• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

How will the necons sell the war the war with Iran

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Doboji

Diamond Member
May 18, 2001
7,912
0
76
We should attack Iran... and then we should give Israel the green light to attack Syria...

Both those countries are ticking timebombs.

 

novon

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,711
0
0
Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
It's either you confront them now, or you confront them later when they have nukes. You just have to choose.

In any case, Israel should confront the Iranians regardless of what happens in the US.
Jews are now facing a modern world Hitler, but this time they have weapons. I don't see any reason why they should agree to another holocaust. After all, Israel will not be a safer place when Iran has nukes.
This matter stands above any PC international relations and public opinions. Good international relations don't help you when a nuke goes off.
That's very short-sighted. The occupier and oppressor in the region are the Zionists, not the other way around. Any long term peace will come through Israel respecting it's neighbors and dealing with the root causes of the hostility, not the symptoms. Iran has many Jews living in it, and a lot of the Jews in Israel are from Iran. Ahmanedijad admitted that some of his best friends are Jews, he is not out to kill all Jews. There is no hate for all Jewish people, there is a hate for the oppression and violence carried out by the Zionist in Israel. It seems from the recent Lebanon war, that some in power in Israel are much more of a danger to human life than and threats neocons are creating to justify war.

If Iran is trying to go nuclear, it's both for it's long term energy security, and the detterence of the US/Israel's rampage in the mid east. There is no way to deter every person in the middle east from fighting back, unless stability can be created through concessions, dialogue, cultural tolerence, and charity. Force will only get us in a tighter bind.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Originally posted by: Doboji
We should attack Iran... and then we should give Israel the green light to attack Syria...

Both those countries are ticking timebombs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Doboji,

You sir are a ticking timebomb full of hatred---and full of the same contempt Hitler had for the slavic people---funny thing----Hitler ended up in a bunker as one hell of a lot of Slavic people fought their way to get at him.

These are human being we are talking about---and just like you and me---your way is insanity personified.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,636
3,440
126
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: Doboji
We should attack Iran... and then we should give Israel the green light to attack Syria...

Both those countries are ticking timebombs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Doboji,

You sir are a ticking timebomb full of hatred---and full of the same contempt Hitler had for the slavic people---funny thing----Hitler ended up in a bunker as one hell of a lot of Slavic people fought their way to get at him.

These are human being we are talking about---and just like you and me---your way is insanity personified.
Doboji is one of those idiots who knows he is dealing with monsters so he can justify their dying by his hand. Novon, on the other hand seems absolutely convinced that Iran has peaceful intentions and will be fine if Israel plays nice. When is that going to happen. It looks pretty much to me that the area is so sick that peace can only be imposed but I am not sure of that. At any rate one of the potential madmen there already has nukes and if the other side that God also fully supports gets them their can be much deeper trouble. It may be a bit unfair but it might be best in dealing with paranoids that only one side has something real to fear. It is absolutely ridiculous to take Iranian rhetoric seriously but equally ridiculous to ignore it. In a family you don't let one of the boys run around with a knife yelling he's going to off his brothers and sisters because he wants the last pork chop, make that lamb chop or soy burger. Why would a family of nations act differently?
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
We are already at war with Iran. We are fighting terrorists with IED's in Iraq with parts that come from Iran. We have had incursions coming accross the border in Iran. Iran is a country full of liars who would love to cut off our heads, and smile while they are doing it. You can not trust anything that the leaders of Iran say. We should have destroyed their country when they attacked our embassy, but Carter was a coward and not a commander-in-chief.

there is no evidence to suggest any of the weapons are coming from Iran.
Zero.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,387
140
116
Originally posted by: Doboji
We should attack Iran... and then we should give Israel the green light to attack Syria...

Both those countries are ticking timebombs.
Wow, that was easy. It's always fun playing armchair general, isn't it?

You have any proposal on how we attack Iran?
 

WiseOldDude

Senior member
Feb 13, 2005
702
0
0
That this latest Israelie incursion into Lebanon was just a dry run for the next Bush Cheney neocon target which is Iran.
Very likely, and one would hope that he would also recognize that the Israeli hit a brick wall and pretty much got their asses handed back to them. But then again we are talking about Bush, and facts and reality have absolutely nothing to do with his decision making efforts. God (voices in his head) will tell him what to do, and that is all he will listen. to.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I somewhat thank you Lunar Ray for being the first to honestly address this thread,

In our current war with Iraq---the American people and the world agreed to let GWB go to war on fears and hype----and hype that has proved 100% untrue with the lens of 20 20 hindsight. And 3.6 years later we are still at war, no progress has been made, and the lives of the average Iraqi is now infinitely worse than under Saddam.

