The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Current Events

Current Events Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-11-2005, 11:29 PM   #16
richlevy
King Of Wishful Thinking
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Posts: 6,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla
Everyone agrees it's quite understandable. What gives the responsible people the sour stomachs and the night sweats is who the mullahs are in bed with.
The Radical Christian Right?
__________________
Exercise your rights and remember your obligations - VOTE!
I have always believed that hope is that stubborn thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us so long as we have the courage to keep reaching, to keep working, to keep fighting. -- Barack Hussein Obama
richlevy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2005, 01:00 AM   #17
Urbane Guerrilla
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 6,674
Oh, have you ever heard of a Radical etcetera that doesn't want Iran's mullahs decorating lampposts? At least a little bit?
__________________
Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course.
Urbane Guerrilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2005, 02:49 PM   #18
bargalunan
Abecedarian
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nantes (France)
Posts: 175
1 August 2005 : According to The American Conservative (by Patrick Buchanan) : Cheney’s staff is now planning a nuclear attack against Iran that would follow an important attack against the USA (like 911). The responsible of this program is Ralph E. Eberhart (already responsible of air defence (NORAD) during the 911 : Thanks to this « succes » he was named chief commandant of the Northcom).

Imagination or reality ?
bargalunan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2005, 06:07 PM   #19
Undertoad
Radical Centrist
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...CE0E9957EA.htm

Iran's President calls for Israel to be "wiped off the map":

Quote:
"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.

His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's eradication...
Undertoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2005, 06:18 PM   #20
Trilby
Slattern of the Swail
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 15,654
I think we should give the Isrealites a good part of Oregon. Then, they'd be safe and Oregon might get a little much needed culture.
__________________
In Barrie's play and novel, the roles of fairies are brief: they are allies to the Lost Boys, the source of fairy dust and ...They are portrayed as dangerous, whimsical and extremely clever but quite hedonistic.

"Shall I give you a kiss?" Peter asked and, jerking an acorn button off his coat, solemnly presented it to her.
—James Barrie


Wimminfolk they be tricksy. - ZenGum
Trilby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2005, 06:43 PM   #21
Clodfobble
UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 20,012
We've basically given them New York--more Jews already live in NY than in all of Israel. Arguments of who's right or wrong aside, I think the Israelis should just get the hell out of there. But then again, I don't require specific land, buildings, or symbols to support my faith.
Clodfobble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2005, 01:12 AM   #22
Beestie
-◊|≡·∙■·∙≡|◊-
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Parts unknown.
Posts: 4,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by tw
Meanwhile Iran is doing just that - building WMDs because George Jr all but said we will invade Iran. And yet George Jr calls the Iranian leader evil for only doing what he must do for his country.
This is what happens when you sleep under a rock for 25 years.

Iran has been attempting to join the nuclear community since the early 70s. And one can hardly blame them since it was common knowlege in privileged circles that the US had long since quietly ushered Isreal into the nuclear age by then.

By 1977, The Shah of Iran had grown weary of waiting for the US to usher Iran into the nuclear community so the Shah, fiercely loyal to the US up to that point, had no choice but to turn to our cold-war adversary, the USSR for help in building a nuclear arsenal. And the dominos were set into motion.

Enter the CIA (who all but issued the blindfolds).

Exit the Shah.

Enter the now-empowered Ayatollah.

Fast forward to 2005.

"Iran's and Korea's nuclear self-sufficiency is W's fault."

Now, if you want to assign the blame for instability in the middle east on the United States then we have a basis for healthy and interesting discussion and debate. But if you want to lay Iran's and NK's nuclear ambitions and current capability at the feet of George Bush, then I'm inclined to recommend that you augment your basis for forming an opinion of world politics on something other than NPR's Morning Edition.

If you want to blame a US president for both Iran's nuclear power grab cloaked under the guise of a self-deterministic Islamic jihad against the west and North Korea's unapologetic, self-empowering nuclear ambitions then blame Jimmy Carter - a key player in both - long before conservative power brokers even considered a perpetually drunk W as an easily manipulatable figurehead for the advancement of neoCon policy.

George W. Bush, while perhaps the most incompetent president in U. S. history, inherited a world where both Iran and NK are nuclear capable. Notwithstanding his role as a conduit for a reconstituted Pope Urban II model of world politics, putting the blame on W for NK and Iran's current nuclear capability is at best laughable and at worst doomed to repeat by propogating the idea that those who oppose it are responsible for it while issuing get-out-of-being-responsible cards to the weak-minded enablers who were either too naieve or too gutless to nip it in the bud when they had the chance. Bill Clinton, while hardly responible either, does not get a pass from the history books for looking the other way for eight long years while Iran and NK were unmistakebly taking giant steps towards arming themselves with atomic weapons.

So, let's all blame George. How is this position materially different from George's embarassingly simplistic view and and equally simplistic prescription for a solution?

W isn't the source of the problem, he's a sympton of the problem. The voters who elected the administrations who allowed this situation to fester and develop with their placating policies of carrot-but-no-stick are as much to blame for the current state of affairs as the voters who elected W in a desperate attempt to do something about it.

I'll take my share of the blame. Will you?
__________________
Beestie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2005, 09:43 AM   #23
Undertoad
Radical Centrist
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
Iran "took it back" after the security council and almost all major governments condemned their statements:
Quote:
Iran has moved to soften the impact of remarks by its president that Israel should be "wiped off the map", saying it stood by its U.N. commitments and would not use violence against another country.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran is committed to its U.N. charter commitments. It has never used force against a second country or threatened the use of force," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement Saturday.
But not all the way back:
Quote:
Friday evening, the U.N. Security Council condemned the comments by Iran's president but did not say if the world body planned any action against Iran.

In a written statement, the council pointed out that all members of the United Nations "have undertaken to refrain from the threat or use of force against ... any state."

In its own statement Saturday, the Iranian foreign ministry hit out at the U.N., saying: "The statement by the president of the U.N. Security Council was proposed by the Zionist regime to close the eyes to its crimes and to change the facts, therefore it is not acceptable."
Undertoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2005, 03:21 PM   #24
xoxoxoBruce
The future is unwritten
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
Quote:
In a written statement, the council pointed out that all members of the United Nations "have undertaken to refrain from the threat or use of force against ... any state."
Quote:
Israel's U.N. ambassador, Dan Gillerman,....snip......"I certainly think that a country whose head of state calls for the destruction of any other member state of the United Nations does not deserve a seat in this very civilized organization."
Does that include the USA?
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.
xoxoxoBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2005, 10:27 PM   #25
russotto
Professor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,788
Nihilism is in.

Let Iran attack Israel. Israel responds, and then maybe one thing leads to another and we've got a whole lot of new glowing glass. Then we slant-drill for less-radioactive oil from the nearest upwind area.
russotto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2005, 07:24 AM   #26
Undertoad
Radical Centrist
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
Israel isn't first on their list.

http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com...seen-this.html
Undertoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2005, 09:09 AM   #27
Radar
Constitutional Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ocala, FL
Posts: 4,006
I could care less if Iran has nuclear bombs. Merely having them does not make them a threat to us. It seems these days the only way America won't invade another country without justifiable cause is if they actually have nukes. Neither Iran, or any other nation on earth requires the permission of America or the UN to develop any weapons they choose.
__________________
"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."
- George Carlin
Radar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2005, 10:48 AM   #28
xoxoxoBruce
The future is unwritten
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
Here's another view of Iran. It may surprize you.
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.
xoxoxoBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2005, 06:13 PM   #29
bargalunan
Abecedarian
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nantes (France)
Posts: 175
I've just seen an Iranian calligraphy exposure.

It was beautiful, graceful and peaceful.

Quite cool to forget nuclear threat, sometimes.
bargalunan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2005, 01:28 PM   #30
Amnesiac42
just a guy
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 20
[quote=tw]Should a leader be tried if he builds weapons of mass destruction, uses those weapons in defense of his country, and loses the war? If the leader was told he was going to be attacked, and did not build those WMDs, then clearly he would be the enemy of his country - deserve to be impeached or assassinated.[quote]

ok. in my opinion...

because there are already nuclear powers in the world, other nations are automatically going to follow with their own nuclear weapons programs. as a leader of a nation in a world run by nuclear powers, it is only logical to arm yourself in defense of nuclear attack, especially when the power seeking unilateral hegemony has shown in the past it is not shy about using WMD; if we continue to raise the bar, other nations will only try to catch up. it's an arms race. if China developed a weapon that could control a localized black hole, we would undoubtly develop one ourselves, and iran, n korea, and others would follow as they desire to "play ball" with the world powers.

now, america has only recently complicated this by introducing the pre-emptive strike against iraq. If a nation can attack another nation on false intelligence and the UN allows it to happen without consequence, then it follows that ANY nation could by the same standards attack another nation and legally get away with it.

so, exponential arms race + unilateral hegemonous nuclear power + weak diplomatic communications between nations + new pre-emptive strike policy = ?
Amnesiac42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:22 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.