Our dear Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must be wiped off the screen


our dearl beloved Imam.

11/15/2011 11:54:05 AM

Quote :

""Ahmadinejad : "Israel must be wiped off the map of the world"

I'm pretty sure Israeli and American leaders say that the Iran regime must be wiped off the map as well. No difference here. In fact, we don't just say regimes should be wiped off the map, we actually wipe them.

11/15/2011 8:41:39 PM

I wish these countries would not be so cavalier with war and hostility.

11/15/2011 10:11:17 PM

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure"

11/15/2011 10:25:09 PM

Lets play "I'm thinking of a regime"...

I'm thinking of a regime:

-the leader murders his own citizens
-citizens are not allowed to peacefully protest in public
-the regime operates beyond sovereign borders without permission
-the regime sponsors terrorists and hitmen to carry out assassinations abroad
-attacks nations without provocation
-has an elaborate nuclear program and willingly trades nuclear technology to rouge nations
-is largely made up of a population of religious extremists that believes the holy land must be secured to allow salvation and damns all non-members

11/16/2011 12:36:22 AM

^ http://occupation101.tv/

A pretty interesting documentary about the Israel/Palestine conflict.

11/16/2011 1:00:07 AM

i'm sure most will dismiss it as propaganda though. whatevs.

[Edited on November 16, 2011 at 1:37 AM. Reason : wouldn't let me edit]

11/16/2011 1:37:14 AM

i want to repost this from the previous page, so pack bryan can see what his beloved leaders have said in the past. he is judging iranian leaders on their own [misquoted] words, so i would like him to also judge his dear beloved peaceful leaders on their own words:


i see your simple debate stragety pack_bryan

for clarity and truth:

David Ben Gurion
Prime Minister of Israel
1949 - 1954,
1955 - 1963

Quote :

""We must expel Arabs and take their places.""

Quote :

""There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?""

Quote :

""Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.""

Quote :

""Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country.""

Quote :

""If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel.""

Golda Meir
Prime Minister of Israel
1969 - 1974

Quote :

""There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist.""

Quote :

""How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to.""

Quote :

""This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy.""

Yitzhak Rabin
Prime Minister of Israel
1974 - 1977,
1992 - 1995

Quote :

""We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!""

Quote :

""[Israel will] create in the course of the next 10 or 20 years conditions which would attract natural and voluntary migration of the refugees from the Gaza Strip and the west Bank to Jordan. To achieve this we have to come to agreement with King Hussein and not with Yasser Arafat.""

Yizhak Shamir
Prime Minister of Israel
1983 - 1984,
1986 - 1992

Quote :

""The settlement of the Land of Israel is the essence of Zionism. Without settlement, we will not fulfill Zionism. It's that simple.""

Quote :

""(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls." -- Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) Yitzhak Shamir in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988"

Benjamin Netanyahu
Prime Minister of Israel
1996 - 1999

Quote :

""Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories." -- Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, former Prime Minister of Israel, speaking to students at Bar Ilan University, from the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989."

Ehud Barak
Prime Minister of Israel
1999 - 2001

Quote :

""I would have joined a terrorist organization." -- Ehud Barak's response to Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Ha'aretz newspaper, when Barak was asked what he would have done if he had been born a Palestinian."

Ariel Sharon
Prime Minister of Israel
2001 - 2006

Quote :

""It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands." -- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998."

Quote :

""Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours...Everything we don't grab will go to them." -- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998."

Quote :

""Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial.""

And such disgusting humans should be allowed to have nukes, right?

If we are judging rulers by their words, then the Israeli rulers should be slaughtered first, figuratively and/or literally.

11/16/2011 3:34:44 AM

Regardless of whether Iran has nuclear weapons or has a right to own them, the fact that they are pursuing them is something we have to consider. The only reason why we have to consider it is because we have strategic allies that go far beyond military applications. We have good relations with Saudi Arabia (who is pretty hostile with Iran) and the greater part of the Arabian peninsula. They may not like our freedom of religion in the US, but they love our business. Obviously we have Israel which is actually extremely strategic for the US regardless of whether we are "looking after them" or not.

The thing the left always complains about is how bad the US looks in the eyes of the international community. What looks worse: getting involved in other people's business or building relationships with foreign nations then idly standing by while their enemies build weapons to harm not just us, but their people as well? One of them makes us a meddling, imperialist power (not a good thing). The other makes us a lying, deceitful, and abusive superpower (not a good thing either). Pick one.

---

No one has said it in this thread (at least not that I saw), but I've heard some people mention 'going into Iran'. Bad idea. China is very involved with Iran. Russia is only economically involved with Iran so they don't concern me as much. If we get involved with Iran on the ground, expect a lot of Chinese gear in the field to appear. Iran would be very well set for a strategic air campaign. Establish a missile shield over the region using our mobile Aegis platforms (something Obama embraced when he came into office... great decision) and launch a strategic air campaign to cripple their military facilities and research facilities. Iran doesn't have this rabid manufacturing capability so destroying existing resources would be pretty effective for halting research (you can't rebuild and research at the same time).