And now we get almost uncontravertable evidence from a highly respected journalist with sources in spades---that the next target will be Iran---and soon.

The question is what we the American people can do to prevent this war---or will we just wake up some morning and find GWB has already taken us to war with Iran---and we just have no remaining choice but to hope this one is not the same losing fiasco the Iraq war was?---or that like the Germans and Japanese---that we will finally discover we followed a madman like Tojo or Hiltler---who led our proud nation to utter ruin?

After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.---and we live in times that try men's souls.
Bush's Administration, his supporters in Congress and the population who trust him are convinced we must be proactive in the solution to the world's woes. What makes up that agenda can only be speculated on but I suspect it entails more violence in foreign lands.

The same set of conditions as they exist today in the Middle East can be seen by ten people of differing political persuasion to be vastly less or more threatening to our security because each would take a somewhat different tact to resolve them. An exception being an invasion on our soil like 9/11 by an identifiable enemy where we'd all unite in a common goal which is just exactly what Bush has used 9/11 to do... apparently!

But that is exactly my point.. Not all action must be violent. There must exist commonality amongst nations in some element of our mutual existence on which to foster a peaceful end to a problem. Even to the extent of being totally defensive and isolated. Let them be as they may while we be as we may. I'd have no problem invading anywhere if that government attacked me. I'd be swift and certain it would not occur again.. Collateral damage would not be in my vocabulary... Destruction would be my objective.. but only from a totally defensive posture initially.. Just like the UN Charter provides... you don't need approval to defend..

So.. inferred in my above is just how I expect the Neocon to seize the attention of the majority of Americans if Iran is really on their radar. It won't be sold.. it will be demanded but some lone voice in the wilderness will cry out and be silenced by the herd of buffalo charging to the slaughterhouse... with righteous indignation they will go.. until reality sets in and that will be too late... Mad Cow disease devastates the herd..
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,636
3,440
126
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I somewhat thank you Lunar Ray for being the first to honestly address this thread,

In our current war with Iraq---the American people and the world agreed to let GWB go to war on fears and hype----and hype that has proved 100% untrue with the lens of 20 20 hindsight. And 3.6 years later we are still at war, no progress has been made, and the lives of the average Iraqi is now infinitely worse than under Saddam.

And now we get almost uncontravertable evidence from a highly respected journalist with sources in spades---that the next target will be Iran---and soon.

The question is what we the American people can do to prevent this war---or will we just wake up some morning and find GWB has already taken us to war with Iran---and we just have no remaining choice but to hope this one is not the same losing fiasco the Iraq war was?---or that like the Germans and Japanese---that we will finally discover we followed a madman like Tojo or Hiltler---who led our proud nation to utter ruin?

After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.---and we live in times that try men's souls.
Bush's Administration, his supporters in Congress and the population who trust him are convinced we must be proactive in the solution to the world's woes. What makes up that agenda can only be speculated on but I suspect it entails more violence in foreign lands.

The same set of conditions as they exist today in the Middle East can be seen by ten people of differing political persuasion to be vastly less or more threatening to our security because each would take a somewhat different tact to resolve them. An exception being an invasion on our soil like 9/11 by an identifiable enemy where we'd all unite in a common goal which is just exactly what Bush has used 9/11 to do... apparently!

But that is exactly my point.. Not all action must be violent. There must exist commonality amongst nations in some element of our mutual existence on which to foster a peaceful end to a problem. Even to the extent of being totally defensive and isolated. Let them be as they may while we be as we may. I'd have no problem invading anywhere if that government attacked me. I'd be swift and certain it would not occur again.. Collateral damage would not be in my vocabulary... Destruction would be my objective.. but only from a totally defensive posture initially.. Just like the UN Charter provides... you don't need approval to defend..

So.. inferred in my above is just how I expect the Neocon to seize the attention of the majority of Americans if Iran is really on their radar. It won't be sold.. it will be demanded but some lone voice in the wilderness will cry out and be silenced by the herd of buffalo charging to the slaughterhouse... with righteous indignation they will go.. until reality sets in and that will be too late... Mad Cow disease devastates the herd..
It is all well and good to be proactive when you have terrorists light off 10 nuclear weapons in your major cities if you are one of the survivors, but it's too late for all those dead to be proactive then. There are in our age some catastrophes we need to be proactive about before they happen and that changes everything, no? Doesn't mean we have to kill every other nation on earth to be safe, but it does mean, I think, trying to know what's going on and eliminating real threats, by diplomacy if possible but by other means if required. It just makes no sense to me to react to the deaths of maybe hundreds of thousands of kids after they are dead.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I somewhat thank you Lunar Ray for being the first to honestly address this thread,

In our current war with Iraq---the American people and the world agreed to let GWB go to war on fears and hype----and hype that has proved 100% untrue with the lens of 20 20 hindsight. And 3.6 years later we are still at war, no progress has been made, and the lives of the average Iraqi is now infinitely worse than under Saddam.

