generations. They never forget.

Cindi

And how many more will die senselessly at the behest of an abysmally, criminally ignorant and self-serving Administration, it is wondered?

The Military is at or beyond the 'breaking point'.

How many more must die??? :'(

It's not anyone's job to take care of other people's mistakes. I say, leave Iran alone, in two more generations it will be an 'evil' capitalist secular state, like it should be. >:D

-- Brede

Quote from: Attis on April 07, 2007, 11:00:05 AM
It's not anyone's job to take care of other people's mistakes. I say, leave Iran alone, in two more generations it will be an 'evil' capitalist secular state, like it should be. >:D

-- Brede

I knew a girl who was a former A-10 pilot whose aircraft was actually hit by a SAM - but she brought the plane back. She's quite a pilot and I pray that she is doing well, for she has passed through much, in this life.

But she described GW1 aptly: "The first oil war."

How many more??   :'(

hmmmm, it's a tricky situation, and i'm concerned about this posturing myself if bush goes in, he does so [without] the support of his own country. not that that's stopping him now in iraq. ;)
if we don't invade iran i doubt any Hezbollah will show up on our doorstep. the best way to [protect] your own rights is to respect the rights of others. [every] terrorist problem we have is because we've [violated] their [national sovereignty]. we kicked the palestinians out of israel [which were their homes and they still hold the deeds btw], we set up the shah in iran and he was [not] a very nice guy to his people, we [occupied] sacred soil in saudi arabia, part of the problem we have with osama bin laden. maybe [understanding] we wouldn't appreciate someone doing that to us here, you could understand why they throw rocks and blow themselves up? ::)

Quote from: rhonda13000 on April 07, 2007, 11:05:00 AM

Quote from: Attis on April 07, 2007, 11:00:05 AM
It's not anyone's job to take care of other people's mistakes. I say, leave Iran alone, in two more generations it will be an 'evil' capitalist secular state, like it should be. >:D

-- Brede

I knew a girl who was a former A-10 pilot whose aircraft was actually hit by a SAM - but she brought the plane back. She's quite a pilot and I pray that she is doing well, for she has passed through much, in this life.

But she described GW1 aptly: "The first oil war."

How many more??   :'(

Many, many more to come, until evil VC's are allowed to fund private space industries for helium^2 extraction on the Moon and then Neptune and Uranus. >:D I can see it now, "Neptune Fuel Fleet, Inc. Majority stock holder, Brede Armozel."

-- Brede