11/16/2011 11:38:37 AM

Do you understand why there isn't peace in Middle East? It's because there's no incentive on the part of anyone to make peace. A lot of this stuff would work itself out if we weren't there.

Imagine a standard, schoolyard fight between kids. The basic disagreement is between two boys, but one boy has the backing of a massive bully. The kid with the back up has no reason to make peace, because he can win any fight with the help of his friend. The kid without back up is perpetually hostile, feeling that he's up against all odds and has no choice but to stand his ground and bluff.

What happens when you take the bully out of the equation? Suddenly, it's not such a lopsided confrontation. It suddenly makes a shit ton of sense, for both parties, to just shut the fuck up and trade with each other.

11/16/2011 11:53:18 AM

Quote :

"Suddenly, it's not such a lopsided confrontation. It suddenly makes a shit ton of sense, for both parties, to just shut the fuck up and trade with each other."

Do you know why the Civil War was the bloodiest war in US history? It's because at any given fight, both sides had similar fighting capability and were fighting for an ideal that both sides believed in, making the sacrifice worth the cause. If both parties realize that the cost of war is not worth the sacrifice of war, then you're absolutely right. Unfortunately, that's not the case in the middle-east.

And if anyone is making the mistake of thinking this is just an Israel against everyone thing, you're sorely mistaken. Saudi Arabia has been independently communicating with other Islamic states to consider military options against Iran independently of the US. They have a good status quo going and Iran trying to sponsor terrorist cells to topple the current power structure is bad for business and bad for the monarchy.

You say that if "the big bully" leaves, everyone will realize it's not worth it and work out other arrangements. You are supposing that they are fighting over politics and not ideals. Politics can be compromised... ideals aren't.

11/16/2011 12:02:10 PM

Quote :

"Do you know why the Civil War was the bloodiest war in US history? It's because at any given fight, both sides had similar fighting capability and were fighting for an ideal that both sides believed in, making the sacrifice worth the cause. If both parties realize that the cost of war is not worth the sacrifice of war, then you're absolutely right. Unfortunately, that's not the case in the middle-east."

That's not why the civil war was the bloodiest war in U.S. history. Abraham Lincoln was a power hungry lunatic that oversaw the biggest expansion of federal power in our country's history.

I don't know how much you actually know about the civil war, but both sides did not unite behind a single ideal that "they believed in". It's not like all the confederate soldiers believed that slavery had to stay intact, and all northern soldiers wanted to have slavery abolished. It truly was a war of aggression.

Quote :

"You say that if "the big bully" leaves, everyone will realize it's not worth it and work out other arrangements. You are supposing that they are fighting over politics and not ideals. Politics can be compromised... ideals aren't."

Ideals are compromised on all the time. It doesn't make sense to spend the time and money to enforce your ideals on another territory when you can just trade with them and get 100 times the benefit.

11/16/2011 12:12:19 PM

Quote :

"That's not why the civil war was the bloodiest war in U.S. history. Abraham Lincoln was a power hungry lunatic that oversaw the biggest expansion of federal power in our country's history. I don't know how much you actually know about the civil war, but both sides did not unite behind a single ideal that "they believed in". It's not like all the confederate soldiers believed that slavery had to stay intact, and all northern soldiers wanted to have slavery abolished. It truly was a war of aggression."

11/16/2011 12:33:07 PM

Quote :

""That's not why the civil war was the bloodiest war in U.S. history. Abraham Lincoln was a power hungry lunatic that oversaw the biggest expansion of federal power in our country's history. I don't know how much you actually know about the civil war, but both sides did not unite behind a single ideal that "they believed in". It's not like all the confederate soldiers believed that slavery had to stay intact, and all northern soldiers wanted to have slavery abolished. It truly was a war of aggression.""

I had a response and deleted it. It's pretty obvious that nothing you wrote about actually addresses anything. Your rant about "Northern Aggression" (what is this.... 1952?) has absolutely nothing to do with why the Civil War was bloody and in no way refutes what I stated. Rapid deployment of new battlefield technologies mixed with determination to fight for whatever independent ideals the brass and soldiers had caused the Civil War to be the bloodiest American engagement.

What do you see in the Middle East? .........a rapid build up of technology mixed with a determination to fight for religious or posturing ideals.

---

All I'll say is that you defended your analogy while completely missing the point. I would love to hear your explanation how you feel that Saudi Arabia and Iran will suddenly start becoming best buddies if the US just stepped out of it.

[Edited on November 16, 2011 at 12:41 PM. Reason : Just saw response from CapnObvious... my sentiments exactly.]

11/16/2011 12:35:25 PM

Quote :

"That's not why the civil war was the bloodiest war in U.S. history. Abraham Lincoln was a power hungry lunatic that oversaw the biggest expansion of federal power in our country's history. I don't know how much you actually know about the civil war, but both sides did not unite behind a single ideal that "they believed in". It's not like all the confederate soldiers believed that slavery had to stay intact, and all northern soldiers wanted to have slavery abolished. It truly was a war of aggression."