And now we get almost uncontravertable evidence from a highly respected journalist with sources in spades---that the next target will be Iran---and soon.

The question is what we the American people can do to prevent this war---or will we just wake up some morning and find GWB has already taken us to war with Iran---and we just have no remaining choice but to hope this one is not the same losing fiasco the Iraq war was?---or that like the Germans and Japanese---that we will finally discover we followed a madman like Tojo or Hiltler---who led our proud nation to utter ruin?

After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.---and we live in times that try men's souls.
Bush's Administration, his supporters in Congress and the population who trust him are convinced we must be proactive in the solution to the world's woes. What makes up that agenda can only be speculated on but I suspect it entails more violence in foreign lands.

The same set of conditions as they exist today in the Middle East can be seen by ten people of differing political persuasion to be vastly less or more threatening to our security because each would take a somewhat different tact to resolve them. An exception being an invasion on our soil like 9/11 by an identifiable enemy where we'd all unite in a common goal which is just exactly what Bush has used 9/11 to do... apparently!

But that is exactly my point.. Not all action must be violent. There must exist commonality amongst nations in some element of our mutual existence on which to foster a peaceful end to a problem. Even to the extent of being totally defensive and isolated. Let them be as they may while we be as we may. I'd have no problem invading anywhere if that government attacked me. I'd be swift and certain it would not occur again.. Collateral damage would not be in my vocabulary... Destruction would be my objective.. but only from a totally defensive posture initially.. Just like the UN Charter provides... you don't need approval to defend..

So.. inferred in my above is just how I expect the Neocon to seize the attention of the majority of Americans if Iran is really on their radar. It won't be sold.. it will be demanded but some lone voice in the wilderness will cry out and be silenced by the herd of buffalo charging to the slaughterhouse... with righteous indignation they will go.. until reality sets in and that will be too late... Mad Cow disease devastates the herd..
It is all well and good to be proactive when you have terrorists light off 10 nuclear weapons in your major cities if you are one of the survivors, but it's too late for all those dead to be proactive then. There are in our age some catastrophes we need to be proactive about before they happen and that changes everything, no? Doesn't mean we have to kill every other nation on earth to be safe, but it does mean, I think, trying to know what's going on and eliminating real threats, by diplomacy if possible but by other means if required. It just makes no sense to me to react to the deaths of maybe hundreds of thousands of kids after they are dead.
If I don't ever visit your house and stomp on your begonias you'll have no reason to visit terror on my tulips..
Why would the terrorist visit my yard and detonate the nuclear devices if I'm peacefully tending my own business letting him tend to his in his own garden?

My thinking is that during the transition from proactive aggressor to defensive gardener there may be some who hold a grudge.. well I'm not going to abandon my freedoms to survive as a prisoner in my own home.. I figure they would find a means to do what they intend no matter what I did proactive like... except if I completely eliminate any possible threat by eliminating every possible terrorist. All the while I'm a prisoner until finally only I'm left alive..

Again I'd say... If attacked I would eliminate the aggressor terrorist and his government and his friends.. sooner or later I may run out of 'payback' but if I am right and stop the attacks on me by the others left around I've won.. If I am wrong and a new group comes to seek vengeance on this peaceful gardener then they too will visit the reality of their belief... I am willing to live and let live after all the other nations are sovereign too.. If they terminate me in the process.. well then I'd not much care anymore, I don't think..
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Manipulation of feelings (Fear eg like in "Mushroom clouds"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), propaganda and disinformation. That is how the neocons are trying to sell the war on Iran.



 

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
1
76
Originally posted by: novon
That's very short-sighted. The occupier and oppressor in the region are the Zionists, not the other way around. Any long term peace will come through Israel respecting it's neighbors
I beg to differ. Peace will only come as a result of Israeli military superiority. The stronger Israel became, the more reluctant Arab leaders were to attack it.
The peace agreement with Egypt was a direct result of Israeli military superiority.

and dealing with the root causes of the hostility, not the symptoms.
The root cause of hostility is the creation of Israel.

