Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Nuclear Breakout in the Middle East Likely

Nuclear Breakout in the Middle East Likely
Thread Tools
Cody Dawg
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Working. What about you?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2004, 01:48 PM
 
Those of you may remember my pointing out that there may very well be an Iran + China link and a friend sent me a link that pointed out that speculation has existed for a while in the administration that China may be involved. It is a fascinating article, but what is even more interesting is the original publication date: December 11, 2003

Think about the events as they stand in the world right now in relation to Iran and the increasing concern over what Iran is doing.

The prediction cited in the article below is actualizing at this time.

Read it. I think people living in the Middle East should be less concerned about the United States attempting to stop a nuclear threat and help democracy gain a foothold instead of resenting the United States for trying to avoid a nuclear Armageddon.

Direct link.

Since the 1960s, when Israel produced its first A-bomb�s worth of plutonium, it has enjoyed a surprisingly long-lived monopoly on nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Now, with the nuclear resurgence of Iran, that monopoly could end, with consequences to the region that are difficult to foresee.

Israel is thought to possess as many as 200 nuclear warheads, fueled primarily by its French- and Norwegian-supplied reactor in the Negev desert. Those warheads could be delivered by Israel�s squadrons of American-made F-15 and F-16 fighter-bombers, or by its powerful Jericho-II missile, also made with components from the United States. Neither Israel�s bombs nor the means to deliver them are homegrown. The question facing the Middle East now is whether Israel�s rivals will be equally successful in importing what they need.

Iran is making great progress. By year�s end, it plans to be operating a thousand gas centrifuges--machines able to boost natural uranium up to nuclear weapon grade. Depending on how efficiently the centrifuges operate, they could produce a bomb�s worth of weapons-grade uranium within a year or so after coming on line. Iran hasn�t said where its centrifuge designs and components came from, but whoever supplied them is producing a large strategic impact. For the moment, the finger of suspicion points to Pakistan.

Help to Iran has also come from Chinese companies, which have supplied the blueprints for a plant to produce the gaseous form of uranium needed to feed the centrifuges, and from Russia, which has provided sensitive technology for heavy water reactors. The latter produce plutonium, a second type of nuclear weapon fuel. None of the imports has any reasonable use in Iran�s civilian nuclear power program, itself suspect in light of Iran�s copious oil reserves.

There is every reason to think that Iran will achieve nuclear weapons status if it stays its present course. The centrifuges appear to be functional, and Iran has managed to buy equipment needed to assemble or make centrifuges on its own. Should Iran enter the nuclear club, the Middle East will face a nuclear-armed state with longstanding ties to terrorism and a growing missile fleet. Iran's missiles are capable of carrying a nuclear-sized payload not only to Israel, but to Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia and possibly Egypt.

It is naive to think that none of these states will react. Uzi Rubin, former director of defense policy at Israel's National Security Council, predicted in an October 2003 speech to an international conference on missile defense that an Iranian bomb would spur nuclear weapon moves by both Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Egypt does not possess such weapons now, but in the past has considered building them. It has already begun to produce Scud-type missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to Israel. Saudi Arabia does not possess the bomb either, but it bought a fleet of Chinese missiles in the 1980s that could deliver nuclear warheads to many points in the Middle East, and it is rumored to have discussed nuclear cooperation recently with Pakistan. Given the fact that Pakistan has sold uranium centrifuge technology to North Korea, and is rumored to have supplied the same to Iran, any nuclear talks between it and the Saudis should cause real alarm. Neither Saudi Arabia nor Egypt would like to see Iran dominate the region.

In addition to all this, Libya has shown signs of renewed nuclear activity. Colonel Qaddafi has been talking to the Russians about refurbishing his Tajura nuclear site, and about building a power reactor. Libya has for years imported Scud-type missiles from North Korea.

Thus the nuclear question in the Middle East is not just between Israelis and Muslims. A nuclear breakout by Iran would affect inter-Islamic rivalries as well. That is why the nuclear future in Iran is so important.

