General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2289775

    IS IRAN THE NEXT TARGET?

    Locked

    by gateboy1 ·

    When looking at the larger picture we have another problem. IRAN? This country has deeper terrorist ties than Iraq did before the war and they are close to setting up their own facilities for producing nuclear weapons. Israel who is an ally of the United States will not allow this to happen because it would shift the balance of power in the region over to the Iranians. I recently read that Israel is going to be forced to act and will undoubtedly attack Iran to prevent any terror group from access to nuclear weapons. They want the United States to strong arm them and make sure this doesn?t happen. If Israel does attack this will involve a strategic air strike on the all the plants or even worse, tactical nukes. If Israel attacks Iran to prevent more destruction at the hands of terror groups, should the Britain and United States Coalition support their actions and assist them. I for one think we should? Any thoughts on the subject?

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2703324

      peace at any cost?

      by freddy2k1 ·

      In reply to IS IRAN THE NEXT TARGET?

      is there really any such thing as a tactical nuke? wouldn’t even a 1 megaton bomb explosion result in global air pollutino, if not nuclear winter??? I thought civilized peoples had long ago decided no nuke is tactically safe for anybody. Maybe I’m naive.

      • #2703459

        Nope –

        by skipperusn ·

        In reply to peace at any cost?

        A 1 megaton nuke – will do very little for Nuke Winter – it will blow some radioactive dust around for a few hundred miles.. But a 1 megaton isn’t very much – For Nuke winter you will be talking in the Hundreds of Megatons –

        And no there is no Tactical Nuke – just Nukes… take out a city – and a few hundred thousand non-combantants … of course who would fire the first round – Hum Iran – or someother muslin country… this is an interesting time we live in.

    • #2703313

      It depends on the nature of the strike.

      by admin ·

      In reply to IS IRAN THE NEXT TARGET?

      If it is against our interest we should take measures against Israel. If it is for our interest yet questionable ethically, we should restrain from support. If it is both for our interest and ethically sound we should assist. As our ally, we need to help Israel maintain accountability for it’s actions, as any friend would.

      Anyone tactically lessening the ability of Terrorists to enact acts of terror should be applauded. Israel has done some amazing operations to this end historically with covert ops. In my opinion they perhaps have the best covert operations in the world. They have no tactical need to attack Iran generally, and no need to use nukes for a tactical operation.

      Any country that deliberately sheds innocent blood or causes unreasonable destruction outside the scope of the immediate threat of Terrorism should be held accountable up to and including committing Terrorist actions themselves.

      Israel as the US should be careful to target specific known Terrorists, demand excellence in intelligence operations and tactically cause the least possible harm to carry out the mission. There is no need for nukes to carry this out.

    • #2703302

      Actually, I think. . . .

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to IS IRAN THE NEXT TARGET?

      .
      …that Syria will be next.

      And The United Nations will, most likely, again prove their impotence, and Israel will unilaterally take out some Iranian nuclear sites, evoking their right to a preemptive strike, in the name of self-defense.

      • #2703281

        And

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Actually, I think. . . .

        France won’t do squat because they are all lazy ungrateful losers.

        The Germans, ….well they ARE the enemy and have been for 60+ years now.

        Canadians aren’t needed and never help anyway because all we do is take form the uSA with no return.

        God how do you all keep the world afloat so!

        OKay, Max. I know you never said this stuff but you can’t admit others have when it comes to The [u]World[/u] America fighting the war on terrorism.

        • #2703280

          Haven’t

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to And

          You know what I mean

        • #2703269

          You said it – not me

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to And

          .
          ….but I won’t disagree.

          And after all, history has proved that both the Islam radicals and the Germans both hate – and are willing to kill – any Jew just for being Jewish.

        • #2703137

          Right on the money!

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to And

          Oz, I couldn’t have put it better myself. Thanks!

        • #2703069

          I can’t believe you see that reality

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Right on the money!

          It CERTAINLY explains why the world is against the USA though, you spit upon the world unless they are curently standing at your side and defending YOUR cause.

          Personally, my country of birth has been against France and the French longer than you have. Even then, British do not spew about how they hate the French, they don’t really care for France’s actions or, lack of, over the past 60 years, but they don’t condemn French people just because they are French. Sure there are the jokes, just like Pole jokes, Black jokes, White jokes etc. (generaly the same jokes with the nationalities changed) but they don’t piss on French people just because they think they should because others do.

          You constantly blame me for expressig hatred of america, which I hae said time and time again, I don’t hate America, I actually kow ad like many americans and have worked and run business in th estates, I hate your government. Nw for some bizzarre reason, this offends American PEOPLE! They actually get offended when the US administration or president is not liked! Go figure, “God bless America” as Bush would say. the sheep are all in the pens and accounted for.

          let me ask you quite openly; Why is it that any dislike or distrust of your government or government officials is seen as a personal attack. As a Canadian, Brit or whoever, I just do not fathom this, nor does anyone else I know. Perhaps somebody could enlighten me as to just why you feel responsible for someone’s actions that is in a political environment.

          Now before you all start, I KNOW some people actually feel that it is their duty to support the president in his tasks no matter what he does and that they are making a difference, well that’s cute and everything but hardly logical, don’t flatter yourselves, Bush doesn’t give a crap who you are or what you think, as long as he’s elected.

          So why do people in America feel so attached to their government adn so compelled to stand by it’s decisions, whether right or wrong?

          You have the only country on Earth that gives it’s politicians as much slack as you do, you haev the only country on Earth that actually cares what the government is doing on a daily basis, others have already made their stand, they hae settled ad are just livig now, they o longer have anything to prove. Why does the USA?
          Why would some country choose the USA and nobody else as a target for a religious attack? Others are Christians and aren’t threatened by terrorists?
          Could it be that the USA makes it’s business KNOWN to the word ad expects to be praised for it? Is it all the incessant flag waving and patriotic ranting? Is it GWB ?

          I never saw as much hatred for American politics before Bush, why now? He IS the best leader ever, right? How can sveral billion people around the globe oppose him and yet several hundred million Americans think he’s doing just fine? Who’s right here?

        • #2703670

          It’s simple really

          by hereinoz ·

          In reply to I can’t believe you see that reality

          In answer to your questions in this post, Oz, it is simple.

          The USA is a young country, and sometimes the very young get a little out of hand, and aren’t really able to appreciate the results of their actions.

          Sometimes the enthusiasm of the young is misplaced and becomes destructive – sometimes self destructive – anyone who has had children will know this.

          And it follows that the very young are often judged harshly by their actions that are of the destructive and self destructive kind, whereas their actions that are responsible and productive often get ignored in the anger at their reprehensible anti-social behaviour.

          Fortunately, the young do eventually grow up and often become model citizens.

          Don’t worry about your southern neighbours – whatever empire they feel like building now will eventually fall over – like all other empires have done before them, and they will become like the rest of us.

          Alan

        • #2703664

          LOL.

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to It’s simple really

          First of all, why do you feel USA is young? Yeah yeah, we know Europe is OLD. Sure, the last century, only good thing Europeans produced are…lets see…Hitler…Nazis, WWI, WWII, FRENCH (lol). Good list, the old people must surely be proud.

          Second, noone is trying to build an empire. You seriously think we don’t have better things to do than concentrate on this stupid war on terror?? All that money can be sooo effectively used internally with our domestic programs and such. /sigh. Empire!!! How arrogant of you to assume.

        • #2703422

          It is a young country though

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to LOL.

          Don’t let your anger get the best of you again. You KNOW you have one of the youngest countries in the world, as does Canada of course.

          You then went on to say what Europe produced over the last CENTURY, in which case you are sorta right but these people weren’t produced by anyone, they were born and then became these people as a result of their own mental incapacity. London didn’t build a Nazi plant in Germany.

          Now lets look at what America has ‘produced’ over the last century, Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Fuidel Castro etc. I know, everyone else created these mad men and you are simply stopping it as you never had anything to do with it.

          I would still say your analogy and comparisson is awful though.

          You live in a brank spanking new baby of a country, so do I. One of the reasons we live with such freedoms and democratic governments is because we ARE new and aren’t ” ‘anging on to outdated dogma that perpetuates the social and economic differences in our society, if there’s ever going to be any progress with the…” sorry Python’s flashback.

          You are right the focus and money would be better if dealt out withing you rown country to resolve internal problems or at least get allied support first to reduce the taxpayers burden.