11/16/2011 12:37:36 PM

Emoticons are a lot easier than actually challenging your own beliefs, as they were handed down by government schools. Abraham Lincoln was not a hero, he was not a champion of civil rights, he was a racist person, and we should not honor him. To concede that so many had to die to eliminate slavery is to assert that history unfolded in an optimal way, which is beyond absurd.

Quote :

"I had a response and deleted it. It's pretty obvious that nothing you wrote about actually addresses anything. Your rant about "Northern Aggression" (what is this.... 1952?) has absolutely nothing to do with why the Civil War was bloody and in no way refutes what I stated. Rapid deployment of new battlefield technologies mixed with determination to fight for whatever independent ideals the brass and soldiers had caused the Civil War to be the bloodiest American engagement."

The civil war was bloody because Abraham Lincoln started a fucking war. It didn't take a civil war to end slavery. It wasn't necessary for any other country on earth. There's absolutely no way we would still have slavery today even if the civil war had not been fought.

I don't even know why you brought up the civil war. It has nothing to do with Israel-Iran relations. Absolutely nothing. Your vague argument is that people fight because they're standing for "ideals", but that adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Do you understand how much money we've given Saudi Arabia and Israel? Do you understand how much we've fucked over Iran? No. You clearly don't understand either. You've accepted the neo-conservative dogma, hook line and sinker, but it's dogma that flies in the face of actual history.

[Edited on November 16, 2011 at 12:58 PM. Reason : ]

11/16/2011 12:57:33 PM

Quote :

"That's not why the civil war was the bloodiest war in U.S. history. Abraham Lincoln was a power hungry lunatic that oversaw the biggest expansion of federal power in our country's history. I don't know how much you actually know about the civil war, but both sides did not unite behind a single ideal that "they believed in". It's not like all the confederate soldiers believed that slavery had to stay intact, and all northern soldiers wanted to have slavery abolished. It truly was a war of aggression."

11/16/2011 1:03:43 PM

Quote :

"Emoticons are a lot easier than actually challenging your own beliefs, as they were handed down by government schools."

11/16/2011 1:05:55 PM

You can't drop your little pro-Confederacy rant for long enough to see you aren't even talking about the same thing as what I was referencing. My point..... and only point... was that once the Civil War had already started, it was bloody because of advancing technology and an idealistic will to fight a bloody war. That's the same situation the Middle East is in (which much different ideals). Again, you don't fucking read because I already stated this. Maybe if you read you would see why I brought up the Civil War.

Good grief.

Quote :

"You've accepted the neo-conservative dogma, hook line and sinker, but it's dogma that flies in the face of actual history."

I work for the fucking Navy, you moron. The dogma I'm accepting is the news I keep up with so I can get a gist of where our military needs are. Saudi Arabia and Iran HATE each other. I mentioned this before as well, but I'll assume that again you didn't read: Saudi Arabia has a good status quo, without any assistance from the US. They are very self-supporting. Iran wants to change the power structure. Hence..... they idealistically hate each other. They also have a rapid build-up of military technology. So, if you're actually reading this far into my post, you'll see that it goes back to my reference about the Civil War.

You didn't address anything worth while, so I'll copy-and-paste this again...
"All I'll say is that you defended your analogy while completely missing the point. I would love to hear your explanation how you feel that Saudi Arabia and Iran will suddenly start becoming best buddies if the US just stepped out of it."

11/16/2011 1:07:02 PM

Quote :

"You can't drop your little pro-Confederacy rant for long enough to see you aren't even talking about the same thing as what I was referencing. My point..... and only point... was that once the Civil War had already started, it was bloody because of advancing technology and an idealistic will to fight a bloody war. That's the same situation the Middle East is in (which much different ideals). Again, you don't fucking read because I already stated this. Maybe if you read you would see why I brought up the Civil War. Good grief. "

I know what you're saying, and I'm saying you're wrong. It was bloody because it was fought. Yes, the fact that there were more effective guns helped along the process. It did not have to be fought, just like these potential wars we're cooking up don't have to be fought in the Middle East.

The two situations are not comparable, at least not in any useful way.

Quote :

" I work for the fucking Navy, you moron. The dogma I'm accepting is the news I keep up with so I can get a gist of where our military needs are. Saudi Arabia and Iran HATE each other. I mentioned this before as well, but I'll assume that again you didn't read: Saudi Arabia has a good status quo, without any assistance from the US. They are very self-supporting. Iran wants to change the power structure. Hence..... they idealistically hate each other. They also have a rapid build-up of military technology. So, if you're actually reading this far into my post, you'll see that it goes back to my reference about the Civil War."

You're looking at current events and totally ignoring historical context. The governments of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are in bed together. Ever wonder why most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, yet we ended up attacking Afghanistan and Iraq? This is about corporate interests, and it always has been.

Quote :

"I would love to hear your explanation how you feel that Saudi Arabia and Iran will suddenly start becoming best buddies if the US just stepped out of it."

As I mentioned in the original post, they'll have more incentive to work together than when one country is backed by a massive superpower. Our intervention is not fostering peace, it's encouraging hostility.