Iran�s progress is not likely to be stopped by its pledges under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Unfortunately, a country is perfectly free to use its adherence to the treaty as a reason why other countries should provide it with nuclear technology. Then, after importing what it needs, it can drop out of the treaty on three month�s notice and turn its nuclear wherewithal to bomb-making. Nor do the inspections carried out by the International Atomic Energy Agency provide much comfort. As long as the inspectors are allowed to observe what Iran is doing, Iran can come right up to the edge of nuclear weapon capability without breaking the rules.

It is time for the whole world--not just the United States--to start imagining what a nuclearized Middle East will look like. Could western diplomacy keep such a region from going over the edge? Would some species of local deterrence work? And what about US President George W. Bush's plan to extend democracy in the region? Unless the world is ready to answer such questions, it had better curb Iran�s nuclear program before it is too late.
     
aberdeenwriter
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2004, 02:05 PM
 
Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Those of you may remember my pointing out that there may very well be an Iran + China link and a friend sent me a link that pointed out that speculation has existed for a while in the administration that China may be involved. It is a fascinating article, but what is even more interesting is the original publication date: December 11, 2003

Think about the events as they stand in the world right now in relation to Iran and the increasing concern over what Iran is doing.

The prediction cited in the article below is actualizing at this time.

Read it. I think people living in the Middle East should be less concerned about the United States attempting to stop a nuclear threat and help democracy gain a foothold instead of resenting the United States for trying to avoid a nuclear Armageddon.
Word.
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2004, 02:37 PM
 
If Iran ever gets close to realizing their perverse dreams, their nukes will get taken out faster than you can say evil mullah.
     
Cody Dawg  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Working. What about you?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2004, 03:27 PM
 
How would that happen Pachead?
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2004, 03:59 PM
 
Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
How would that happen Pachead?
I don't believe the USA wants another psycho land to obtain nukes, such as North Korea has today. Iran is a member of the axis of evil� afterall, and look at what we did to another axis member (iraq). Funny thing is Kerry wants to have bilateral talks with North Korea again, something which proved to be a huge mistake last time we attempted that. Kerry is pretty naive to think that they would not deceive us today, they have lied and deceived in the past afterall.

There is also the case of Israel perhaps doing something about Iran, if the USA won't.
     
demograph68
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2004, 04:05 PM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:
If Iran ever gets close to realizing their perverse dreams, their nukes will get taken out faster than you can say evil mullah.
Do you think a US lead invasion is inevitable?
     
Cody Dawg  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Working. What about you?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2004, 04:12 PM
 
Invasion into Iran?

I'm not sure. I think Iran is ramping up for something, though.

Why the need to have nukes, otherwise?

Like I've said before, though, thinking that China might get involved is not unreasonable.
     
Keiretsu
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2004, 04:19 PM
 
Sources confirm: recent IQ measurements show a high probability of a breakout of sheer stupidity all over the territory of the US ... the center is believed to be located in Washington DC in a building called "The White House".
     
Cody Dawg  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Working. What about you?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2004, 04:23 PM
 
...and if the Iraq + China union doesn't seem feasible to you...

Then Iran + China + North Korea would do very well together, I'm sure.

Read here.

Tuesday, June 15, 2004

By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - China is sending nuclear technology to Iran in exchange for oil and allowing North Korea to use Chinese air, rail and seaports to ship missiles and other weapons, congressional investigators reported on Tuesday.
The commission said China's growing energy needs are "driving it into bilateral arrangements ... that may involve dangerous weapons transfers." Iran is a key oil producing country.
     
Cody Dawg  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Working. What about you?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2004, 04:26 PM
 
So, Keiretsu, welcome to the thread...

You're in banking I take it?

     
Keiretsu
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2004, 04:27 PM
 
     
Keiretsu
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2004, 04:28 PM
 
Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
So, Keiretsu, welcome to the thread...

You're in banking I take it?

Nay, dealing in matters of mass confusion!
     
Keiretsu
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2004, 04:30 PM
 
     
demograph68
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2004, 04:31 PM
 
Originally posted by Keiretsu:
http://www.talaha.com/cartoons/gulf.jpg
Did Saddam hide the WMDs in his gut?
     
aberdeenwriter
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2004, 04:38 PM
 
Originally posted by demograph68:
Did Saddam hide the WMDs in his gut?
Good one, demo!