Iran has many Jews living in it
Not anymore - there are only few left, and even they serve as a political tool for Ahmadinajed, as your post suggests.

and a lot of the Jews in Israel are from Iran.
My grandfather is from Egypt, and some Jews are are from Russia and Germany and Poland and Morocco and Syria and other places with grim history towards Jews.
After all, there's a reason they came to Israel.

Ahmanedijad admitted that some of his best friends are Jews, he is not out to kill all Jews.
No, only Israelis. The rest he'll convert.

There is no hate for all Jewish people,
Not any more than there is to Christians, probably.

there is a hate for the oppression and violence carried out by the Zionist in Israel. It seems from the recent Lebanon war, that some in power in Israel are much more of a danger to human life than and threats neocons are creating to justify war.
Yes, Israel is to blame for responding to Hizbullah's offensive actions. Israel will be the aggressor in your eyes regardless to what it does.

Arabs have attacked Israel since its inception. There was always hate and there will be hate for the forseeable future. And yet, since Arabs aren't monkies, they do their math too, and if the price of aggression is too high to pay, they won't translate this haterd into any practical action, and that's what we should aspire too.

If Iran is trying to go nuclear, it's both for it's long term energy security, and the detterence of the US/Israel's rampage in the mid east.
Enough countries, US included have offered Iran supervised Nuclear powerplants.
The problem is this "rampage" is what allowed Israel to exist. The ability of fighting back and dettering offensive regimes is what made it stand for the last 60 years. It simply can not lose to advantage.

I guess people like you haven't really chosen a side yet - Would you support Iranian nuclear missiles aimed at US cities for "detterence"? Only fools believe in absolute justice and equity - the rest understand that someone will always be on top of the game and it better be their side than their enemy.

There is no way to deter every person in the middle east from fighting back, unless stability can be created through concessions, dialogue, cultural tolerence, and charity. Force will only get us in a tighter bind.
Of course not, but you can deter the relatively sane masses by making it clear that their lives will be a mess once they decide to pick a fight with Israel, and it worked like a charm so far. There's a reason no Arab country attacked Israel for the last 30 years, and that reason is not due to peace agreements, weak Israeli military or the Arabs becoming Zionists.

Cliffs:
1. Arabs always hated Israel
2. Arabs (and jpeyton) seek to end Israel
3. Arabs failed and thus are frustrated
4. Arabs haven't yet given up their aspirations
 

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: Doboji
We should attack Iran... and then we should give Israel the green light to attack Syria...

Both those countries are ticking timebombs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Doboji,

You sir are a ticking timebomb full of hatred---and full of the same contempt Hitler had for the slavic people---funny thing----Hitler ended up in a bunker as one hell of a lot of Slavic people fought their way to get at him.

These are human being we are talking about---and just like you and me---your way is insanity personified.
Doboji is one of those idiots who knows he is dealing with monsters so he can justify their dying by his hand. Novon, on the other hand seems absolutely convinced that Iran has peaceful intentions and will be fine if Israel plays nice. When is that going to happen. It looks pretty much to me that the area is so sick that peace can only be imposed but I am not sure of that. At any rate one of the potential madmen there already has nukes and if the other side that God also fully supports gets them their can be much deeper trouble. It may be a bit unfair but it might be best in dealing with paranoids that only one side has something real to fear. It is absolutely ridiculous to take Iranian rhetoric seriously but equally ridiculous to ignore it. In a family you don't let one of the boys run around with a knife yelling he's going to off his brothers and sisters because he wants the last pork chop, make that lamb chop or soy burger. Why would a family of nations act differently?
Very good post (other than calling Doboji an idiot - I think he's actually right on most accounts :) ). Yet, I must ask something - Assuming Iran stop the hostility towards Israel, is there ANYONE here who thinks that Israel seeks the destruction of Iran, or any harm to the Iranian people? Will it help any of its goals?


 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
I'm still trying to figure out why through out history it was the Jew who was most often persecuted.. others too.. but always the Jew even by the folks being persecuted. The Jew has always been seen as the one to point to when someone needed to 'feel better' and put someone under their foot.. It has to be the religion cuz the Jew is everyone. Russian Jews, German Jews, Bangladeshi Jews.... It is not Israel in my opinion but, rather, The Jew..

If that is true.. then no amount of anything will bring peace other than folks accepting that the Jew like the Muslim or the Baptist and the rest are all centered on God or some supreme entity.. maybe not the Atheist.. who finds solace in feeding the worms.. but they are really all the same... just folks..