U.S. military intervention by the United States (and other Western forces) in the past century has resulted in the radicalization of Islam in the Middle East. We should recognize that there are serious social and political consequences for U.S. actions there. This global "tinkering" has far reaching effects.

[Edited on November 16, 2011 at 1:24 PM. Reason : ]

11/16/2011 1:19:42 PM

You are so convinced you "know what I'm talking about", then continue to go on these utterly unrelated tangents. Makes replying easier because I just don't have to respond to the crap, I guess.

I'm curious, do you actually have any "skin in the game", or are just you just trailer-park historian that believes every crack-pot book about 'the truth behind the Civil War'?

Quote :

"Ever wonder why most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, yet we ended up attacking Afghanistan and Iraq?"

.........uhhh..... yeah, they were from Saudi Arabia because Bin Laden was a Saudi prince who was kicked out of the country. His contacts still resided in Saudi Arabia, but he fled to Afghanistan. Hence we went into Afghanistan.

Let me guess, you're also one of those people who think 9/11 was an inside job and that Obama is an illegal president.

-------------------------------------------

You know how else I can tell you don't fucking read before you run your mouth? I get on here and usually open a thread, then sometimes the thread stays open while I get some other stuff on. I refresh the page to make sure no one else replied in the meantime and you add things to your post that involve quotes and other arguments. In other words, it's like you read two sentences, freak out, then post a response without reading the rest of the thing.

Hell, even in the course of my last post, you re-edited your post to add a response to something else. It's like you're so excited to point out the black helicopters that you don't really bother to consider what anyone tells you.

[Edited on November 16, 2011 at 1:26 PM. Reason : Had to add the . So much fail going on in those last few posts.]

11/16/2011 1:23:39 PM

Quote :

"I'm curious, do you actually have any "skin in the game", or are just you just trailer-park historian that believes every crack-pot book about 'the truth behind the Civil War'?"

Sure, I have plenty of skin in the game. I have to deal with the economic consequences of the military industrial complex, where resources are diverted from valuable, productive work to weapons and destruction that create more problems than they solve. I don't get a guaranteed paycheck from the taxpayer. I have to assist in the creation of something that people will voluntarily purchase. If the economy goes to shit because the government pissed away all the money on some overseas bullshit, I might be out of a job.. Does that count as having "skin in the game"?

Quote :

".........uhhh..... yeah, they were from Saudi Arabia because Bin Laden was a Saudi prince who was kicked out of the country. His contacts still resided in Saudi Arabia, but he fled to Afghanistan. Hence we went into Afghanistan."

Isn't it a fact, though, that Saudi Arabia was harboring terrorists, and probably still is? Why don't we invade them?

The answer is obvious. It wouldn't be lucrative. We stand to make more money by being "friendly" with Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that it's a corrupt, oppressive government. If they were poorer, we'd be shitting on them too.

Quote :

"Let me guess, you're also one of those people who think 9/11 was an inside job and that Obama is an illegal president."

Nope, but that won't keep you from making assumptions, will it?

Quote :

"You know how else I can tell you don't fucking read before you run your mouth? I get on here and usually open a thread, then sometimes the thread stays open while I get some other stuff on. I refresh the page to make sure no one else replied in the meantime and you add things to your post that involve quotes and other arguments. In other words, it's like you read two sentences, freak out, then post a response without reading the rest of the thing. Hell, even in the course of my last post, you re-edited your post to add a response to something else. It's like you're so excited to point out the black helicopters that you don't really bother to consider what anyone tells you."

I edited my post before I even saw your response.

11/16/2011 1:49:05 PM

Quote :

"Sure, I have plenty of skin in the game. I have to deal with the economic consequences of the military industrial complex, where resources are diverted from valuable, productive work to weapons and destruction that create more problems than they solve"

So basically, you are using the exact same argument that NAACP uses to claim they deserve reparations. They claim that they are "still paying for the crimes against them." You are also claiming that you are still paying for the crimes against you by "the aggressor - North".

All your stuff about Saudi Arabia just sounds like something your dreamed up. You say "the answer is obvious" when stating your allegation about monetary conspiracies, but I would LOVE to see your proof that this is all because of the meddling Americans. Iran didn't sent operatives to assassinate the Saudi ambassador because of the US, they did it because the Saudis are the power brokers.

Link 1: "Saudi crown prince rules out compromise with Iran" <http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=42970>
Link 2: "Saudi Crown Prince Nayef says Kingdom will use ‘all means’ to ensure a peaceful hajj" <http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/11/02/174948.html>

"Hajj", did you catch that? That is a 110% non-American construct that is causing tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia. They hate each other because of reasons outside of our control. Our only interest in Iran is the fact that Saudi Arabia and Israel are strong allies, economically and strategically, and that makes this "our business".

Please provide any and all proof you have from credible sources that if we "got out of their way", they would forge a peace. I'm especially interested in how the US not being around removes the stresses over Hajj.