I like the airplane photos in the poster!

(L to R)
F-16, A-10, F-15!

Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
Lancer409
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Semi Posting Retirement *ReJoice!*
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2004, 10:05 PM
 
Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Good one, demo!

I like the airplane photos in the poster!

(L to R)
F-16, A-10, F-15!

another jetfighter fan. i wonder how well the F22 performs... I also hear of weight problems for the f35?

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
     
Splinter
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: with stupid
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2004, 05:29 AM
 
worst case scenario: another osirak.
     
aberdeenwriter
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2004, 06:00 AM
 
Originally posted by Lancer409:
another jetfighter fan. i wonder how well the F22 performs... I also hear of weight problems for the f35?
Don't know about the F-35, but the Raptor is supposed to be able to out turn an Eagle, maintain 1+ mach speeds (called Super Cruise) throughout it's mission (F-15's and all others only go supersonic for short bursts, as it gulps fuel) and be as stealthy as the stealthiest planes in the inventory; it's weapons are hidden within the fuselage and only when they are deployed does a weapons door of sorts open up and make it visible to radar. Once the missiles are fired or bombs are dropped, the doors close back up and it's invisible again!

So, basically, it will get wherever it's going faster than anything else in the skies where it's fighting, it won't be spotted going in or coming back from a mission by anything on the ground or in the air and if the pilot spots an enemy plane, the F-22's radar and weapons systems allow it to fire off a few missiles and leave the scene without ever getting within the enemy's radar range.

The enemy will be dead before he even knows the F-22 is there.

If the F-22 pilot does get into a dogfight, it's tighter turning radius (made possible by a vectored thrust exhaust system) means it is going to win. It is already heads and shoulders better, HANDS DOWN, over anything else in the sky. It's like 15 years ahead of any other plane (probably the F-15 Eagle).

I've heard that every pilot who has flown both the F-15 and the F-22 say they would rather go to war in the F-22.

There's a greater likelihood they'll successfully complete their mission and come back in one piece.

Don't get me wrong, until the introduction of the F-22, the F-15 was considered probably the best or second best, front line, multi-purpose fighter/bomber/attack ECM platform in the world.

The F-22 is just much, much superior.

I'm getting a chubby just thinking about it!



EDIT: BTW, I see you're from SF; did you go to the Wharf and watch the Blue Angels last September? I missed em. Was too busy.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archi...ing/index.html

�I am thoroughly convinced this airplane is going to revolutionize the way we fight,� he says. �The F/A-22 will fundamentally change the way we approach air-to-air engagements. Nothing will be able to touch us for decades to come.�
( Last edited by aberdeenwriter; Oct 12, 2004 at 06:25 AM. )
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
Cody Dawg  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Working. What about you?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2004, 07:58 AM
 
Please go sell jet planes somewhere else...we're all stocked up here.

     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2004, 09:41 AM
 
Originally posted by demograph68:
Do you think a US lead invasion is inevitable?
Yes, regardless of who the president is. If Iran continues on their present course, there will be an invasion.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
djohnson
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2004, 10:04 AM
 
Even more interesting conclusions Cody Dawg. I figured out the book series that I was thinking sounded just like this N.Korea, China, Iran thing, World War III by Ian Slater.
     
James L
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2004, 11:33 AM
 
1) Love the jet talk... big fan myself.

2) There is something funamentally wrong with people feeling it is acceptable for Israel to have nukes, but not any other middle eastern country. If, as a free nation, it is acceptable for Israel to have nukes, then the same rules apply to Iran. If the US feels nukes are unacceptable, then first off they can get rid of their own, secondly make Israel get rid of theirs instead of supporting them, and THEN it would be acceptable to go after Irans (well, after they get rid of Russia's, etc).
     
djohnson
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2004, 11:37 AM
 
Originally posted by James L:
1) Love the jet talk... big fan myself.