          Not to worry though, once you’ve stoppped the 5 cent poil campaign, they will all revolt agaist teh US again (when the reports of the oil shipments was new, they were quoted as sayig things like “he SHOLD be giving us oil, it’s te least he can do after the attacks in our country” or “It’s about time, they have all the money and power and they ruined our city” or even “it’s about time, he has all our oil, we deserve to get it for free”

          These are not ‘exact’ quotes (VEY CLOSE) but they are reflctive of the sentiment shown toward Bush’s material offerings in Iraq. One thing they do appreciate though is when Bush was forced to open borders for oil shiment, he allowed used car dealers to stat shipping hundreds of beater BMW’s and such into Iraq. They made a killing selling Iraqi’s cas. Now there are many time more Iraqi’s driving around on streets with no name, no sings, no traffic control and no motor vehicle police.

          They assume that when the oil prices soar again in Iraq, people are goig to be even madder than before because they all have cars now and nobody will be able to drie them because thecost of gas is too high. Causing more hatred for GWB.

          It’s just another example of a quick fix to save face without a long term solution.

        • #2702857

          Cool down

          by voldar ·

          In reply to LOL.

          and have a lough before you don’t hurt yourself.

          http://gprime.net/video/rvbinternet.php

        • #2703640

          Thought you’d like it,

          by hereinoz ·

          In reply to It’s simple really

          I understand all you say, but I just don’t think that everyone in the US administration are nice warm fuzzy people trying to save the world from these wicked terrorists.

          I do believe that there is some empire building going on, and, given that you believe there isn’t, we will have to differ on that. History will show who was closer to the mark.

          Arrogant, perhaps yes, a bit like your comment about Europe. The arrogant calling the arrogant arrogant?? No wonder there is terrorism!

          Cheers Garion, I’m off to have something to eat.

        • #2703392

          Europeans were/are arrogant

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Thought you’d like it,

          One of the most arrogant people I have ever met and that was only in Amesterdam (when I went for a visit a year ago). Thats not arrogance, thats a fact. Ask any American, Japanese, Indian, Israeli. Europeans are one of the most racist, prejudiced, and arrogant people in the world, the French especially. I can totally see why, because of their history and their past going back to the beginnings of civilization, but thats no excuse for your attitudes.

          Comparing America’s arrogance with European’s arrogance is ludicrous. 2 of the biggest, largest, and costliest wars were fought amongst European nations and yet you are calling us warmongers? LOL, what a joke. These wars weren’t started by us, nor did we get involved, but we sincerely helped the Democratic nations and our friends before we were dragged into it. Now all I see is this arrogant assumptions and evil opinions about America when its the terrorists you should be talking about, because they are right on your door step.

          European history has been one big bloody conflict. Thats why people in the 1600s to present left/are leaving Europe to come to America. Please don’t compare any European action or history with US. America and americans are sick of Europeans who are doing nothing to contribute anything good to the world. Look at Japan, India, and Australia, model yourselves after those countries. At least they want to improve themselves, not be Socialists. I have been to Amesterdam (although limited in my travels to Europe) I can totally see why a continent such as Europe produced a guy named Hitler. The guys all looked like Nazis, but I must say the women were beautiful. Its a shame to see a powerful and rich continent coming to such an end. Learn Arabic and the Koran now, because Europe is going to be Muslim in 20 years.

      • #2704096

        Wouldn’t surprise me a bit!!! Logically Syria should be next.

        by sleepin’dawg ·

        In reply to Actually, I think. . . .

        The only thing holding back an attack is that strategically Syria is important but on the tactical level it’s probably not worth the effort.
        Iran on the other hand has both strategic and tactical importance. We would need to convince Israel that Syria is their target and that they can trust us to take care of Iran, not an easy task considering the track record.

    • #2703253

      Iran: beyond possibility

      by delbertpgh ·

      In reply to IS IRAN THE NEXT TARGET?

      Iran has a half million square mile area (more than twice the area of Texas) and 69 million people. That’s four times the area of Iraq and almost triple its population. That will take a big army to subdue it and occupy it. Our army is right now about 101% committed to Iraq.

      Air strikes against nuke facilities work if the critical industry is concentrated all in one place, not concealed, and not hardened against attack. Like Iraq’s was at the Osirak reactor in 1981, when the Israelis blew it up. Iran’s fuel enrichment program is spread out all over. Taking out Iran’s nuke assets would mean hundreds of air strikes, with no assurance that we got all the hidden factories. That would be tough for us to do, let alone the Israelis.

      Also, Israel would need a reason to do it, other than the U.S. saying pretty please. Whoever bombs Iran is going to have one large and ruthless enemy on their hands.

      If we use nuclear weapons, we cross a line, and we take the world across that line with us. The U.S. never used nukes in the 40 years of the cold war, when we were facing a more powerful and dangerous enemy. Doesn’t make sense to cross the line now. If we do, what does it get us? Lots of little countries will learn that a nuke is just another weapon to us, and if they want to deter us from using one, they’d better get their own.

      If we blow up one army division in Iran, what does it get us? Does Iran surrender because we knocked down buildings, killed people, burnt the ground, and poisoned a few square miles? They’ll rant and rave about the infidels and they won’t kiss our feet. What’s our next step, given that we haven’t got the available army to follow up with? Another bomb, and more after that. Will the Iranian government surrender first, or will we get sick of killing by the million first, or will the Iranian government and state power disintegrate, leaving nobody to surrender to us, and two dozen bitter anarchic fanatic religious states that will war with us forever?

      The Iranians lost as many as 700,000, mostly soldiers, in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. They cleared paths for tanks through minefields by having young men walk in front of the tanks. (They didn’t have enough tanks.) And there were only about 40 million Iranians at the time. The war so devastated the population that the Ayatollahs called on the women of Iran to make more people, and they did… 30 million net increase in 20 years. These are not enemies you take on lightly.

      Just because you can wave nuclear weapons around, it doesn’t necessarily mean crap. A fighting strategy is not the same as a winning strategy. As our strategist-in-chief has been finding out lately.

      • #2703066

        Good theory

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Iran: beyond possibility

        It also raises the question that IF you were to try and STAY in Iran and finish what you started (like you say: “or will we get sick of killing by the million first”) how would that efect America’s economy?

        Can your country afford to be at war that long? Can you fund that immense number of bombs needed to carpet bomb Iran, much like Hitler tried on England in WWII?
        Would it not then weaken your coutries economy and the Aghani’s would feel justified that they defeated Americas might?

        Would it not create a new super power in the world? China? North Korea? England? Germany?

        Your money is massive, you military funding dollars are immense and unafthomable. How long can you do ti for though before you begin to crumble your own economy, lose the unfathomabl amouts of funding ad no longer hold your prized super power status in the world? What would the future for America be then?

        Help us fight of these Afghani invasions?

        • #2703061

          The Showdown is Coming…

          by gateboy1 ·

          In reply to Good theory

          Yes but Oz, Something is going to happen within the coming months whether it’s from the European Union, United States, Britain or from Israel. I’ve been watching the news community and it looks like the world is headed for another showdown with Iran as well as North Korea.

          The International community has already spoken and they want to make sure that Iran doesn’t procure nuclear arms. I think that it has something to do with all the radical terror groups in that region.

          The World is going to have to do something, maybe not on the lines of invasion, but something has to be done before a major city in Europe, the United States, or Asia is hit with a dirty bomb and more blood is shed.

        • #2703049

          I agree

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to The Showdown is Coming…

          Yes you have a VEY valid point.
          You also mentioned key words several times.

          “The World” “The International community”

          yes I agree that North Korea is an underestimated enemy with a LOT of power.

          When I posted as much here, the responses included ‘LOL, NK, yeah sure! We’d just nuke them and it would be over’ .

          Now because this is a NEW enemy to many, people are not as well ‘trained’ to respond as they are with Iraq. NK is a formidable enemy, far moreso than Iraq. They have said they will continue to build ad develop nuclear arms so that they hae protection when America tries to attack. Well I guess that just about sums yup THEIR visions.

          Yes, a GLOBAL force is needed, as was in Iraq and was/is still provided in Iran.

          Someone earlier (aother thread) said they have 101% of America’s troops committed to Iraq right now, no wonder Canadian soldiers are getting pissed of at the lack of support for a task THEY were supposed to be supporting themselves.