11/16/2011 2:09:08 PM

Quote :

"Bin Laden was a Saudi prince"

Quote :

"I work for the fucking Navy"

11/16/2011 5:49:32 PM

yeah this thread has gone further beyond retarded than most

11/16/2011 8:37:16 PM

bin Laden was a Saudi businessman who was kicked out of his country, because he pissed off the princes.

Quote :

"Isn't it a fact, though, that Saudi Arabia was harboring terrorists, and probably still is? "

Ehh...not really.

I mean, are there Islamic militants in SA? Of course. Would I describe the Saudi government as "terrorist harboring?" Fuck no, that would jeopardize their relationship with the West, and it would jeopardize their domestic standing. Hell, that's why they kicked bin Laden out.

11/16/2011 9:18:29 PM

^, et al...

Bin Laden considered himself "a close part of the royal family" and was part of a well-known construction outfit in Saudi Arabia. Because of his close ties to the royal family and his belief that he had already been robbed out of his family business by his brother, Salim, the whole "prince" claim has come up a few times...

...but you're right, it's not accurate to claim he "is" a prince.

11/16/2011 9:54:46 PM

"is"?

he was NEVER a prince, and neither is any member of the expansive bin laden family. the bin laden family has no blood ties with the royal family. the bin laden family is from yemen, whereas the royal family is from the heartland of saudi arabia, hijaz.

wth are you are trying to say? what claim, and where has this claim come up?

11/16/2011 10:16:58 PM

^You're playing a semantics game, OEPII1. I was admitting that saying he's a prince was incorrect. Stating the facts that he resented not being the heir to his family's business, his family's relationship to the royal family, et al....... the point is that he acted like a prince. I read something in the Early Bird that a profiler did a study on him and he had made some kind of claim that he was more deserving of the authoritative positions than the royal family, but I don't have access to Early Bird on my home computer.

Either way, chill down, hoss. It was a poor choice of words and I admitted it. I'm not sure what else you're looking for.

11/16/2011 10:49:47 PM

Quote :

" If they were poorer, we'd be shitting on them too."

No.

Well, yeah, or at least indifferent to them, but not for the reason you're saying.

We have a major interest in Saudi Arabia as a regional counterbalance to prevent Iranian hegemony.

11/16/2011 11:01:17 PM

^We do business with them, they help keep the region stable, and having access to their land, sea, and airspace is crucial for logistics of our own military forces and for trade.

There are so many reasons why we have legitimate interests in Saudi Arabia that have nothing to do with Imperialism. I've liked your posts on the subject, Duke.

11/16/2011 11:05:52 PM

Thanks.

Add "intelligence cooperation", too.

11/16/2011 11:25:10 PM

Definitely. Interestingly enough, I know some people would LOVE to argue the value of their intelligence. IIRC, they were big on "Saddam has WMDs." Some of the conspiracy theorists ITT could have a hay-day with making something out of that. I can just hear it now: "Saudi Arabia fabricated the WMD intelligence so that the United State would eliminate someone that rivaled their authority in the region."

I have to admit, so far as conspiracy theories go, that one does have a nice ring to it.

11/16/2011 11:44:37 PM

whoa, this thread got weird.



Is Iran already under covert attack?

Quote :

"Assassinations of nuclear scientists, a sophisticated cyber-attack, and now, last weekend, a mysterious blast at a munitions base that has killed the "godfather" of Iran's ballistic missile programme. The explosion at the Bid Ganeh base was so powerful, it killed 17 Revolutionary Guards Corps soldiers and rattled windows in Tehran several miles away. Iran says it was an accident, but few who follow events there are convinced. The recent talk may be all about a future, desperate last-ditch military strike by Israel to destroy Iran's suspected nuclear weapons programme, but to all appearances, a covert "black ops" campaign to disrupt it has already been under way for some time. At least three Iranian nuclear scientists have been killed in the past two years, and last winter, a computer virus codenamed Stuxnet was introduced into Iran's nuclear enrichment centrifuges, causing havoc and setting back the programme by several months. “I don't know the extent of the explosion but, it would be desirable if they multiplied” --Ehud Barak Israeli defence minister Mahan Abedin, editor of Terrorism Monitor published by the Jamestown Foundation, says: "The assassination of Iran's scientists and the introduction of the Stuxnet computer virus last year constitute state terrorism." No-one, of course, is claiming responsibility for these actions, but US intelligence is widely believed to have had a hand in developing the Stuxnet virus, while Iranian officials have previously accused Israel of being behind the assassinations. Of all the countries in the region to feel threatened by Iran, Israel is most alarmed by the Iranian nuclear programme. On Sunday Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak said of the explosion at the base: "I don't know the extent of the explosion but, it would be desirable if they multiplied." International concern Plenty of other countries share Israel's concerns about Iran's growing military power, though they tend not to express it publicly. On Tuesday, a Gulf Arab official who asked not to be named told the BBC: "We are very worried about Iran, it's getting to the point where it's a very dangerous scenario. 2012 is a crucial year when decisions are going to have to be taken". In a cable leaked by Wikileaks, it emerged Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah had urged the US to deal decisively with Iran and stop its suspected nuclear weapons programme. The Saudi monarch used the poetic language of the Nejdi desert, urging Washington to "cut off the head of the snake". The UAE, involved in a long-running territorial dispute with Iran over three Gulf islands, has also been quietly urging the West to contain Iran and stop it acquiring a nuclear bomb. Bahrain's Sunni monarchy also sees Iran as essentially a hostile neighbour bent on stirring up Bahrain's Shia majority and encouraging it to press for an Islamic republic. Last week, the Bahrain government announced it had uncovered a terrorist plot to blow up the causeway linking it to Saudi Arabia, adding that the suspects had links to Iran. 'Latent capability' But at a forum on Iran hosted in London on Monday by the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS), many voiced the view that Iran was hell-bent on acquiring the nuclear bomb and there was very little that was going to deflect it. Referring to the steady ratcheting up of Western sanctions on Iran, Sir Richard Dalton, the UK's ambassador to Tehran from 2002-06, said: "There is no sanctions policy out there that will change Iran's behaviour." However he questioned the benefit of the apparent covert action against Iran, saying "whoever is behind these actions needs to make the case for them publicly, and I'm not sure at all that that case holds water." Mr Abedin said: "No tool, no pressure, not even the toughest of sanctions, nor even military conflict will work [to steer Iran away from becoming a nuclear weapons power]." Mark Fitzpatrick, the IISS resident expert on Iran's nuclear programme, is in no doubt which direction Iran is heading. He told the forum: "I think Iran probably already has a latent nuclear weapons capability.""

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15741989



"I don't know the extent of the explosion but, it would be desirable if they multiplied”
--Ehud Barak Israeli defence minister



Haha....wow...




[Edited on November 17, 2011 at 12:42 AM. Reason : ]

11/17/2011 12:40:19 AM

I suspect that both of you (NCStatePride and theDuke866) are biased on this topic. You've been (or are) in the military, so you have a tendency to be concerned with things as they are on the ground today, while skimming over or flat out ignoring historical context since it's not that relevant to your mission/tasks.

The impression I've gotten in the past is that yes, you admit we did some fucked up things and meddled in the region, but what's done is done and we should do whatever it takes to "keep things stable". I'm actually arguing that the United States is the primary destabilizing factor in the Middle East. It's not ideology. It's not even religion. It's that there are a bunch of white people with guns and bombs trying to micromanage a culture that is vehemently opposed to being controlled.

11/17/2011 10:11:10 AM

Quote :

"You've been (or are) in the military, so you have a tendency to be concerned with things as they are on the ground today, while skimming over or flat out ignoring historical context since it's not that relevant to your mission/tasks. "

...for the love of all that is Holy, learn to fucking read!!! The idea that "the US (AKA, the big bully) leaves the Middle East and everything will be just rosey doesn't have one thing to do with "my mission".

These are straight copy-and-paste from elsewhere in the past few posts. Please read before you pop up with another crazy "your view is skewed by your interests" statement...

Quote :

"We have a major interest in Saudi Arabia as a regional counterbalance to prevent Iranian hegemony. "

Quote :

"Saudi Arabia has a good status quo, without any assistance from the US. They are very self-supporting. Iran wants to change the power structure. Hence..... they idealistically hate each other."

Quote :

"They have a good status quo going and Iran trying to sponsor terrorist cells to topple the current power structure is bad for business and bad for the monarchy."

Quote :

"On Tuesday, a Gulf Arab official who asked not to be named told the BBC: "We are very worried about Iran, it's getting to the point where it's a very dangerous scenario. 2012 is a crucial year when decisions are going to have to be taken"."

So, regardless of what history you want to ramble about (and given your impressions of Lincoln, I feel like your "version" of history is suspect at best), the US has skin-in-the-game. We have allies. They are facing a huge threat independent of the US. We have something to lose if Iran begins building a hostile opposition to our allies.

[Edited on November 17, 2011 at 10:54 AM. Reason : .]

11/17/2011 10:51:28 AM

Quote :

"...for the love of all that is Holy, learn to fucking read!!! The idea that "the US (AKA, the big bully) leaves the Middle East and everything will be just rosey doesn't have one thing to do with "my mission"."

Let me see if I can rephrase this in a way that will be clearer for you. I assure you that my reading comprehension is fine.

I'm not saying that there will suddenly be peace and everything will just be "rosey". I'm saying that there will suddenly be an incentive to make peace. There is a huge difference. By trying to "stabilize" the region, we prevent any true arbitration from occurring.

Additionally, the people you are calling our "allies" are not our allies. They don't give a shit about you and me. Their goal is to milk the United States for all it's worth, and they are succeeding. They are opportunists. Saudi Arabia has a terribly oppressive, religion-based aristocracy. I mean, if we're supposed to be supporting liberal democracies, Saudi Arabia is not it. Not that long ago they were opening fire on protesters.

The same, of course, goes for Israel. They are using us, and we let it happen. If you think Israel is our "friend", then I suggest you move to Israel and fight and die for them, rather than forcing me to subsidize your bullshit. Make sure you bring Hannity and the rest of the GOP chickenhawks with you so you can carry out God's will while lining the pockets of corporate interests at the same time.