2) There is something funamentally wrong with people feeling it is acceptable for Israel to have nukes, but not any other middle eastern country. If, as a free nation, it is acceptable for Israel to have nukes, then the same rules apply to Iran. If the US feels nukes are unacceptable, then first off they can get rid of their own, secondly make Israel get rid of theirs instead of supporting them, and THEN it would be acceptable to go after Irans (well, after they get rid of Russia's, etc).
The nukes are the only thing that is keeping most of those countries from trying to invade Israel. Again. That is why they are allowed to keep them.
     
James L
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2004, 04:24 PM
 
but if the US can unilaterally invade Iraq under ******** lies, why can others not do the same with Israel?

Don't get me wrong, I am not against Israel, I am against hypocrisy, and the US government is oozing with it right now.
     
djohnson
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2004, 05:16 PM
 
Originally posted by James L:
but if the US can unilaterally invade Iraq under ******** lies, why can others not do the same with Israel?

Don't get me wrong, I am not against Israel, I am against hypocrisy, and the US government is oozing with it right now.
They have already done that! Read up on the Six Day War.
     
Splinter
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: with stupid
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2004, 05:24 PM
 
Originally posted by djohnson:
They have already done that! Read up on the Six Day War.
actually that was the only war Israel DID start by preemptive strikes. the whole thing was a setup by russia in fact.

Originally posted by James L:
but if the US can unilaterally invade Iraq under ******** lies, why can others not do the same with Israel?

Don't get me wrong, I am not against Israel, I am against hypocrisy, and the US government is oozing with it right now.
They are most hypocritical about the way they say to deal with terrorists... where for them its no bargening no retreat cant negotiate. and yet thats EXACTLY what they are asking Israel to do... the US seems to make several exceptions when it come to Israel some are beneficial others arnt.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2004, 05:42 PM
 
Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
I'm not sure. I think Iran is ramping up for something, though.

Why the need to have nukes, otherwise?
Possibly to defend themselves against invasion/attack by other nations with nuclear weapons? I know if I were next on the Axis of Evil hit list, I'd be considering how do defend myself.

Why do the US and Israel need to have nukes?
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2004, 02:21 AM
 
That's why we invaded Iraq. To stop the terrorists in Iran, Saudi-Arabia, and North Korea.
     
aberdeenwriter
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2004, 06:27 AM
 
Originally posted by olePigeon:
That's why we invaded Iraq. To stop the terrorists in Iran, Saudi-Arabia, and North Korea.
We weren't going to stop terrorism in any of those places if we had waited around and let Iran invade Iraq before we did.

We'd have been on the defensive and playing catch-up, we'd be reacting to the actions of a rogue nation who has no love for the US!

And I can just imagine what all the whiners would have said then:

<whiney voice> "Well why didn't Bush DO something to keep Iran from invading Iraq?! After all, we already have troops over there in Afghanistan, all we needed to do was just shift some of them over to Iraq. And it would have been part of the WOT because EVERYBODY knows the Iranians are connected to terrorists!"

Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
aberdeenwriter
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2004, 06:37 AM
 
Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Possibly to defend themselves against invasion/attack by other nations with nuclear weapons? I know if I were next on the Axis of Evil hit list, I'd be considering how do defend myself.

Why do the US and Israel need to have nukes?
Q: Why the US?

A: To help the world sleep more soundly.

Q: Why Israel?

A: To help the Israelis sleep more soundly.

The question you MIGHT have asked (were you NOT a Foreign Agent) is "How did I get on the US's hit list?"

Next question, "How can I hurry up and get OFF the list?"
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
James L
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2004, 08:50 AM
 
Hmm...

So, the US unilaterally invades soveirn nations, based on "what might be", and forces their way of life on them... all in the name of "freedom".

And they are the good guys?

If Iran is invaded unprovoked they have the full right to defend themselves, with whatever weaponry they choose to use, just as the US would do the same.

People saying the US should invade countries to prevent "what may happen" need to realize that you are now following the same logic the KGB used when they would kidnap people out of their houses in the middle of the night... that the government is all knowing, and it is ok for them to force their will, and beliefs, on people.