          I don’t intend to offend you or have a personal jab at you, but it rally is crazy that Americans (many Americans0 think that they have never made mistakes and that the rest of the world is wrong, so it is the USA’s duty to set the world straight. HOW do people get such ideas? Really, how does it happen?

          What happened to a global war on terrorism, it was ditched SO fast when people wouldn’t back invadig Iraq before weapons inspectors were done?

          The global force has been ignored, you WILL need such a force as you’ve noted. Where do people expect that suport to come from? the allies they have lambasted for the last two years because they didn’t suport the Iraqi invasion? (Which incidentally the US went ahead with anyway completely disregarding and ignoring allies.)

          I see America causing WWIII and not even realizing it, the US government (and most of the people) seem so focused on a single issue that they can’t see the results of their actions.

        • #2703038

          Muslims & World War III…

          by gateboy1 ·

          In reply to I agree

          I think that we do need a global force because the UN isn’t getting it done…

          I think that when we think of World War we think of what happened during the first two wars and from my perspective we are currently in World War III. We as a society and I?m referring to countries like Great Britain, The United States, European Countries, Etc, are being attacked throughout the world by these terrorist groups which I?m sad to say are mainly Muslim oriented. They seem to have one goal and that is to make sure that the Zionist pigs (Namely non-Muslims) are destroyed. I thought that Islam was supposed to be a tolerant religion and you?re supposed to get along with other cultures and religions?

          Iran will need to be dealt with whether we (The United States) or the (International community) takes care of them. I think that the international communities, that being the UN takes too long and lets the issues drag out. If Canada were being attacked within it?s infrastructure I think that you and your fellow Canadians would act a little different towards the groups that were plotting against you. No, knowing Canadians and growing up with them, I can never see that happens. The world loves Canadians? I have two close friends that are Canadians and they tell me all the gossip when they travel. If you?re Canadian, You?re IN? If you?re American Your OUT, but they want the American Money, then they throw you out? Iran cannot be allowed to produce weapons grade type nukes. It would throw the whole balance of power in the region way off and we?d be in deeper shizzy than we are now.

          I think that Korea?s society will more or less crumble like the USSR did do to the fact that their whole economy is based on military production, their people are starving, and unless they move into the south (Which I doubt) they will fall like the Russian states did.

          I don?t think that Americans believe that we can do no wrong but I?ll tell you one thing, When you mess with the Bull your gonna get the horns? Americans like their freedom, we like being able to go to the mall and not have to worry about bombs going off or our children getting shot. If our freedoms, families, and basic society is threatened then we?ll do what it takes to ensure it doesn?t happen again. As a country we probably stick our noses into everyone?s business (Other Nations) but I think in today?s age and society we have to so that we can preserve our nation.

          I still think the war in Iraq was justified if not to bring freedom to the Iraqi people and put another tyrant in prison?

        • #2703680

          Mafia Governments

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Muslims & World War III…

          Korea and Saddam’s Iraq are (or were) very similar in their forms of government. The basic machinery is a comprehensive mafia-like group that extorts money and services, and maintains an iron control. With Saddam it was the Baath party; with Korea, it is the military. Just about all communist governments were infected by the mafia spirit.

          There are two international military forces; one is the U.N., which is good once in a while for peacekeeping, as long as they don’t have to stop a war to keep the peace; and the other is NATO. Right now NATO is pretty famously weak, too. NATO would have to see a big terrorist threat to all of western civ before it could get moving; right now, I think they see Bush as a loose cannon, and they don’t want to get behind him. They don’t want to end the contract with the U.S., but they don’t have a taste for the current situation.

          It’s pretty clear, though, that when President Kerry calls on the krauts and frogs, they will not be offering any big help. We got ourselves into this, and we’ll be the only ones writing checks and burying dead boys. I agree that there is justification in the war if it means the Iraqis go free. But being free of Saddam is one thing; securing their freedom for the years ahead is another. If Iraq does not become peaceful and free of mafia governments (and mafia priesthoods), then it will all have been a very costly waste.

        • #2704806

          Question?

          by druidpromo ·

          In reply to Muslims & World War III…

          You talk about nuclear responsibility, I ask what gives the US the sole right to have Nuclear Weapons, what makes them more responsible to have that power than anybody else? I don’t care who you are or where you are from, that kind of power is not safe in any human’s control.

          I agree Saddam should have been sorted out a long time ago, Iraqi people have suffered too long, no leader should be the reason for their people’s suffering but the US had a very strong role in creating the Saddam monster there is no doubt about that.

          One thing that struck me about your post is the idyllic lifestyle that you lead in the greater US (your comments on kids going to the mall etc), don’t you think that everyone regardless of their ethnic or religious preference deserves some sort of lifestyle that concurs with their traditional beliefs? More importantly should we not try to understand that tradition? 30 years ago the Muslims weren’t a threat to you guys you were hating the Commies the Muslims were your friends (Afghanistan vs Russia war?), and 100 years(dates may not be accurate)before that you were fighting among yourselves in a civil war, and years before that you were fighting with British and the French?

          Here in SA the whites had the “Swart Gevaar” the black danger, who were going to loot and mame and kill, and before that the British and the boers fought. Similar patterns, there will always be an ethnicity, politicl system or religious preference to make an enemy out of.

          I am grateful to live in South Africa where I can practice my religion freely without the stigmatisation and sterotyping that is so common in the West, it’s not the fact that you are targeting Muslim people that irks me it’s the shortsightedness that some people display when voicing their opinions. I will testify to that because I myself hated “White” people for what they had done to us in the Apartheid years, but you cannot blame and judge a specific nation, ethnic or religious group for the actions of others. Thats what you learn when you integrate and socialise and understand that circumstance can blind rationality and forward thinking.

          Give it some thought guys, why is it that we seem to forget the brevity of life, nothing lasts forever, the roman empire crumbled, the egyptian empire crumbled, the ottoman empire crumbled, the british empire crumbled…all that remains are ruins and stories……and in time to come we too will be part of those ruins and stories.

        • #2703512

          The real cost of bombing

          by elder griffon ·

          In reply to Good theory

          The armed forces of the US could buy and drop a vast amount of bombs before it had any serious effect on the US economy. The real threat to US economic and political position is the potential loss of support around the world. That’s why I doubt we would attack Iran (or publicly defend an Israeli attack), unless there were compelling reasons to believe that Iran not only had nuclear weapons but planned to use them.

          If world support is so important, you may ask, then why didn’t lack of it stop us from invading Iraq? I think that the policy toward Iraq was born out of a conviction in the US government that a number of players on the international scene were not serious about the Iraq problem, including the UN and key European governments. The administration thought it needed to emphatically make the point that the US would act on its own if necessary. Although it looks like the Bush administration is ready to invade anyone any time and it doesn’t care about consensus, it spent a lot of political and military resources on this policy choice in Iraq, to the point that we probably couldn’t afford to follow this policy in any other case for several years at least. Now, consensus is more necessary than it was before.

          I agree with GateBoy1 that something will have to be done about the Iran problem, so now it’s up to the US and the international community to determine what the response to the US’s defiant message in Iraq will be. Will we find a more cooperative way to hash out such differences of opinion in the future, or will the disconnect just get worse and worse? It would be easy for the UN to say, “Bush needs to learn that he can’t do things cowboy-style.” (And, maybe he does.) But that would be ignoring the problem. What do fair-minded, responsible governments do when they believe that broad international cooperation is just not getting things done? This is especially significant with respect to Iran, because the IAEA has been warning repeatedly that Iran is not living up to the guidelines or its commitments with regard to peacefully developing nuclear energy, but the UN has yet to do anything decisive about it.

        • #2702478

          Reasons for not bombing

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to The real cost of bombing

          We can’t bomb Iran because it would not fix any problems. A lightning strike has to be against only one or very few targets, it has to be over in one day, and the targets have to be easy enough that they will be successfully destroyed. Unless your strategic objectives are this easy to achieve, your fast strike will fail and will just cause more problems.

          Lots of bombing? That assumes that everything you want to destroy is susceptible to aerial bombardment. It often doesn’t work that well, especially against hardened or buried targets. But even more importantly, a big bombing campaign means a war. We’re not up to it now. In fact, as big and far away as Iran is, it would require a full mobilization and a war economy for us. Iran is run by religious extremists, but they are not a mafia government, like Iraq’s, that has alienated everybody in and out of country. Iran would be tough. Exercising power against middle class countries like Iran is not as easy as hailing a cab. Americans forget that.