That the Palestinian (what ever that is) has been put aside in their own homeland is another issue best resolved by creating a homeland for them as a comprimise... or making the areas in Israel that are needed to allow the 2nd coming to occur to be Jewish and move Israel as a nation to where they can exist in peace... Idaho.. or Alberta.. maybe..
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Ok---after all this bickering I propose the Lemon Law Peace Plan.---based on the following principles.

1. The foundations of the current conflict are based on two fundemental and offsetting crimes against humanity.
a. The Arab States---in an act of bigotry attacked the state of Israel in 1948---A State authorized by the UN.
b. Israel not only beat back these attacks---it then commited an off setting act of bigotry by disenfranchising all Palistinians placed under its charge by the UN---stealing their property in the process.
c. No Israelie agreement to a peace plan is possible if the Israelies are required to revisit the right of return.
d. Since all subsequent hostilities have been justified by those original two crimes---we must return to the Status quo of 1948 and move forward from there.

2. Therefore be it resolved---Isreal will be allowed to retain all stolen Palistinian land within the borders of their 1948 Isrealie borders

3. In return the Palistinian people will be given dominian of all lands captured by Israel in the 1967 and 1982 wars.
Any property owned by Israelie citizens in this newly created Palistinian State shall become property of the Palistinian State---with any Israelie opting to live in that State being prohited from the right to serve in its army or to carry weapons of any kind.

4. A special UN commission shall require the State of Israel and the Palistinian State to prohibit any cross border
hostilities of any kind.---any armed incursion by an army shall be detereered by the UN---who will then shoot radiological weapons capable of rendering the agressor side's land uninhabitable for hundreds of years.

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

Could that be a basis for peace?
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,485
33
86
My hypothesis: historically, some of the stories are crap. No evidence of time in the desert, none of the egyptian stuff pans out, etc.. But, Jews call themselves chosen. They also put a high priority on schooling and other education. As such, and being a great minority, they've been disproportionately wealthy compared to those around them. As a whole, the Jewish in Germany between the wars were doing far better than other Germans.

Rinse and repeat (in fact, do so for hundreds of years up to that point, even). In the past few decades, they've as a whole learned to use propaganda well, too. Jews make for an easy ethnicity to hate. Both in the German case and the modern Islamic case(s?), you've got large groups that have trouble getting along with themselves and other nations, and then over here is a small group of folks, mostly Jews, who've done well. Do 'we' want to change ourselves, and admit we could have greater potential, or do 'we' want to place blame elsewhere, and focus hate, to move the burden away and retain 'our' perception of righteousness? Hmmm...I think the option of moving the hatred from self to the Jews is easier, and it is certainly more socially acceptable.

I think, however, the modern situation is worse because you do have people that have been part of running Israel who have done many wrongs, and nowhere is there comprimise or forgiveness: merely more violence, and grudge-holding, that only leads to more of itself. I think the whole thing is a mess, there are no good options left, and that sadly, an iron fist might be required for any short-term peace.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
To Cerb,

I am not disagreeing with what you are saying---but you may be missing something of historical importance that we tend to not remember today.

For centuries jews were intermixed with Christians and Moslems---and both the latter two religions historically prohibited its members from loaning money out for interest---or usury is the other term.

So it was the jew who became the go to person when large amounts of cash had to be raised so they could finance that next war of rape and pillage.

Making the jew the target of any who did not want to pay back---we are persecuting them because we don't like them--or insert any antisemitic reason of convience----instead of the real reasons---we are driving them out of the country because we don't want to repay the money we borrowed.

But when that rascal Martin Luthor started his own religion---and the pope could not burn him at the stake in proper Christian tradition---after that usuary became a common Christian practice also so as to better compete with the more commerce minded Protestants. But by then, antisematism was a time honored sport and another way to raise cash---drive out the jew and retain their non-portable assets. And a jolly time is had by all---we Christians are such fine upstanding moral people also.

Leaving Islam the religion clinging to its founding principles.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
LemonLaw,
I really think you'd have a better chance at peace by the partitioning of Israel in some manner. I don't really know if the land you'd set aside for the Palestinian would meet their desire but it sure could be seen as an Israeli effort to peaceful resolution.
It might even mute many who use Israel as the rally cry even when their beef is only tangential toward them.

So much water has flowed under the bridge that the youth in all of Islam understand to hate the Jew as part of their religious belief (almost) that the only permenent solution might be to relocate the Jew to within a very secure nation who has the land to accomodate an entire people.. but with the proviso that the temple that has to be rebuilt can be.. and that may require a bit of the Dome of the Rock site.. not the temple itself but some of the grounds upon which the Jewish Temple may have once (or twice) stood.