And people believe it is in the name of freedom...holy misguided.
     
djohnson
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2004, 10:12 AM
 
Does anyone here from Iraq or have friends in Iraq? I would love to hear their opinion on whether they liked it under Saddam or the US.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2004, 10:15 AM
 
Originally posted by djohnson:
Does anyone here from Iraq or have friends in Iraq? I would love to hear their opinion on whether they liked it under Saddam or the US.
Read for yourself:

http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/
http://hammorabi.blogspot.com/
http://iraqataglance.blogspot.com/
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/
http://www.iraq-iraqis.blogspot.com/
http://www.ponowaiwai.com/~iraqtoday/
The above are all written by Iraqis.
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2004, 10:35 AM
 
Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Q: Why the US?

A: To help the world sleep more soundly.

Q: Why Israel?

A: To help the Israelis sleep more soundly.

The question you MIGHT have asked (were you NOT a Foreign Agent) is "How did I get on the US's hit list?"

Next question, "How can I hurry up and get OFF the list?"
Do Iranians not also deserve a good nights sleep without having to appease the US?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2004, 10:38 AM
 
Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Do Iranians not also deserve a good nights sleep without having to appease the US?
Given the current circumstances, no.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Cody Dawg  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Working. What about you?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2004, 11:27 AM
 
aberdeenwriter
Q: Why the US?

A: To help the world sleep more soundly.

Q: Why Israel?

A: To help the Israelis sleep more soundly.

The question you MIGHT have asked (were you NOT a Foreign Agent) is "How did I get on the US's hit list?"

Next question, "How can I hurry up and get OFF the list?"
BIG HUGE



GREAT LINKS, vmarks!

     
James L
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2004, 01:09 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
Given the current circumstances, no.

Those current circumstances of course being the US government lying to world so they can empire build, presume entire nations guilty before they actually do anything, and then unilaterally invade for no reason.

And your justice system is based on "innocent until proven guilty". What a crock. If Iran, as a nation, attacks the US blow them off the face of the map. If the US invades Iran based on thoughts and guesses of what might happen (and we have already seen the incompetence of the US intelligence community in developing accurate data... WMD anyone?), then they have stooped to the level of all the other aggressors in this century.
     
aberdeenwriter
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2004, 01:22 PM
 
Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Do Iranians not also deserve a good nights sleep without having to appease the US?
When Iran is simultaneously attacked by: Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwaiit, Oman and Qatar then, we can TALK about Iran having nukes.

Not until then.
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
aberdeenwriter
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2004, 01:27 PM
 
Originally posted by James L:
Those current circumstances of course being the US government lying to world so they can empire build, presume entire nations guilty before they actually do anything, and then unilaterally invade for no reason.

And your justice system is based on "innocent until proven guilty". What a crock. If Iran, as a nation, attacks the US blow them off the face of the map. If the US invades Iran based on thoughts and guesses of what might happen (and we have already seen the incompetence of the US intelligence community in developing accurate data... WMD anyone?), then they have stooped to the level of all the other aggressors in this century.
OK, no more of your clap-trap arguments unless you can refute the points in this article!


On Iraq, It's Important to Ask the Right Questions
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 8, 2004

A favorite slogan of the antiwar crowd is, �War is not the answer.� Yet everyone, except extreme pacifists would agree that whether war is in fact the answer depends on the question. In some contexts, war is the answer.

The same may be said for the two questions that dominate the current presidential campaign. Are we safer now than we were on 9/11? Was the war in Iraq a mistake? Supporters of President Bush will answer yes to the first and no to the second; supporters of Senator Kerry will take the opposite view.
As a supporter of the war and of the president, I have noticed a common omission in the arguments of the naysayers: This is their failure to look at the side of the equation that our enemies control.
_
Defending Senator Kerry�s contention that this was �the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time,� William Saletan writes in a recent Slate.com: �How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? That�s what it all comes down to � this debate, this war, this election.�
_
As Saletan shows, it�s easy to argue � if one looks simply at the costs of the war and at its present status � that it was. The war has not been won. A thousand Americans, and many more Iraqis have died. Iraq is a mess. The price tag for the mess is $200 billion. How can it not have been a mistake?
_
This calculation, however, omits two crucial ledger columns: the cost of having not fought the war at all and the gains that can be achieved by continuing the war until it is won.
_
If we had not invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be in power; Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would be in command of an al-Qaeda army in northern Iraq; the UN�s, 17th resolution ordering Saddam to comply or else would have been successfully defied, the largest chemical weapons factory in the Third World, in Libya, would still be humming along with an advanced nuclear weapons plant (both now shut down). And what would the forces of terror � the Zarqawis and Zawahiris � be doing in the face of another toothless appeasement by the world community? That, of course, is the question that Saletan and Kerry � and those who agree with them � cannot answer.
_
To be fair, they have made a stab at one. In the first presidential debate Kerry said that the Iraq war was a �diversion� from the War on Terror (though he did not explain how Zarqawi, who is based in Iraq, could be hunted down by a war in Afghanistan). As for Iraq, �We would have had sanctions. We would have had the UN inspectors. Saddam Hussein would have been continually weakening.� But the only reason there were UN inspectors in Iraq was because the Bush administration put 200,000 troops on the Iraqi border in preparation for a showdown and that forced Saddam to allow them in. Does anyone really imagine that we could have kept 200,000 American soldiers in the desert indefinitely while Saddam Hussein played the same cat-and-mouse game with the inspectors that he had been playing since in 1991? Or that he would have been weakened by our failure to act on a deadline the Security Council had unanimously endorsed? Can anyone really believe that sanctions were a feasible stick with which to weaken Saddam Hussein when he was able to breach them by getting the UN to support a $50 billion �Oil-for-Food� program that undercut the sanctions� effect while allowing him to illegally skim 20 percent of the entire program for his personal uses, including the bribing of French, Russian and German politicians to protect his deadly assets?
_
Was the Iraq war a diversion? Senator Kerry thinks we should have put all our troops into the effort to hunt down Osama bin Laden. But bin Laden is probably dead, and three quarters of his top leadership has been decapitated. Bin Laden hasn�t been visible since his alleged escape from the caves of Tora Bora. He hasn�t been able to mount an attack inside the United States in three years. The most recent al-Qaeda threat comes in the name of Al-Zawahiri his second in command. The most important and destructive terrorist alive today is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. And he�s in Iraq.
_
Yes, we are safer today because of the wars conducted by the Bush administration than we would have been had our troops stayed home or only in Afghanistan. It is true as the opponents of the president point out, that there is a lot of mayhem in Iraq, and there are a lot of threats in the world. But the mayhem in Iraq is the disarray of the terrorist forces, which is good, and the war itself is the only language they understand. The Shi�ite imam, Moqtada al-Sadr, is now seeking to lay down his arms and become a candidate in the upcoming elections. That is the victory we seek. That is the persuasive power of military force, and the argument for staying the course, and for keeping this president in office.
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
Mrjinglesusa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2004, 01:45 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
Yes, regardless of who the president is. If Iran continues on their present course, there will be an invasion.
Like I posted in another topic:

1) Iran

2) North Korea

3) China

Leads to? WWIII. The next 5-10 years should be a lot of fun.

P.S. Based on the links in this topic I moved China up to #3 and Iran to #1.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2004, 02:05 PM
 
Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
When Iran is simultaneously attacked by: Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwaiit, Oman and Qatar then, we can TALK about Iran having nukes.

Not until then.
Which of the US's neighbours is simultaneously attacking it? Canada and Mexico?
     
James L
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2004, 02:11 PM
 
Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
OK, no more of your clap-trap arguments unless you can refute the points in this article!
...interesting. So not only are you against the rights of an independent nation, but you are against freedom of speech too?

i don't think so. The US army has occupied a nation under the guise of giving them freedom and choice. I will continue to exercise those same rights also.

Cheers,

James
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2004, 02:19 PM
 
Originally posted by James L:
Those current circumstances of course being the US government lying to world so they can empire build, presume entire nations guilty before they actually do anything, and then unilaterally invade for no reason.

And your justice system is based on "innocent until proven guilty". What a crock. If Iran, as a nation, attacks the US blow them off the face of the map. If the US invades Iran based on thoughts and guesses of what might happen (and we have already seen the incompetence of the US intelligence community in developing accurate data... WMD anyone?), then they have stooped to the level of all the other aggressors in this century.
Oh yeah, we (the US) are to blame for everything.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
djohnson
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2004, 02:48 PM
 
Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Which of the US's neighbours is simultaneously attacking it? Canada and Mexico?
I believe it was a reference to the 6 day war again. You know, all the Israeli neighbors attacking at once.
     
aberdeenwriter
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2004, 03:12 PM
 
Originally posted by James L:
...interesting. So not only are you against the rights of an independent nation, but you are against freedom of speech too?

i don't think so. The US army has occupied a nation under the guise of giving them freedom and choice. I will continue to exercise those same rights also.

Cheers,

James
Your right of freedom of speech and choice is inarguable. Too bad the Constitution doesn't hold you responsible for your (misguided or intentional?) support of those who would DENY you your rights by KILLING you or forcing you to become a radical Muslim.

Are you aware that you ENCOURAGE guys like this? If you WEREN'T before, YOU ARE NOW!

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=231759

"Sami al-Arian was, in fact, the North American head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, one of the principal terrorist organizations in the Middle East, responsible for suicide bombings that took the lives of more than a hundred people including two Americans, aged 16 and 20, before he was arrested in February 2003. An FBI surveillance video of al-Arian�s fund-raising tour of American mosques shows al-Arian being introduced as �the president of the Islamic Committee for Palestine. � the active arm of the Islamic Jihad Movement.� While others in the video praise the killing of Jews and Christians, al-Arian states, �Let us damn America � Let us damn [her] allies until death.� In another speech al-Arian said, �We assemble today to pay respects to the march of the martyrs and to the river of blood that gushes forth and does not extinguish, from butchery to butchery, and from martyrdom to martyrdom, from jihad to jihad.� [31]

"Al-Arian immediately adopted the posture of the victim: �I�m a minority,� he said. �I�m an Arab. I�m a Palestinian. I�m a Muslim. That�s not a popular thing to be these days. Do I have rights, or don�t I have rights?�[36] The American left sprang to al-Arian�s defense..."

YES, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH.

However, any further clap-trap from you is NOW going to be considered in the light of the preceding information and thereby places you among those who are aiding and providing moral support for the enemies of FREEDOM.

How leftish of you that you would spring to defend your would-be captors/killers and terrorists.

BTW, don't bother just cleaning your Fuzzy Filter, YOU NEED TO CHANGE IT!
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
James L
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2004, 03:19 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
Oh yeah, we (the US) are to blame for everything.
Didn't say that at all. As a matter of fact, for someone on these boards as often as you are I am sure you have read posts by me before stating that I enjoy the States, vacation there yearly, had my honeymoon there, etc.
     
aberdeenwriter
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2004, 03:20 PM
 
Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Which of the US's neighbours is simultaneously attacking it? Canada and Mexico?
You can't put the Atomic "Genie" back in the bottle, Wiskedjak.

But you can keep others from getting the genie.

Yet, if by some miracle the WHOLE WORLD decided to give up their nukes, I would want the US to be the last one to do so.

And, like Saddam seems to have done, I'd have our Nuke capability dismantled, but ready to be revived at a moment's notice.
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
aberdeenwriter
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2004, 03:22 PM
 
Originally posted by James L:
Didn't say that at all. As a matter of fact, for someone on these boards as often as you are I am sure you have read posts by me before stating that I enjoy the States, vacation there yearly, had my honeymoon there, etc.
Damn immigration sloppiness!
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
James L
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2004, 03:45 PM
 
Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:....[/B]

Wrong again, and how truely misguided you are.

So, your opinion is that unless a person supports the attack, and invasion, of a nation because of what they might do, then that person is supporting terrorism?

Wow, tunnel vision to the nth degree.

The US is at war against terrorists. Nations are not terrorists. People are terrorists. Iran has not fired missiles at the US. Iran has not declared war against the US. For the US to invade a country, killing thousands of innocents, all in the name of war on terrorism, is wrong. So, what next. Iran. North Korea. Chechnyea, China (though I think the US would be hard pressed there). All in the name of bringing democracy, which not everyone in those parts of the world wants, and in preventing the terrorists from finding a home base of operations. Guess what, they will. So what next? Invade Italy if they settle down there? Invade New Zealand, Thailand, India, or Egypt if they settle down there? Where does it end?

I am defending the rights of the innocents killed in an unjust war, not supporting the terrorists, or how did you put it? That it "places me among those who are aiding and providing moral support for the enemies of FREEDOM. How leftish of you that you would spring to defend your would-be captors/killers and terrorists."

There are not nations, nor religions, that are preaching that militant diatribe you stated. There are a minority of radicals doing it. Just like there are a minority of losers in the white supremacy groups who do the crap they do in the name of God and Jesus. Does that mean the whole religion of Christianity should be abolished too?

An intelligent person can understand that a person can be against unjust war, and not be a supporter of terrorism at the same time... it is a shame that you cannot see that.

The worst of it is the extreme disservice you do the the vast majority of peace loving muslims who have nothing to do with fundamentalist radicalism. What's next? Lynch mobs? Burning down their places of worship? Internment camps?

We can debate this ad nauseum, and my viewpoint will not change. I supported the Gulf War in 1991. Kuwait, a soviern nation, was attacked and asked for help. I supported the Balkan/croatian/Serbian war. I even supported the Afghanistan war. If I was alive at the time I would have supported the liberation of Europe in WW2. The same goes for South Korea. I will not support the paranoid concept of invading countries at will to prevent what may or may not ever happen. To do this is to take FREEDOM away from one group of people in an effort to provide it to others. This is wrong in my books. You can spout off all you want about how my viewpoints are supporting terrorism (though when I read your militant posts like the last one I really think you need to go get some fresh air), but I think I am supporting freedom by saying the US needs ligitimate reasons for invading another country, and invading them under lies, or under the concept of "what may be", is a slippery slope that has no happy ending. It may serve to strengthen the freedom of the US people (though I doubt it), but it does so at the expense of the freedom of others.

Like I said, we can do this all day if you want, but it won't go anywhere? We might as well agree to disagree and allow blood pressures to come down, or at least go the pharmacy and stock up on Captopril and Propanolol.

Cheers,

James
     
James L
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2004, 03:55 PM
 
Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Damn immigration sloppiness!
You really don't realize how bad you make Americans look, do you? You put down anyone who has a belief that differs from yours. You insult foreigners who wish to travel to the states. You do realize the the phrase "give us your tired, your weak, your huddled masses" applies to America, right? You do realize that America is a country of many societies, ethnicities, races, and religions, and all are entitled to their own opinions.

Meanwhile, you insult, and obviously wish you could keep out, anyone who disagrees with your viewpoints. How completely un-American of you. Book burning, slavery, racism, etc ended years ago. McCarthyism ended years ago.

Freedom of speech, the right to have, and voice, your own opinions, etc occured years ago.

It is interesting that you keep using the term freedom in your posts against me, yet you would deny me that very freedom to enter the States because I disagree with what you think. If you truely think this is all about freedom, then that means that you must support the freedom of everyone, including those you do not like, and those that state an opinion different than yours.

Or, you can build your wall and ignore the rest of the world.

As I said, we can go back and forth all day if you want. Childish insults will get you no where. I believe in freedom, which means while I do not agree with what you say, I would never deny you the right to say it. Just like I do not agree with innocents getting killed in invasions that may not prevent anything.

Incidently, my last vacation to the US was to DC, and I had this very conversation with many Americans there. Some felt that it was their obligation to follow their president, whatever he chose to do. Others felt it was their right, and indeed duty, to question their government when it was acting in a manner that they felt was irrational. The cool thing was that we were all in 1 group, blocks from the White House, when we had this conversation. No childish insults, no putting up walls. Free, open, conversations. Not once did any of us feel that the other was supporting terrorism.

Oh, btw, I love my vacations in the US, and will be back soon.! Great people (for the most part), great country (for the most part). Just like any other place in the world.
( Last edited by James L; Oct 13, 2004 at 04:01 PM. )
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:56 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,