11/17/2011 11:39:10 AM

First of all, thank you; that was much better.

Quote :

"Their goal is to milk the United States for all it's worth, and they are succeeding. They are opportunists. "

I would suggest that all you described was the definition of an ally. Back in the 1910's, we were allies with Japan. Do you think we actually gave two shits about Japan? Were we just big buddies with them? Of course not. Japan was in a strategic location to trade. That was it. Japan was an opportunity. By virtue of the opportunity, we were allies.

Saudi Arabia has oil. We need oil. We pay them lots of money for lots of oil. You can argue the virtues of whether Saudi Arabia is being an ethical business partner, but none of that changes the fact that they have a resources that we want/need and we are willing to maintain good relations with them to maintain a "pseudo-friendship" with them for that joint opportunity.

We have a vested interest in protecting that pseudo-friendship. They are concerned with Iran, that gives us cause to be concerned with Iran to defend our interests.

11/17/2011 1:12:34 PM

Quote :

"So, regardless of what history you want to ramble about (and given your impressions of Lincoln, I feel like your "version" of history is suspect at best), the US has skin-in-the-game. We have allies. They are facing a huge threat independent of the US. We have something to lose if Iran begins building a hostile opposition to our allies."

Can you elaborate on that? Convince me why I, as a taxpaying, middle-class American, should give a damn about any of this? How is it in my best interest to prevent Iran from developing nuclear energy for itself (and possibly weapons, who gives a shit).

Because if the answer is Big Business interests, then I'm not interested.


You're last post ^ sort of gets to that, but I still don't see how that affects Johnny Taxpayer. So, he has the choice of funding wars or paying more for gasoline? Is that it? I mean, that's it, right? That's the difference? If Iran gets nukes, they might muscle Israel out of top-dog status in the middle-east, and control energy prices? Is that pretty much the crux of the issue?

[Edited on November 17, 2011 at 5:17 PM. Reason : ]

11/17/2011 5:12:03 PM

^Glad I read that second paragraph. That's 99.9% of the point. If hostilities break out between Saudi Arabia and Iran due to whatever, both countries will start stockpiling their oil supplies and prices will skyrocket. I think the last report I saw from the speculators was something like $8-$10/gal if we got in a fight with Iran. If we engaged Iran, we could always work a deal with the rest of OPEC because supply wouldn't obviously get choked to death and even though they are gutting our wallets, they only want to piss us off so much.

The other aspect is military and trade access to the waters in those areas. A large part of the Navy's mission is FOT (Freedom of Transit) which includes anti-piracy and just simply discouraging harassment from foreign nations. If we were to give the big F.U. to any allies we had in the middle east, you are causing a potentially sticky situation the next time we need to run merchant ships through the Red Sea.

There is also the fact that Iran is running ships through the Suez canal. While their ships aren't anything too frightening, they could do some damage to an American merchant vessel, or a foreign flag vessel transporting American goods, if they knew there were no other nations in the region who really had an interest in protecting our assets (as Saudi Arabia currently does).

------

I know that response kind of wondered around a lot, but I'm thinking about five things at once right now. Hopefully that expands a little on why "Johnny Tax Payer" should care.

11/17/2011 6:06:47 PM

still seems like that money would be better spent on public transportation, urbanization, and infrastructure. but, whatever.

11/17/2011 8:21:01 PM

^^ See also: Straits of Hormuz


Now, I think that we should be looking to become much more energy independent, so that we can eventually tell that entire section of Asia to go get fucked, we don't care anymore. You can all kill each other, fight all you want, and just generally be a pain in the ass, but you'll be pretty much like Africa, and nobody will care. The only difference is that Africa, collectively, is more geographically isolated and therefore would still be even more irrelevant.

Even then, I wouldn't be OK with Iran having nukes. I don't think further proliferation with almost any country is good, and I sure as shit don't think it's good for Iran to have them under any circumstances.

On the other hand, if we just ignored them and didn't pressure them, because we had little or no interest in most Middle Eastern affairs, maybe they wouldn't want them so badly to start with.


...but I'm afraid that even if we came up with some magic energy source, the rest might still be a pipe dream. It's tough, these days, to just totally leave any region totally to its own devices and not have any consequences. I mean, we have all kinds of low-grade involvement in Africa, killing terrorists and pirates and stuff. That's been going on for a loooooong time. Now, more than ever, it's a rare scenario where any region of the world can really be truly irrelevant for long.


^ SS and Medicare/Medicaid dwarf what we spend on any given little foreign action. Full-scale wars are expensive, but some foreign aid here and some intelligence collection, covert actions, and airstrikes there are a drop in the bucket. Hell, even maintaining a base in a country is a drop in the bucket. It's not that I'm saying you're wrong--I'm just saying that I don't really wanna hear it unless you're also willing to cede the 800-lb gorilla issues.