I'd vote to cede an entire area the size of Israel currently to them.. but of course to do so with out too much disruption..
I know that sounds really 'out there' but I also know that it may be the only way to end all this ME waring.. I wonder what the Jew would think about that..
 

Horus

Platinum Member
Dec 27, 2003
2,838
0
0
Originally posted by: db
Something like 23% of any population is crazy enough to march over a cliff. Keep beating the drums of fear, have the corporate media repeat your lies, and wahlah: we're in the war and it's too late. Nothing left to do now except stand behind our leaders.
Seems simple enough.
FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST. IT'S NOT WAHLAH. IT'S VOILA! IT'S FRENCH! NOT "WHALLAAH", OR "VAHLAHH", IT'S VOILA! FOR FVCK'S SAKE IT'S THE UMTEENTH TIME I'VE SAID IT!
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Horus
Originally posted by: db
Something like 23% of any population is crazy enough to march over a cliff. Keep beating the drums of fear, have the corporate media repeat your lies, and wahlah: we're in the war and it's too late. Nothing left to do now except stand behind our leaders.
Seems simple enough.
FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST. IT'S NOT WAHLAH. IT'S VOILA! IT'S FRENCH! NOT "WHALLAAH", OR "VAHLAHH", IT'S VOILA! FOR FVCK'S SAKE IT'S THE UMTEENTH TIME I'VE SAID IT!
Hehehhe
Je suis Le Professeur et nous .. nous allons apprendre le francaise.

edit: 'Look there' don't have the ring of 'Wahlah' ... sounds like a whale crying.. I think.. :D
 

straightalker

Senior member
Dec 21, 2005
515
0
0
How will the necons sell the war the war with Iran
Spin the same old worn out record.

On it are the following words spoken over and over again, add nauseum, add infinitum...

Weapons of mass destruction
Terror
Terrorists
Nuclear weapons
Chemical Weapons
Biological Weapons
Al Qaida
Eminant Threat
Suicide Bomber
Threat to the Region
Threat to mankind
Evil regime
nuclear facilities
long range missile
islamic radicals
osama bin laden is hiding out there
terrorist links to Iran

Meanwhile, China is 1000 times a greater threat to the World. But for now they are the neocon's business partners. Russia has thousands of Topal-M nukes pointed at us ready to fire. Their ex-KGB Mafia spans the globe commiting violent crime. What does Iran do that even comes close to that?

They bug the hell out of Israel. That's about it.
 

Doboji

Diamond Member
May 18, 2001
7,912
0
76
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Doboji
We should attack Iran... and then we should give Israel the green light to attack Syria...

Both those countries are ticking timebombs.
Wow, that was easy. It's always fun playing armchair general, isn't it?

You have any proposal on how we attack Iran?
Just because I think it is the right thing to do, doesnt mean it's going to happen.

I think we should institute the draft, and put 1 million men on the ground in Tehran.

-Max
 

Doboji

Diamond Member
May 18, 2001
7,912
0
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: Doboji
We should attack Iran... and then we should give Israel the green light to attack Syria...

Both those countries are ticking timebombs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Doboji,

You sir are a ticking timebomb full of hatred---and full of the same contempt Hitler had for the slavic people---funny thing----Hitler ended up in a bunker as one hell of a lot of Slavic people fought their way to get at him.

These are human being we are talking about---and just like you and me---your way is insanity personified.
Doboji is one of those idiots who knows he is dealing with monsters so he can justify their dying by his hand. Novon, on the other hand seems absolutely convinced that Iran has peaceful intentions and will be fine if Israel plays nice. When is that going to happen. It looks pretty much to me that the area is so sick that peace can only be imposed but I am not sure of that. At any rate one of the potential madmen there already has nukes and if the other side that God also fully supports gets them their can be much deeper trouble. It may be a bit unfair but it might be best in dealing with paranoids that only one side has something real to fear. It is absolutely ridiculous to take Iranian rhetoric seriously but equally ridiculous to ignore it. In a family you don't let one of the boys run around with a knife yelling he's going to off his brothers and sisters because he wants the last pork chop, make that lamb chop or soy burger. Why would a family of nations act differently?
I just say the things noone else wants to say... Iran and Syria, and Iraq, and Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are all in reality our enemies... they hate us... their leaders hate us, and their people hate us.

As a populace they tend to believe that Israel and the United states are evil incarnation on this earth, who bring about death and destruction, and thusly must be destroyed. This is truly believed en mass.