          The reason we went into Iraq was that GWB and his neocon think tank guys thought it was a great idea and would have all kinds of positive echos. Show a thug he couldn’t jerk us around, show the world we were bold enough to lead and win results, remake the subconscious of the Arab world. He had this conviction before taking office. 9/11 just gave him the excuse for putting his plan into action. I’m sure he never thought it would work out like this. Doesn’t matter any more. It’s our number one policy problem now, and we can’t leave it a mess. Both presidential candidates (and I) agree on that.

      • #2703065

        Israeli motives

        by john_wills ·

        In reply to Iran: beyond possibility

        We do not really know what Israeli motives are. When they bombed Osiraq the Iraqi nuclear set-up was under IAEA inspection, so the Israelis were lying when they said bombs were being developed there. Of course, the Israelis have A-bombs of their own, refusing any kind of international inspection of their nuclear facilities, and they will quite likely turn Eretz Israel into a lake of glass if the Palestinians start winning (not much hope of that as things stand). We do not know why they bombed Iraq, so we do not know what circumstances would encourage them to bomb Iran. As for what the U.S. should do: insist that the Israelis submit their nuclear facilities to international inspection and that they start letting the exiles home, restoring their property as they arrive. The U.S. should do those things simply for morality, but it is obvious, or should be, that hate for the U.S. would diminish at least slightly over the years following such insistence.

        • #2703057

          They Do Have Motives… Survival…

          by gateboy1 ·

          In reply to Israeli motives

          I think that some of the Israelis motives stem from the Muslim/Jewish conflicts that have occurred over the centuries. For such a small Jewish state they have held there own and I give them praise. They are surrounded by a few Muslim states that would rather push them into the Mediterranean Sea rather than work out their issues. Too me it looks like there?s going to be another major conflict, or Israel will just bomb another facility like they did in Iraq. As for the weapons inspectors checking up on Israelis facilities I believe that they have been seen by the inspectors, but I could be wrong. I haven?t seen anything to the contrary on the news?

        • #2703590

          Don’t think the IAEA has much to do with Israel

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to They Do Have Motives… Survival…

          Israel has had nuclear weapons for 30 or 40 years, but they don’t talk much about it. They are estimated to currently have about 200 warheads, and two mid-range missile delivery systems (300 and 1000 miles range), and of course an air force capable of weapons delivery.

          The IAEA doesn’t get involved in monitoring weapons programs that a nation has not acknowledged having. I don’t know if Israel even cooperates with them on any level. They have no current civilian nuclear power plant, so any reactors they have are strictly for “research” purposes.

          http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.htm
          http://www.fas.org/main/content.jsp?formAction=297&contentId=158

        • #2703440

          working out the issues

          by john_wills ·

          In reply to They Do Have Motives… Survival…

          The main issue is the dispossession of the Palestinians. The Israelis could let the exiles home without any co-operation from neighboring states and refuse to do so. If they had wanted peace they would not have dispossessed them in the first place, and as soon as they do want peace they will start letting the Palestinians return to their homes, their farms, their orchards, their meadows and their history.

        • #2703336

          Bifurcated arguments

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to working out the issues

          There are a couple of different points in this part of the thread. Three, actually.

          One is that nuclear weapons trump all other weapons, and survival trumps all other principles of human organization. With Osirak, the Israelis could see how it would all plot out, and they decided they did not want to watch the movie where Saddam got to play with his reactor. The preferred the movie where the French were angry but could do nothing and left, Saddam was mad but had no nuclear weapons, and everybody else was relieved. Saddam was the kind of miscalculating high-stakes roller who would have stumbled into a war, once he had the big weapon. Considering the vast immorality of nuclear war, there’s a basic morality to preemption. (Not that I think that that morality is exampled by Mr. Bush’s adventure. That’s a different story.)

          Palestinians, though, certainly deserve a home, and the people who came to be called Israelis returned to Palestine after a 1900 year sojurn and took it away. They said they had a permission slip from God. I’d rather God not be pulled into politics, but the Muslims are not so good at leaving him out, either, so the power of deity will be an ineluctable feature in this struggle. There certainly will be no peace until the Palestinians have some kind of justice. Unfortunately, the prevailing Palestinian opinion, now and for the last 90 years, is that Palestine would be O.K. if the Jews were all dead or somewhere else. The Palestinians’ big problem is that they haven’t thought of solutions past that point.

          The Jews, on the other hand, have the only successful society in the midst of the Arab lands surrounding them. They’re economically prosperous, inventive and progressive, work hard, have martial spirit, and have a modern social compact (despite having struck a devil’s bargin with the hyper-religious crazies among them. Which may be their undoing yet.) I don’t know why the U.S. chose to make its big strategic Middle Eastern alliance with the one country that was guaranteed to piss everybody else off, was too tiny to defend, and had no oil. But we did, and they are the one people in the region most like us.

        • #2702399

          Israelis and Israelites

          by john_wills ·

          In reply to Bifurcated arguments

          The Israelis did not “return” after a 1900-year absence. The national descendants of the Biblical Israelites are the Palestinians, more than anyone else. The Israelis have their religion as a result of various missionary efforts – Koestler’s “Thirteenth Tribe” is the history of the most important converted nation – and they had no interest in moving to Eretz Israel, with the exception of Suleiman the Magnificent’s settlement in the 16th Century, until late in the 19th Century. And even so they could have immigrated as families rather than as a community.
          However, the question should not be made collectively but personally: there are private property rights being violated by the Israelis right now, and peace demands that those rights be respected.

        • #2702919

          That’s a nice, modern way of looking at it

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Israelis and Israelites

          Modern thought about nations tends to start from the first lines drawn on maps after the departure of the colonialists; or if that is not satisfying, the last lines that prevailed before the colonialists arrived. Point being, boundary lines are always in change, and the forces that justify those lines are likewise in flux. Try basing a division of Yugoslavia on history.

          Every hill in Kosovo has a church or a structure that his a monument to the Serbian people, but 90% of the population is Albanian. 100 years ago there weren’t nearly as many Albanians. 500 years ago it was a multi-ethnic Serb empire. We tend to assume, for the sake of simplicity, that 500 years, 100 years, or 50 years don’t count, when it comes to justice in Kosovo. It’s a simplification that satisfies no one.

          Israel is a fact on the ground. Four million people came there with a sense of dedication and a willingness to confront terrible risk, to engage in a shared enterprise as a people. You say they did not return. Well, they arrived with suitcases packed and a look of dedication, and a very long sense of history. To my eye, they are interlopers who don’t belong, and the Palestinians are owed the place, but that is probably because I don’t want to have to deal with a lot of trouble. Be much tidier if Israel were rebuilt somewhere else. However, Zionists have been there for a hundred years, and a Jewish minority for far longer than that. They have a clear sense of belonging, and they are willing and able to enforce it.

          As aggravating as the problem is, it would most likely be more trouble to dislodge the Jews than to try to contain their expansionism. They have the army, the armaments factories, the money, the skill, the spirit, and of course, 200 atomic bombs. A big part of the polite European sense of justice is the avoidance of mass death.

          So, facts on the ground. Not pleasant, but definitely there, and pretty immovable.

        • #2703051

          We do know why

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Israeli motives

          It is very clear that durring the Iraq-Iran war the Osiraq reactor was attacked by the Iranians and damaged. To prevent further attacks by the Iranians Saddam broadcast a message to them indicating that the nuclear munitions manufactured there were specifically for the Isrealis and Iran should not fear nuclear anihalation from a brother Arab. Not much more provication needed than that. My hats’ off to the Isreali’s. They know how to take care of business. I think they’re a bit slow on that terrorist Yasser Arafat though. They should have buldozed his place years ago.

        • #2703677

          The Israeli idea was right, in its time

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Israeli motives

          The Israeli strike to take out the Osirak reactor was a pretty rational move, and it probably saved the world a nuclear crisis between Iraq and Israel.

          The French were building it for the Iraqis, and they had their eyes on the money and on the influence they would gain in an oil-soaked country. The French were taking a chance. The IAEA had little choice but to play along with the French. There was very little in the way of regulation to stop Saddam.