[Edited on November 17, 2011 at 8:42 PM. Reason : ]

11/17/2011 8:39:13 PM

I'm talking about the money spent on defense contracts, size of the military, and domestic infrastructure waste that's spent sustaining (or trying to sustain) suburban sprawl. I'd even be willing to drill baby drill (within reason) if it meant a comprehensive and diverse domestic energy policy.

But the main point I was getting at was that our energy demands are outrageous because of our suburban lifestyle. If we had to pay the real cost for our 4 bedroom, 3.5 bath homes with the white picket fence and 2 cars, 40 minutes away from work on top of cramped 8 lane highways, I think more people would realize that we can't fucking afford it.

I'm getting pretty off topic, but this is a major part of the problem:



Spreading people as far out as we do comes at a major cost, and it gets us involved in the middle east more than we need to be. If the US had more condensed cities, less people would be so energy dependent, in my opinion.


[Edited on November 17, 2011 at 10:05 PM. Reason : ]

11/17/2011 9:55:28 PM

I don't think those pictures are really very meaningful, but yeah, we're partly saying the same thing.

The arrival of a second kid doesn't mean you need a fucking Suburban. A moderately sized sedan should still work just fine for most people.

Sprawl is bad, kind of, but trying to have everyone live in dense cities in a country like America with shitloads of land just waiting to be used is also kinda dumb. Like, I don't care for how Raleigh is laid out where you have to drive all over the world to get to something across town, but neither would I want the other extreme.

[Edited on November 17, 2011 at 10:07 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on November 17, 2011 at 10:17 PM. Reason : so yes, we need to use a lot less gas; no, America is not Europe and can't totally be compared.]

11/17/2011 10:06:24 PM

The point of the picture was to give an idea to how sprawl could impact gas dependency. You cannot live in Raleigh without a car. Many US cities are like this. Something like 60% of cities in the US are car-dependent cities. This obviously drives our policy when it comes to our energy needs.

I'm not saying that every US city should be like Paris. Just saying that transportation plays a major role in energy consumption, and to ignore our transportation and urban needs when discussing foreign policy seems misguided.

And filling in our land with suburban sprawl and housing also hurts when you start taking away land that could be better used for other uses (like farming, or energy harvesting, for example).

And every city doesn't have to be mega-dense either. Portland, Oregon is an interesting example. They put forth an urban growth boundary and preserved farm areas. They have a mix between densities and have controlled their growth and have transportation diversity as well.




[Edited on November 17, 2011 at 10:49 PM. Reason : but yeah, Ahmedinijad.]

11/17/2011 10:30:19 PM

oh yeah, i mean i agree that there is an inseparable link between our approaches to transportation and our foreign policy. I was trying to say the same thing.

I think that driving smaller, lighter cars (collectively) is a much easier first step towards putting a dent into the problem.


I do disagree that building denser cities would free up land for agriculture. We already have plenty of land for agriculture, and we're already paying farmers not to grow stuff. Also, I don't think the big obstacle to alternative energy harvesting is a lack of (and therefore effectively cost of) land.

11/17/2011 11:01:22 PM

...and you also have to keep in mind that the type of urban reform you are talking about is a long-term change. You aren't going to change the current culture of development anytime in the next election cycle or two... or three.

Iran, on the other hand, is becoming a problem with massive destruction capability now. If you think we can't support infrastructure now, just wait until fuel surges to $8/gal, then we can see how much transportation comes to a screeching halt, including the transportation of good and services that fuel our economy and provide maintenance to our mass, public, and automotive transit.

I guess what I'm getting at is that your objection and the Iranian issue are on two different timeframes. In Enterprise Architecture, it's similar to using a "To Be" architecture to address an "As Is" problem. Future problems must involve strategies that are flexible enough to deal with the problems of today. Today's problem is Iran. Our domestic plan to help our infrastructure must be able to allow flexibility to deal with these problems.

11/18/2011 1:12:06 AM

zerohedge is talking up some iran/terrorism charges -> imminent military action stuff.

Quote :

"Just hitting the headlines, probably related to Mike Bloomberg's 7:30 pm announcement: NY AUTHORITIES ARREST MAN IN BOMBING PLOT, N.Y. TIMES REPORTS MAN WANTED TO DETONATE BOMB IN BUILDING WITH GOVT WORKERS: NYT NY TIMES SAYS MAN WAS ARRESTED WITHIN THE LAST 24 MAN HAD BEEN UNDER SURVEILLANCE FOR A YEAR, N.Y. TIMES REPORTS NY AUTHORITIES TO ANNOUNCE CHARGES AGAINST MAN TONIGHT "

[Edited on November 20, 2011 at 6:33 PM. Reason : .]

11/20/2011 6:30:14 PM

Quote :

"...and you also have to keep in mind that the type of urban reform you are talking about is a long-term change. You aren't going to change the current culture of development anytime in the next election cycle or two... or three."

bullshit. End oil subsidies, and development of undeveloped land and watch how fast urban property values soar and incentivize dense, mixed use development.

11/20/2011 9:17:26 PM

^^ I find any link between this event and Iran highly suspect, it simply doesn't fit their M.O.

11/20/2011 9:46:00 PM