The only reason these nations of people don't fight us openly is because our military and economic power is overwhelming. I promise you that if we did not have this military, and economic advantage, we would be at a war much larger than you can imagine.

However don't fool yourself into thinking this power gap will last forever. The gap is closing, terrorism is just a military means that finally offers these people the ability to fight us.

We can choose to pretend the problem doesnt exist as big as it truly is... and avoid conflict now... Which will inevitably lead to a much more painful war that our children and childrens children will fight. OR we can bear the burdens ourselves now, and fight the war NOW while we still have the advantage and can win with RELATIVELY few casualties.

But reality is, we won't.... we cannot bear the pain of what that war means even now... Which makes me very afraid of what the future holds... when war will really really hurt... will we fight? or will we simply surrender and become Muslims?

I don't know... and in reality I will probably be dead or near death when it happens. I just see it as sad that we humans fail to see our future even when it's smacking us in the face.

-Max
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,636
3,440
126
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I somewhat thank you Lunar Ray for being the first to honestly address this thread,

In our current war with Iraq---the American people and the world agreed to let GWB go to war on fears and hype----and hype that has proved 100% untrue with the lens of 20 20 hindsight. And 3.6 years later we are still at war, no progress has been made, and the lives of the average Iraqi is now infinitely worse than under Saddam.

And now we get almost uncontravertable evidence from a highly respected journalist with sources in spades---that the next target will be Iran---and soon.

The question is what we the American people can do to prevent this war---or will we just wake up some morning and find GWB has already taken us to war with Iran---and we just have no remaining choice but to hope this one is not the same losing fiasco the Iraq war was?---or that like the Germans and Japanese---that we will finally discover we followed a madman like Tojo or Hiltler---who led our proud nation to utter ruin?

After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.---and we live in times that try men's souls.
Bush's Administration, his supporters in Congress and the population who trust him are convinced we must be proactive in the solution to the world's woes. What makes up that agenda can only be speculated on but I suspect it entails more violence in foreign lands.

The same set of conditions as they exist today in the Middle East can be seen by ten people of differing political persuasion to be vastly less or more threatening to our security because each would take a somewhat different tact to resolve them. An exception being an invasion on our soil like 9/11 by an identifiable enemy where we'd all unite in a common goal which is just exactly what Bush has used 9/11 to do... apparently!

But that is exactly my point.. Not all action must be violent. There must exist commonality amongst nations in some element of our mutual existence on which to foster a peaceful end to a problem. Even to the extent of being totally defensive and isolated. Let them be as they may while we be as we may. I'd have no problem invading anywhere if that government attacked me. I'd be swift and certain it would not occur again.. Collateral damage would not be in my vocabulary... Destruction would be my objective.. but only from a totally defensive posture initially.. Just like the UN Charter provides... you don't need approval to defend..

So.. inferred in my above is just how I expect the Neocon to seize the attention of the majority of Americans if Iran is really on their radar. It won't be sold.. it will be demanded but some lone voice in the wilderness will cry out and be silenced by the herd of buffalo charging to the slaughterhouse... with righteous indignation they will go.. until reality sets in and that will be too late... Mad Cow disease devastates the herd..
It is all well and good to be proactive when you have terrorists light off 10 nuclear weapons in your major cities if you are one of the survivors, but it's too late for all those dead to be proactive then. There are in our age some catastrophes we need to be proactive about before they happen and that changes everything, no? Doesn't mean we have to kill every other nation on earth to be safe, but it does mean, I think, trying to know what's going on and eliminating real threats, by diplomacy if possible but by other means if required. It just makes no sense to me to react to the deaths of maybe hundreds of thousands of kids after they are dead.
If I don't ever visit your house and stomp on your begonias you'll have no reason to visit terror on my tulips..
Why would the terrorist visit my yard and detonate the nuclear devices if I'm peacefully tending my own business letting him tend to his in his own garden?

My thinking is that during the transition from proactive aggressor to defensive gardener there may be some who hold a grudge.. well I'm not going to abandon my freedoms to survive as a prisoner in my own home.. I figure they would find a means to do what they intend no matter what I did proactive like... except if I completely eliminate any possible threat by eliminating every possible terrorist. All the while I'm a prisoner until finally only I'm left alive..