          The Osirak reactor was a plutonium breeder. Plutonium can be used to fuel other reactors, but it is also grade-A atom bomb material. Plutonium is far easier to refine than weapons-grade uranium, but it’s harder to make. But the French were taking care of that. When Israel blew it up, they were just starting to fuel the reactor. In a couple of years, had it been allowed to run, Saddam could have pulled his fuel rods and fueled his dreams, whatever they were.

          Knowing Saddam as we do now, with his taste for the big chance and his willingness to take risks, I don’t think anyone should hate the Israelis for that trick.

        • #2702395

          Osiraq

          by john_wills ·

          In reply to The Israeli idea was right, in its time

          The Osiraq reactor was under IAEA inspection. It was not being used for weaponry. The Israelis did not make the world safer by bombing it. On the contrary: Saddam decided he might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb, so he did for a while dabble in nukes, although he seems to have given that up a long time before the U.S. invasion.

        • #2702352

          Was definitely not used for weapons production…

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Osiraq

          …because it hadn’t been fueled. The Osirak (or Osiraq) design was a breeder, which would have produced abundant plutonium. Reactors can be run on plutonium, as well as bombs can be made. However, it is a straightforward chemical process to separate plutonium from the fuel rods. It is a far more difficult physical process to separate U-235 (bomb/reactor stuff) from U-238 (scrap metal, a.k.a. “depleted uranium”.)

          In a breeder, some of the U-238 turns into plutonium. Happens in a regular reactor, too, but to a lesser extent. Reactors are usually fuelled with about a 5% mix of U-235 and 95% U-238. It takes 80% to 90% U-235 to have bomb material. The Osirak design also produced electricity.

          The United States protested France’s plan to build and fuel a breeder reactor, as opposed to a more conventional reactor, useful only for producing electric power. It is hard to imagine what peaceful purpose Saddam would have had for the plutonium, unless he planned to build many power reactors and fuel them with the byproducts of the breeder. Far easier to imagine the worst.

          Israel blew up the reactor while Saddam was engaged in the Gulf War with Iran. Saddam started that one as a war of opportunity. He figured that with the Ayatollahs purging the officer corps, the Americans cutting off spare parts for the military, and the chaotic state of Iran in general, they’d be a pushover, and he could grab important oil and waterway resources.

        • #2702921

          How would you know?

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Osiraq

          what, are you and Saddam golfing buddies? Sources please.

        • #2702871

          Here’s your link

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to How would you know?

          The reactor was destroyed before its initial fueling. Check paragraph 5 of this article:
          http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/osiraq.htm
          The fuel was in the building, but the reactor had not gone hot for its first run, when the Israelis made their second and successful attack. The French supplied 27 pounds of 93% U-235 to run this reactor, by the way, which is excellent bomb material. The initial fuel supply was enough for two bombs by itself. Read further in the article; the U.S. wound up bombing the place in the first gulf war.

        • #2702796

          Didn’t mean to suggest it was innocent

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to How would you know?

          Osirak was never used for the production of weapons, or anything else, because it was blown to pieces before it was ever turned on. I didn’t say this clearly in my first reply. I have faith that had the reactor been allowed to run, Saddam would have harvested the plutonium product for bombs.

        • #2702742

          Apology

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Didn’t mean to suggest it was innocent

          I must apologize for my post. I had not meant to sound so aggressive or condescending. I read my work and sometimes I shudder. Please forgive me.

    • #2703678

      IRAN and the secret revolution within.

      by garion11 ·

      In reply to IS IRAN THE NEXT TARGET?

      http://www.freerepublic.com/~doctorzin/

      It will all be over soon. Then we can have Pax Americana. I see Oz coming a mile away with that last statement.

    • #2702466

      Imperialistic USA

      by -bw- ·

      In reply to IS IRAN THE NEXT TARGET?

      As long as GWB is prez, every country will eventually be a threat. GWB?s apparent goal must be global domination; I am starting to believe Hitler was GWB?s hero!

      I say we give GWB a M-16 and let him go fight the wars he is personally picking to start, it could make up for his desertion during the Vietnam war.

      It?s funny how our democracy preaches one thing and turns around to impose imperialistic maneuvers during invasion of third world countries.

      GWB?s gotta GO!

      Vote Kerry/Edwards to get America back on the right track!

      • #2702307

        Hey RED!

        by protiusx ·

        In reply to Imperialistic USA

        Boy your original. What a load of crap. GWB was no more a deserter than Billy boy was a war hero. Look if you can’t say anything original don’t waste your time.

        This dribble sounds like your at a union pep rally.

      • #2702970

        Warmonger Hubris

        by bucky kaufman (mcsd) ·

        In reply to Imperialistic USA

        I think it’s just NUTS to presume the US has to keep launching uprovoked attacks against more and more mideast countries – in order to defend itself – like Hitler marching through Europe.

        Wanna stop terrorism? Stop funding it. Bush has funneled more money into launching terrorist attacks than bin Laden could ever dream of.

        Remember Abu Ghraib? Those pictures provide GREAT insight into the character of the Busch loyalists who support the ongoing slaughter.

        • #2702961

          Funding Terrorists??

          by nd_it ·

          In reply to Warmonger Hubris

          Do you have any sources??

        • #2702868

          GWB probably inspired others to fund, but did not himself

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Funding Terrorists??

          Sending an American army into an Arab and Islamic country sounds to me like it would encourage lots of conspiracy-minded America-hating Muslim guys to contribute their money, their lives, and their sacred honor to fighting us.

          This isn’t the same thing as writing Bin Laden a check from the U.S. Treasury, but it’s got to do wonders for his fund raising and recruiting. That’s the big thing that makes the invasion of Iraq such a losing strategy for the U.S. That, and the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorists who hit us, also means we’re wasting all our strength swinging at air. Score another strategic victory for Al Qaida.

          If you think I’m against GWB, you’re right. Pick the worst mistake you could imagine, the riskiest adventure with the biggest downside, and that is the path GWB took us down. He is a military disaster.

          If you think we can get out of Iraq without cleaning it up, you’re wrong. We broke it, and we need to leave a working country when we go, or the consequences will be catastrophic.

        • #2702791

          Muslin extremists

          by nd_it ·

          In reply to GWB probably inspired others to fund, but did not himself

          Whose to says that those American-hating guys wouldn’t contribute their money regardless if we weren’t in Iraq? Do they just say we will leave you alone if you don’t invade Iraq? No, they have only one goal in mind and that is to inflict as much damage to America as they can. How long should we just sit and wait until the next attack? Yes, I will agree we got into a pretty big mess in Iraq and must stay until it is stable. But we are exposing alot of terrorists now that might have just waited in the shadows planning and organizing until the perfect opportunity to attack us. At least now, we take the fight to them and constantly keep them on their heels, and that is the kind of leadership I look for.

        • #2702747

          A couple of fine points

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Muslin extremists

          I say that the fight we pick obviously makes a difference as to how much support (money and gunmen) the enemy is able to drum up. Watching us stomp all over Iraq, and send our trailer trash women to lead naked Arab prisoners around like dogs, makes Muslim men’s blood boil. They boil it down to the strong humiliating the weak, Christian dogs defiling the holy places and shaming the people of the true faith. Give them a cause, they’ll get more volunteers and money. It’s simple reasoning.

          When we fight Iraq, which had nothing to do with the terrorists who attacked us, we’re not serving our goals, or keeping any enemies on their heels. We’re using up all our strength punching at shadows.

          We have recently put enough pressure on Pakistan to start picking up the Al Qaida that hide out there. Just in time for the election, I notice. Maybe if GWB had to run for office every year, he could actually keep up an effective war on terror. Out of season, though, his mind drifts off the point.

        • #2710730

          Cowardice

          by bucky kaufman (mcsd) ·

          In reply to Muslin extremists

          re:
          they have only one goal in mind and that is to inflict as much damage to America as they can.
          —- —- —- —- —- —-

          Iraq was not, is not, and could not have soon inflicted one iota of damage on the US. When Plume and Wilson exposed the WMD lies, the Bush Regime attacked them.

          We have far more to worry about from Militant Christians than from Militant Islamics.

        • #2710726

          What have you been smoking?

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Cowardice

          Show me one article or one reference where Militant Christians have attacked anyone. I think on the contrary if you did a google search and replaced the word “Christian” with the word “Muslim” you would get a ton of hits. You really need to try a bit harder.

        • #2710671

          From his previous wacky postings…

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Cowardice

          He is smoking something alright; something strong, potent and with his continous postings it looks like he has plenty of it. Amsterdam would be proud of TR’s very own Buck. Hey Bucky, you should go and open up a coffee shop.

        • #2710733

          Lost Legitimacy

          by bucky kaufman (mcsd) ·

          In reply to GWB probably inspired others to fund, but did not himself

          re:
          If you think we can get out of Iraq without cleaning it up, you’re wrong. We broke it, and we need to leave a working country when we go, or the consequences will be catastrophic.
          —– —– —– —– —–

          If you think the US government can “fix” what they broke, I believe you’re sadly mistaken. There are far too many Militant Christians in his administration, and among his followers, who want a crusade against Islam in general. When Bush goes, many of them will remain.

          The only way we can show the Iraqis that we support their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is to stop having our military and mercenaries roaming their streets, kicking in their doors, and dragging them off in the dark of night.

        • #2710737

          Public Knowledge

          by bucky kaufman (mcsd) ·

          In reply to Funding Terrorists??

          It’s public knowledge, no secret at all, that Bush and Blair have used much of the dozens of billions of dollars for the war to hire “contractors” (a.k.a. Mercenaries) to attack Iraqis in ways which would be inappropriate and illegal for the US military to do.

        • #2710735

          You can do better than that!

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Public Knowledge

          Come on then. Before you get slammed. You have to at least provide some shred of documented evidence of what you claim? Come on you can do it. I know you can! At least post something somewhat intelligent.

        • #2710732
        • #2710728

          Honestly!

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Blackwell in Iraq

          See we give you a chance to prove yourself and you shoot yourself in the foot. The article you referenced http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/text2-10-2004-50382.asp
          is in the “editorials” section. That would make it opinion and not fact. Do you know the difference? I too have a friend in Iraq. A few actually but this one in particular is going to marry an Iraqi national. The governments not stepping on his toes.
          Try again.

        • #2702920

          Pish Posh…

          by gateboy1 ·

          In reply to Warmonger Hubris

          The Abu Ghraib prison scandal does not show the character of Americans or Bush loyalists. That was done by sick individuals with an agenda of their own. Since America has went on the offensive have their been any more attacks on United States soil? If someone wanted to do you or your family harm would you rather sit back and let them come you, taking a chance that family or friends could get hurt, or would you go and nip it in the bud?

        • #2702698

          Explain yourself

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Warmonger Hubris

          How has Bush “funneled more money into launching terrorist attacks than bin Laden could ever dream of.”
          Do you actually believe that about all conservative people in this country or are you just blowing off a little steam?

    • #2702382

      ISRAEL – LITTLE USA!!!!

      by hargerd ·

      In reply to IS IRAN THE NEXT TARGET?

      US continually refuses to condemn ANY actions the Israelis take in the name of “security” – including, but not limited to….
      1. Air strikes
      2. The wall
      3. Checkpoints
      4. Curfews
      the Palestinians have NO army and NO way of defending themselves – and people wonder why they blow themselves up (NOT A PRACTICE I AGREE WITH!!)

      • #2702995

        Comparisons

        by protiusx ·

        In reply to ISRAEL – LITTLE USA!!!!

        If you had criminals and terrorists murdering our family members you might build a wall to. I think it was a great idea. For that matter I think they should have forcably deported the palistinians (no such thing as a palitinian but that’s another argument) from their lands along time ago. The PLO should have been eradicated 20 years ago.
        I admire the Isrealis greatly for their courage, and tenacity.

        • #2702992

          Trailer Park Trash…

          by gateboy1 ·

          In reply to Comparisons

          From what I’ve been told by some of my Arab friends the Palestinians are like the white trash of the Middle East. They?ve been kicked out of every Middle Eastern country and dropped in the lap of the Israelis.

        • #2702990

          Yeah!

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Trailer Park Trash…

          One must ask ones self why have not the poor down-trodden palistinians ever been allowed into – oh pick any arab country (Egypt, Syria, Lebenon,the list goes on)? BECAUSE their being used as a destabilizing agent by those countries. What two things do all arab countries have in common? One they hate Isrealis two they hate Americans becuase we support Isreal.

        • #2702967

          Ironic NO?

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Yeah!

          We are their best customers and they treat us like $hit. Talk about customer service. Sheesh.

        • #2702964

          Recycled Racism

          by bucky kaufman (mcsd) ·

          In reply to Yeah!

          re:
          One must ask ones self why have not the poor down-trodden palistinians ever been allowed into – oh pick any arab country (Egypt, Syria, Lebenon,the list goes on)?
          —– —– —– —– —– —–

          It’s notable that this is the same “Final Solution” that many Americans wanted for black people. They argued that Blacks were basically evil, and should be sent off to live in a foreign country (Africa).

          American “Conservatives” seem to think that the best way to deal with their social problems is to hope they just go away.

          A cowardly lot, they are.

        • #2702937

          I am a conservative and I never said that

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Recycled Racism

          Where did you pull this one out of? lol.

          “American “Conservatives” seem to think that the best way to deal with their social problems is to hope they just go away.”

          No I feel that the best way to deal with Social problems is to hold the individual responsible for causing the problem. Now that is such a general statement, but I think personal responsibility is such a critical trait and if each of us has it to the fullest extent of our ability, I wonder how much we can really accomplish. Throwing money at the issues with government help is not the way to solve social problems like so many Democrats prefer.

        • #2702684

          Perhaps you misunderstood

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Recycled Racism

          My point was that the palistinians have been kept in those camps for years by the very people who are suppose to be championing their cuase. If the rest of the Arab community actually wanted to do something about the palistinian problem they could have assimilated the palstinian people into their countries with out a problem. These Arab “brothers” will not allow the palistinians to immigrate to their countries because they want to keep the destabilizing factor in Israel.
          You make an analogy between the black people of this country to palistinians and I don’t think it is an acurate one. Black people were brought to the United States against their will as slaves. Over the last 139 the desendants of these slaves have blended into the American culture and are just as much a part of what is America as any other culture. Contrast this to the palistinians who were forced to stay in Israel by the other Arab nations after it’s creation in 1949.

        • #2702869

          The Gentile Dogs.

          by admin ·

          In reply to Trailer Park Trash…

          Yep, some problems never change. They were of course, amoung those despised and known as “Gentile Dogs” in the New Testament.

        • #2704921

          Dogs?

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to The Gentile Dogs.

          I have read of “Gentiles” in the new testiment. A “Gentile” was used and is still used to this day by Jews as a reference to anyone who is not jewish. I have never read the term “Gentile Dogs” in either testiment. Perhaps you heard this in a movie somewhere.

        • #2704796

          Good Point

          by druidpromo ·

          In reply to Dogs?

          X this highlights the concept that you should never trust what you read……….

        • #2710883

          Trust?

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Good Point

          Trust is never given blindly but earned in my humble opionion. As a Christian I can say that goes with Christianity as well. When I read the Bible I test it against itself for accuracy. When I hear someone say something that is suppose to be scriptural I check it against the Bible. Likewise when someone says something that is suppose to be I test it against the information I can gather. I research it to see if it is indeed true.

        • #2711181

          Matthew and Mark both tell about a healing to a Gentile.

          by admin ·

          In reply to Dogs?

          This is where the term has been derived, shortened from the parable to mean, “Gentile” as in the Woman in the story and “Dog” as in asking that the “Dogs” are thankful for the table scraps. Jesus saw her as having great faith and this story has been used many times in showing Jesus compassion and extension of his ministry to the Gentiles.

          This is a common term in most theological schools in almost every denomination. If you ask your church leadership they will be able to help you on this point.

          Here is one online explaination of the Healing of The Gentile Womans Daughter, which shows her comparison of Gentiles to Dogs and Jesus subsequent reaction to her faith:

          http://www.bcbsr.com/survey/jcm18.html

          I hope this helps 🙂

        • #2711167

          The analogy

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Matthew and Mark both tell about a healing to a Gentile.

          In this analogy the Lord was refering to the “bread” which was his gift of salvation and the “children” which was representitive of the jews. The “dogs” were an analogous reference to the gentiles but it was not meant in a derogitory way. His point as he was speaking to a jewish woman was that his message was menth first for the jew and secondly for the gentiles.

        • #2711123

          Exactly Protius, that’s the whole point.

          by admin ·

          In reply to Matthew and Mark both tell about a healing to a Gentile.

          Others found the Phoenicians (Lebanese), Syrians Palestinians etc. as a “lesser” people and they were in popular terminology known as the “Dogs”

          Jesus message was that although they were considered outsiders by the Jewish establishment, that Jesus did consider them in a not at all, as you said, “derogitory way”.

          This contrasted the Jewish view of this time, in which Dogs were considered an unclean animal, scavangers, often living in packs. They were not common pets like now. They were not farm animals as pigs are now either. The Gentiles were the scavengers like the Dogs- they were the unclean.

          I was answering the above post when it was said that the Palestinians were like Trailer Trash. To me, this has been this way a long time. Just as Jesus, I believe, would love everyone including the Trailer Trash today, so would he show mercy and love to the Palistinians- the Trailer Trash of the area in modern terms, or in Biblical terms, the Gentile Dogs. That the status quo, whether Jewish or others in the modern day would not see this is an indication of what I originally said- Things don’t really change that much.

          ~

        • #2704797

          What!!

          by druidpromo ·

          In reply to Trailer Park Trash…

          It’s the other way around X, it’s the Jews who have settled in Israel who have experienced that, all the way from Russia to Israel, they have been kicked out of all those countries.

        • #2710872

          There’s a Difference

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to What!!

          The Jews that settled in Israel over the last 120 years have done so of their own accord. In other words they migrated to the land that was promised them by God. They did this primarily to flee from mass murder, torture, and other types of persecution. There is no such racial or familial distinction known as Palestinian. The people we know today as “Palestinian” are Arabs that lived in what was once known as Palestine before the creation of the Israeli state. My point is that Israel was repeatedly attacked by ALL of it’s Arab neighbors and successfully defended themselves over the years. The Palestinians are Arabs that have been used by their Arab brothers in an attempt to destabilize the country. That is why I congratulate the Israeli’s for building their wall. I would have gone a bit further and forcibly deported the Palestinians a long time ago.

        • #2702965

          Advocating Genocide

          by bucky kaufman (mcsd) ·

          In reply to Comparisons

          re:
          The PLO should have been eradicated 20 years ago.
          —– —– —– —– —–

          This attitude is the very reason why Palestinians are correct to continue to fight for their freedom.

          Two generations have grown up, with folks like you advocating a Holocaust. Their only crime is being born to parents you hate.

        • #2702936

          What freedom?

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Advocating Genocide

          Do you have any clues as to the fight between Israel and Palestine? Just to put it in prespective, everytime peace was proposed, Israel said YES, the Arabs said NO. How are you supposed to make peace with someone like that? Israel is willing to recognize a Palistinian state, are the Palistinians and the entire Arab world willing to accept the legitimacy and recognition of Israel?

        • #2704794

          Ermmmm….

          by druidpromo ·

          In reply to What freedom?

          I quote I hope a person who you do not consider Anti Semetic Mahatma Gandhi from “A Land of Two Peoples” in 1938. A statement which I wholly agree with.

          “Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French?What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct?If they [the Jews must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs?As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.”

        • #2710871

          And you lost the war

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Ermmmm….

          If you are trying to justify to me the intentional killing of Israeli and Jewish women and children is justfiable then you are nothing but a coward and so are the Palistinians.

          Let them attack the military and see what happens. Oh wait, they did, in the 3 wars between Israel and the Arab nations, Israel won decisively (sp) every time. And yet they act like victors.

          It was never the Palistinians lands in the first place, Jews were living there long before the birth of Christ.

        • #2710822

          selective history

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to And you lost the war

          If you want to go by history, it was by no means an unbroken streak of Jews living in that area of the middle east. They were taken away to Egypt and to Babylon. In Roman times, it was by no means exclusively Jewish. After Rome fell, it became Arab. During the crusades it was Christian for a time, then arab again. Eevntually it morphed into the Ottoman empire, until that empire fell during WWI. So its not that simple.

          I’d like to think that the two groups could live in peace, but both sides are so polarized and entrenched its hard to see a way clear.

          I don’t think the previous poster was trying to justify terrorism and murder. But don’t forget innocents are dying on both sides.

          And if might and a sense of history makes right, then you should give Kuwait back to Iraq. Before WWI Kuwait did not exist as a country and was part of the Basra province of the Ottoman empire.

          Its easy to have nice simple black and white answers to the problems of the world….but its rarely that easy.

          James

        • #2710808

          Agree James, but whenever peace was proposed, Israel said yes, Arabs saidno

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to And you lost the war

          I am not sure what else you can do with that kind of mentality.

          If the Arab countries really want to help Palistinians, they should give a piece of their land to them. But its not the case, the Arabs are a bunch of racists. In their mutual hatred for Israel, they are using the Palistinians as a weapon and victims against Israel. Israel has 1.2 million Arab/Palistinians non-Jewish people living in its country. These people are allowed to live IN Israel without any issues, why can’t the Arab nations do the same to their “own kind”, the Palistinians, and for that matter, a Jewsih person?? What do you think would happen if a Jewish person were to live in Iran?? He’d get murdered probably.

          That kind of tolerance shows you who really is evil and who is not, or atleast it should. Purposefully targeting civilians in the name of fighting for freedom (when they really aren’t opressed to begin with, but thats another story) is not freedom. The Palistinians should take a good look at their own government and Yasser Arafat for their misery and stop blaming Israel for everything.

          There is a saying by historian when I get the source I will post it, but the quote roughly goes like this…

          “There will be peace between Jews and Arabs when the Arabs learn to love their children more than their hatred of Israel”.

        • #2702681

          Again your confused

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Advocating Genocide

          The PLO stands specificly for “Palestine Liberation Organization” Founded in 1964 by the Arab League, the PLO was the invention of Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser. Nasser saw it as a means to advance Egypt’s goals of uniting the Arab world under Egyptian rule, by rallying the Arab states under the banner of destroying Israel.
          Since 1969, the PLO has been run by Chairman Yasser Arafat and his terrorist group, Fatah which has espoused terrorism including but not limited to the targeted killing of children on school buses and at schools. So I am not advocating the killing of all palistinians. Lets get it right.

      • #2704799

        Ya but…

        by druidpromo ·

        In reply to ISRAEL – LITTLE USA!!!!

        Why is it the US’s problem to sort out the Israeli issue? This is waht works me about the whole Middle East thing, hate the USA but they should be more active in solving the problems..BULLS**T!

        Israel is a problem country it always and always will be, even Ghandi had a problem with the whole concept, but no external force is going to broker peace in a land that requires internal agreement.

        On the flipside the Israeli’s (NOTE: I didn’t say Jews I said Israeli’s) deserve what they are getting, when you as a country vote an internationally recognised war criminal back into your government you are asking for trouble. Protection my a**, Sharon is a recognised war criminal and he is Israel’s elected prime minister, that says alot about the mindest of the Israelites, they have invited violence into their lives……

        • #2710775

          Well that says alot

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Ya but…

          I understand where your comming from now. You know there is one thing that I will fault Sharon for and thats for not pulling the triger on that murdering terrorist bastard Arafat.
          I am sure you and your muslim friends would love for the US to pull our support for Israel then you could attack en mass and destroy them which is what you’ve wanted to do for thousands of years. Don’t believe me here you go: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1512&u=/afp/20040818/wl_afp/iran_nuclear_us_israel_040818201404&printer=1

          put that in your water pipe and smoke it.

        • #2709761

          A typical Pro-Palistinian response from an extremist.

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Ya but…

          “On the flipside the Israeli’s (NOTE: I didn’t say Jews I said Israeli’s) deserve what they are getting, when you as a country vote an internationally recognised war criminal back into your government you are asking for trouble. Protection my a**, Sharon is a recognised war criminal and he is Israel’s elected prime minister, that says alot about the mindest of the Israelites, they have invited violence into their lives…… ”

          Yes and the Palistinians have a noted war criminal and a corrupt official in Arafat as their leader who advocates violence and destruction of the Jewish state.

          What a typcial response from a terrorist mindset Druid, “…they have invited violence into their lives…… ” Wow?? really? What about 3 times Israel said yes to the peace process while Arabs said no?? What about the intentional targeting of women and children by Palistinian homicide bombers?? What about the September 11th attacks on America?? WE invited that violence and killing of innocent people WHO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MIDDLE EASTERN POLICY?? Fu** you a**hole.

          Its an incredible fact that Israel has showed as much tolerance about the Palistinians as it has. If they went all out, there would be no more Palistinians to speak of as the 3 wars against Israel has showed you. They are willing to and give the Palistinians a state of their own (more than their Arab countries), but are the Palistinians (and for that matter other Arab nations) willing to accept the existence and legitimacy of a Jewish state??

          You invited violence by not willing to make peace with a powerful state with a strong military (stronger than YOU anyway) who WON 3 unprovoked wars. Well, now you people attacked America and her citizens, not the military, but INNOCENT people on 9/11, Tanzania/Kenya, First world trade center bombing, Panam bombing. Do you people do anything peacefully or what?? You have worldwide conflicts with Russia and Chechenya, India/Pakistan, Australia/Bali bombings, US/9/11, US/Afghanistan/Iraq, Israel/the rest of the Arab countries, Spain/March 11th bombings…based on the current above conflicts, who really are the war mongerers here? I see all muslim states/countries at war with democratic nations. You are a bunch of dirtbags whose following EXACTLY what the “Quaraan” is telling you and are afraid to admit it.

          There is no justification for the murder of innocent people on purpose. Thats what you muslims are advocating and thats what I see around the world. I don’t see Israel targeting innocent civilians on purpose, but I see you coming into Israel and blowing up buses and cafes. You are all a bunch of cowards.

        • #2709720

          Yeah!

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to A typical Pro-Palistinian response from an extremist.

          In the vernacular of the day: Dude – you rock!

        • #2711480

          Back the truck up

          by druidpromo ·

          In reply to A typical Pro-Palistinian response from an extremist.

          Don’t assume my friend, I don’t support the Palestinian methods of fighting for their land, on the contrary the way I see it, suicide is frowned upon in the Quraan, we can be opinionated till we’re blue in our faces, fact is we will die and this conflict will still continue, i honestly see this as pointless maybe i brought the point across a bit harshly, but I’m just trying to say that it takes two to tango. To be honest i have a hard time trying to fulfill my obligations in my religion, there is hardly time worry about the “infidels” and the Middle East.

          I believe that God allows everything to happen for a reason, Middle Eastern Arab countries are extremely guilty of mispropagating Islam for their own needs. They are the richest countries in terms of resources yet have some of the poorest people in the world, from Kuwait all the way through to Saudi Arabia, they are supposed to be the custodians of Islam but instead have set a bad example to the world about Muslims.

          This mumbo jumbo jibes about Islam and Muslims being a threat is a load of crap, I do agree though some Muslims have lost the plot,I have met Arabs in the US who totally disobey the basic rules of Islam by the way they live their lives and i’m not talking about opinion I am talking about the basic rules and practices of Islam.

          I can’t change your mind for you about Muslims in general that is your opinion, if I have judged you in any manner I apologise, I just don’t appreciate the genralisation that all Muslims are bad and that if you accept Islam you are a fundamentalist and blah blah blah, I don’t know where that poppycock about 70 virgins came around, don’t believe everything you hear take some time out and ask about the things you hear on television and in the newspapers. No matter how convincing they sound. And again the Internet is no place to be doing religious research hell we’re not even allowed to use the Internet for university research unless it’s IT related or general information.

        • #2711268

          Palistinians, Islam and the Internet

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Back the truck up

          I agree that generalizations are not a good thing. When one generalizes about a group of people there are bound to be inaccuracies. One can however make certain statements that have a high probability of being true in a certain group of people. For instance – One could say that palistinians hate Israelis and you would be right in most cases. The opposite would also be true. I am sure there are some individuals in each group however that this is not true.
          I have not read the Quraan and since you have I was wondering if you could tell us all what it says about the whole virgin thing in paradise. I think the Internet is a fantastic place to do research. As a Christian I go there all the time to look up bible references and commentary.

        • #2711095

          Looking it up

          by druidpromo ·

          In reply to Palistinians, Islam and the Internet

          I agree the Internet is great place for research but Islamically I don’t feel comfotbatable with teh info that is out there, we receive warnings daily about websites that have false information on teh Quraan and Islam, yeah I’m looking up the virgin issue, I do remember being told about a comparison between beautiful women and your wife and that to you your wife would still be the most beautiful woman you lay your eyes on when you meet her in heaven. But hey thats hearsay still got to look it up.

        • #2711020

          Here’s where you get your virgins

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Looking it up

          Here’s a link to a good article by the Manchester Guardian (English newspaper), titled “Virgins? What virgins?”:
          http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0%2C3605%2C631332%2C00.html

          The basis of the 70 or 72 wives/virgins appears in a hadith, not the Koran. Hadiths are reports of what Mohammed said and did, speaking in his own words, but reported by others (as opposed to the Koran, which is the word of God, faultlessly repeated by the Prophet, with no embroidering or interpretation.) The Prophet is considered to be so faultless a man (God doesn’t talk to just anyone, you know) that it is believed (1) he could make no mistake in what he said about God, and (2) nobody else could be mistaken about what Mohammed said, if they actually heard him say it. The Hadiths are a collection of these second-party reports on Mohammed. Medieval Islamic scholars wrote extensive interpretations of the Hadiths, as well as the Koran, and this is where you get all the crazy stuff about sex parties for martyrs in heaven.

          The vigins is actually a questionable piece of interpretation. It could be just dark-eyed girls. The Guardian article quotes a modern scholar who is pretty sure it refers to raisins at a banquet in heaven.

          Those hard working Saudi boys (Atta and the guys) must be pretty disappointed to find they went through all that tough flight school training for a handful of fruit. Unless they never got to heaven, and find themselves in Satan’s buttcrack for the rest of eternity.

    • #2704745

      When is it going to stop?

      by sullyman ·

      In reply to IS IRAN THE NEXT TARGET?

      Question – What give the US, UK or any other country the right to stop someone from developing something for protection. We all agree that Nuclear Weapons should be banned, but in this age they are not. So why should the US, Israel and UK have the right to have nuclear capabilities and not Iran, N Korea, India etc?

      Does Iran have the “right” to attack the US citing self defense? Or attack Israel on the same grounds? According to the foreign policy precedents that have been set lately, they sure do. I am not saying that I want Iran to have NW’s, but if we have them and would use them then why can’t they?

      • #2710878

        Good Question

        by protiusx ·

        In reply to When is it going to stop?

        Firstly let me say that there are many more countries than the ones you listed that have a nuclear capability. India, Pakistan, China, France and Russia to name a few. Nuclear weapons technology is dangerous and I think we can all agree on that. I believe the position that the UN has taken as well as the G-7 countries is to deter any nation from developing a nuclear arsenal. The United States has had the longest track record as far as handling nuclear weapons and so I think we can agree that we have some experience on the matter. The UK, France and Russia likewise have a long history of handling Nuclear weapons. Now contrast this to say India and Pakistan last year when they were on the brink of a nuclear conflict and we can begin to understand that in countries with limited resources nuclear weapons would be a very bad thing for the entire world. Additionally when these underdeveloped countries do develop nuclear weaponry their propensity to sell these weapons to third parties are higher than say in countries like China or Russia (well maybe not Russia).
        Now as far as Israel attacking Iraq in the 80’s and sighting national defense – Saddam openly stated that he would use his Osiriq reactor to develop weapons that he would use to destroy Israel. I think that’s enough provocation for any country.

      • #2709776

        Ban ’em anywhere you can

        by delbertpgh ·

        In reply to When is it going to stop?

        Nuclear weapons are the ultimate trump cards in battle. Having them spread around the world will do nothing but harm. If Iran and Iraq had the things in time for their war, they would have used them. So would any other pair of states that saw tens or hundreds of thousand of war casualties. It does nobody any good.

        The U.S. and Soviet Union held off from using these weapons for decades because they had to much to lose. In their war, both Iraq and Iran were losing more than they could stand. Oil fields, cities, ports, shrines, all would have gone up in smoke.

        The big powers can blackmail each other out of nuclear action, but that restraint only works so long as you don’t get too many players in the game.

        But, as Sullyman says, if we have them and would use them, then why can’t they? We’ve got to never use them unless we are hit first. Reprisal (not preemption) is the only justifiable policy. Otherwise the balance flies apart and you have nuclear chaos with every bit player waving bombs, and perhaps selling them to terrorists to raise cash.

Viewing 7 reply threads