Again I'd say... If attacked I would eliminate the aggressor terrorist and his government and his friends.. sooner or later I may run out of 'payback' but if I am right and stop the attacks on me by the others left around I've won.. If I am wrong and a new group comes to seek vengeance on this peaceful gardener then they too will visit the reality of their belief... I am willing to live and let live after all the other nations are sovereign too.. If they terminate me in the process.. well then I'd not much care anymore, I don't think..
What did Tibet do to China?
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I somewhat thank you Lunar Ray for being the first to honestly address this thread,

In our current war with Iraq---the American people and the world agreed to let GWB go to war on fears and hype----and hype that has proved 100% untrue with the lens of 20 20 hindsight. And 3.6 years later we are still at war, no progress has been made, and the lives of the average Iraqi is now infinitely worse than under Saddam.

And now we get almost uncontravertable evidence from a highly respected journalist with sources in spades---that the next target will be Iran---and soon.

The question is what we the American people can do to prevent this war---or will we just wake up some morning and find GWB has already taken us to war with Iran---and we just have no remaining choice but to hope this one is not the same losing fiasco the Iraq war was?---or that like the Germans and Japanese---that we will finally discover we followed a madman like Tojo or Hiltler---who led our proud nation to utter ruin?

After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.---and we live in times that try men's souls.
Bush's Administration, his supporters in Congress and the population who trust him are convinced we must be proactive in the solution to the world's woes. What makes up that agenda can only be speculated on but I suspect it entails more violence in foreign lands.

The same set of conditions as they exist today in the Middle East can be seen by ten people of differing political persuasion to be vastly less or more threatening to our security because each would take a somewhat different tact to resolve them. An exception being an invasion on our soil like 9/11 by an identifiable enemy where we'd all unite in a common goal which is just exactly what Bush has used 9/11 to do... apparently!

But that is exactly my point.. Not all action must be violent. There must exist commonality amongst nations in some element of our mutual existence on which to foster a peaceful end to a problem. Even to the extent of being totally defensive and isolated. Let them be as they may while we be as we may. I'd have no problem invading anywhere if that government attacked me. I'd be swift and certain it would not occur again.. Collateral damage would not be in my vocabulary... Destruction would be my objective.. but only from a totally defensive posture initially.. Just like the UN Charter provides... you don't need approval to defend..

So.. inferred in my above is just how I expect the Neocon to seize the attention of the majority of Americans if Iran is really on their radar. It won't be sold.. it will be demanded but some lone voice in the wilderness will cry out and be silenced by the herd of buffalo charging to the slaughterhouse... with righteous indignation they will go.. until reality sets in and that will be too late... Mad Cow disease devastates the herd..
It is all well and good to be proactive when you have terrorists light off 10 nuclear weapons in your major cities if you are one of the survivors, but it's too late for all those dead to be proactive then. There are in our age some catastrophes we need to be proactive about before they happen and that changes everything, no? Doesn't mean we have to kill every other nation on earth to be safe, but it does mean, I think, trying to know what's going on and eliminating real threats, by diplomacy if possible but by other means if required. It just makes no sense to me to react to the deaths of maybe hundreds of thousands of kids after they are dead.
If I don't ever visit your house and stomp on your begonias you'll have no reason to visit terror on my tulips..
Why would the terrorist visit my yard and detonate the nuclear devices if I'm peacefully tending my own business letting him tend to his in his own garden?

My thinking is that during the transition from proactive aggressor to defensive gardener there may be some who hold a grudge.. well I'm not going to abandon my freedoms to survive as a prisoner in my own home.. I figure they would find a means to do what they intend no matter what I did proactive like... except if I completely eliminate any possible threat by eliminating every possible terrorist. All the while I'm a prisoner until finally only I'm left alive..

Again I'd say... If attacked I would eliminate the aggressor terrorist and his government and his friends.. sooner or later I may run out of 'payback' but if I am right and stop the attacks on me by the others left around I've won.. If I am wrong and a new group comes to seek vengeance on this peaceful gardener then they too will visit the reality of their belief... I am willing to live and let live after all the other nations are sovereign too.. If they terminate me in the process.. well then I'd not much care anymore, I don't think..
What did Tibet do to China?
They couldn't follow the "LunarRay Doctrine" they be too small a nation.. each can and must have a policy that follows the logic of their reality... The US has a big stick but Tibet had but a few Gurka and the Dali Lama.
My comment was not to do with China/Tibet nor even China/USA.. cuz in that is MAD.. I figure we are smart enough to know that you don't invade a China no matter what.. You do invade Grenada cuz you can.. if they invade you first is my doctrine... China I'd say we sit and discuss the issue and stop imports and use that avenue.. but if at the end of the day China attacked us.. then fine 'lets go die'...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY