Bow Down Before Iran?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-05 07:53:19

Obviously, everyone knows that Beer is a vegtable.
We can survive without middle east oil, we did so before and we can do so again. My weapon of choice to use against the Middle East would be a car that doesn't run on gasoline or diesel, and that replaces those cars that do, not just here, but in the whole World, then the Arab World will reap what it has sowed in bad customer relations when it diverted some of its petrodollars to kill some of us.
Sure thing. While you're at it, why not ask for world peace, equality among all men, and a terraformed Mars by next Christmas. But then, I'm a bit disconnected.
Reducing the demand for oil results in a drop in price of oil which in turn makes the use of oil more economical which drives further reliance on oil.
In order to really undermine the entire cycle simply outline above, the world would need to change the entire underlying infrastructure of energy generation. If you have about a hundred years or so, maybe it could be done- maybe.
But without vast technological breakthroughs (and landing a man on mars is easier by comparison) oil will always be a cheap and economical way of getting the job done.

The key thing is to internalize all the costs of Arab oil, not just the costs of the price of the barrel of oil, but they costs that the Arabs impose on us, when they use those petrodollars to wage war on us and kill Americans, we also have to internalize the costs of our additional security measures to protect ourselves from them. All the security measures at airports, should not be paid for by the airlines but by the arabs that sell us the oil, it is their riches that are paying for the madrassas that train suicide bombers and terrorists. An imported crude oil tax will change matters significantly. Its funny that the libs only talk about a gasoline tax, I think an imported crude oil tax would be more effective, one that doesn't punish domestic oil companies for the actions of foreign terrorists funded by arab petrodollars. I want out domestic oil companies to profit from the higher oil prices caused by import duties on crude oil, that way they can take those profits and do some domestic oil exploration, and use some of that money to develop alternatives to oil. And the Government can take the proceeds from those oil tariffs and put up big prizes that reward energy companies and car companies if they build cars and infrastructure to fuel those cars using alternatives to petroleum-derived gasoline. The prize system I mentions to encourage private companies to go to Mars can also work here. Once the alternatives to oil are established and the infrastructure is in place, the Arabs can then feel the pain of all the bad customer relations thay have sown over so many years.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-05 07:56:29

So the cards on the table declare that western powers once again draw lines in the sand and tell people they are such and such a group? Yes, that seems to be working...
No, merely that we stop agonizing over everything that might people not like us when they already don't like us. We don't have to run around pummelling them into the dirt at every chance, but we don't have to bend over backwards to be friendly either.
The important thing to remember is that "self determination" as applied to nations. . . is an illusion. If it is in our vital interest to exert a certain degree of force and the recipient of that force can't stop it. . . Well, so history flows.
And the crude must flow as well.
Our interests lie in the resources in that area. Stability is required, and we have to pay a price for it. That's *the* card on the table. All of this that we are going through is simply a higher ante, so to speak.
Indeed, the ante is now for dominance of the planet and the future direction of human civilization. The "West as the center of the world" paradigm that has stood for centuries is in danger of toppling and not just because of a few Arabs that blow themselves up. The foundation needs shoring up and one way or another a society can only become or remain dominant at someone else's expense.
As for stability, in the Middle East it's illusory. Artificial economies in nations run by at-best unpopular and often hated autocrats separated by artificial borders is not stability. It's tension waiting to snap.

It would be nice if our energy supply came from a sensible source like the Sun, rather than a bunch of prayerful militants that attack us for not converting to their religion.

Palomar · 2006-10-06 06:48:16

Meanwhile, the western -christian- civilization engages in wholesale genocide of native american, jew, gay, crippled etc. throughout its long and peaceful history. Let's not even mention the OH SO charitable chrisitan tradition of slavery!

Does this include your "oh so noble and glorious" Spanish Conquistadores? You know, those Spanish fellows who enslaved blacks in Mexico, took Native slaves as well, burned Native villages and raped Native women thoughout Mexico, Central and South America?

Meanwhile Scott conveniently forgets Christians of 17th, 18th and 19th centuries who actively opposed slavery and sought its ending (Abolition Societies; Dr. Benjamin Rush, etc.). Christian Union soldiers who fought and died for for the emancipation of southern black slaves. 19th century Christians who put their lives and well-being at serious risk to help blacks escape slavery via the Underground Railroad. The 18th century English lawmakers who decreed the American Colonies should extend no further than they were at present; enough Native land had been encroached upon (my great-great grandmother was Native American).

Christian gay activists and straight Christians who seek social equality for gays.

And all the many charitable Christian organizations which help with food, water, clothing, first-aid supplies, etc., for many decades in all parts of the world to people who don't have to be Christians themselves to receive aid.

European Christians (Corrie ten Boom and her family a notable example) who helped hide/rescue Jews from the Nazis during WWII -- many of whom faced imprisonment in concentration camps and death for helping Jews.

Etc.

I have yet to see such parallels of charity/humanitarian efforts coming from the Islamic world.

::edit:: And some of the most devout Christians I personally know in this area are either Native Americans or folks of mostly Native descent.

clark · 2006-10-06 07:17:00

Does this include your "oh so noble and glorious" Spanish Conquistadores? You know, those Spanish fellows who enslaved blacks in Mexico, who burned Native villages and raped Native women thoughout Mexico, Central and South America?

Sure! They were Catholic afterall, so I think they fall into the whole “Christian” camp. Catholics after all did have the first ‘Christian’ compact with God. How’s it going Cindy?

Meanwhile - conveniently forgets Christians of 17th, 18th and 19th centuries who actively opposed slavery and sought its ending (Abolition Societies; Dr. Benjamin Rush, etc.).

Forget? No, not at all. However, I am merely engaging one blanket view point with an equally blanket viewpoint. I would like to point out though that prior to the 17th century (you know, like 1500 years or so, Christians were not seeking the end of slavery or the abuse of their neighbors.

Christian gay activists and straight Christians who seek social equality for gays.

Ah, praise the saints that seek to absolve all lesser men of their sins!

And all the many charitable Christian organizations which help with food, water, clothing, first-aid supplies, etc., for many decades in all parts of the world to people who don't have to be Christians themselves to receive aid.

Very true, but then these organizations are often self-serving in that they help less fortunate and then offer services to explain their religion, thus trying to convert. It’s noble marketing, but marketing all the same.

European Christians (Corrie ten Boom and her family a notable example) who helped hide/rescue Jews from the Nazis during WWII -- many of whom faced imprisonment in concentration camps and death for helping Jews.

And the swastika was a Christian symbol and Christians gassed some people they thought of as degerenates. What’s the point?

My point here though is that you cannot and should not make blanket statements regarding Islam. There are good and bad people who are Muslim, Christian, or Jew. It is far to easy to just lump all the good with the bad- and I think if you review you might see the point I am trying to convey.

I have yet to see such parallels of charity/humanitarian efforts coming from the Islamic world.

Islamic Red Crescent society (their version of Red Cross). The Madras schools which offer educational services (of course we may differ with them on the value of what is taught). Hammas has gained popularity for providing relief and funds for reconstruction after destructions caused by Israel.

The point here is not to nitpick these institutions and say, well Christian is better and more noble, the point is that Islamic charity does exist and to assume that humanitarian efforts and charity is something only Christian’s do is a bit intellectually dishonest. Islamic charity may not be focused worldwide like some Christian organizations, but then, they have a lot of humanitarian work in their own areas.

Nice chatting with ya!

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-06 09:40:24

And the swastika was a Christian symbol and Christians gassed some people they thought of as degerenates. What’s the point?

Actually, its origins are in India, it was a symbol meaning good fortune, its not a cross at all.

My point here though is that you cannot and should not make blanket statements regarding Islam. There are good and bad people who are Muslim, Christian, or Jew. It is far to easy to just lump all the good with the bad- and I think if you review you might see the point I am trying to convey.

There is good and bad in every population. Unfortunately for us, we get alot more bad coming out of Islamic populations and civilizations. If they minded their own busness, we would mind ours, I'm sure of it. Unlike the situation with the Indians, we don't want the Arabs land, and we are paying plenty of money for their oil, it makes up a major portion of our trade deficit after all, Yet Many Arabs still see fit to attack us. The governments they want for themselves seem just as oppressive if not more so than the ones they want to overthrow. Just compare the Shah's regime to the Revolutionary Islamic theocracy that replaced it, personally I prefer the Shah, at least he did not support terrorist attacks against us or the Israelis. Yes he was a tyrant, but so was the government put in place by the people who overthrew him, the Shah was not as evil towards us though.

The proportions within the population are just as important as what you can find in them. If you go through a thousand people and find one or two terrorists, that's one thing, if you go through a thousand people and find 600 terrorists, that is quite another, yet in both cases you can say their is good and bad in both population, but if you let the second crowd elect their leaders, you are going to get a terrorist government. No these two groups are not equal, you can't just wave your hands and say there is good and bad in both of them and then extend you reasoning to say they are both equally good.

Islamic Red Crescent society (their version of Red Cross). The Madras schools which offer educational services (of course we may differ with them on the value of what is taught). Hammas has gained popularity for providing relief and funds for reconstruction after destructions caused by Israel.
The point here is not to nitpick these institutions and say, well Christian is better and more noble, the point is that Islamic charity does exist and to assume that humanitarian efforts and charity is something only Christian’s do is a bit intellectually dishonest. Islamic charity may not be focused worldwide like some Christian organizations, but then, they have a lot of humanitarian work in their own areas.

I've seen many cases of Islamic charities raising funds for terrorist groups, it is unfortunate that these groups must be closely watched to prevent charitable denoations from being misallocated to terrorists groups. Most Christian charities don't seem to have this problem. I wish this wasn't so, I wish our government didn't have to kill them. If tomorrow we can sit down and have peace, I would like it very much. Live and let live is my motto, now if only the radicals will let us live or our friends live, then we might do the same, but unfortunately I have yet to see this happen.

C M Edwards · 2006-10-09 08:11:59

Does this mean that moslems are now supposed to be as uncharitable as atheists? Darn... I have so much trouble keeping up with new stereotypes. Do you mind if I just take your word for it?

As for the idea of a "jihad" being more of a spiritual quest than a call to run out and kill people, that's actually how most modern moslems use the term. ("Crusade" has a similar history and modern usage.) Islamic extremists are relatively unique among modern moslems in how narrowly they define jihad. However, there is a precedent for this in the history of their religion which predates their radical reformation movements of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries (Wihabi, etc.). Back at the time of the Crusades, Islam was rather violently introduced to another religious institution, Christendom, which had not only throroughly incorporated this same idea of holy war but had its own armies. Christendom was a united entity then in the same way that Islamist nationalists and other extremists are calling for today. It was an aggressive major power, willing and able to force itself upon innocent people for no other reason than that it was entitled, taking both what was God's and what was Ceasar's. And it remained that way for several hundred years.

During those centuries, christians were the scourge of the world.

This is what radical islamists so desperately want to become: the new "Christendom". They want our submission - not to God, but to them. Jihad has ceased being a spiritual struggle and become a means to an end for them. But first, they still need to convince everybody that their definition of Jihad is the corect one. They've already done a very thorough job at convincing predominantly christian nations of this, because we know exactly what they're talking about in spite of the weasel wording. The only question left is, will they convince the rest of Islam?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-09 08:42:40

Does this mean that moslems are now supposed to be as uncharitable as atheists? Darn... I have so much trouble keeping up with new stereotypes. Do you mind if I just take your word for it?
As for the idea of a "jihad" being more of a spiritual quest than a call to run out and kill people, that's actually how most modern moslems use the term. ("Crusade" has a similar history and modern usage.) Islamic extremists are relatively unique among modern moslems in how narrowly they define jihad. However, there is a precedent for this in the history of their religion which predates their radical reformation movements of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries (Wihabi, etc.). Back at the time of the Crusades, Islam was rather violently introduced to another religious institution, Christendom, which had not only throroughly incorporated this same idea of holy war but had its own armies. Christendom was a united entity then in the same way that Islamist nationalists and other extremists are calling for today. It was an aggressive major power, willing and able to force itself upon innocent people for no other reason than that it was entitled, taking both what was God's and what was Ceasar's. And it remained that way for several hundred years.
During those centuries, christians were the scourge of the world.
This is what radical islamists so desperately want to become: the new "Christendom". They want our submission - not to God, but to them. Jihad has ceased being a spiritual struggle and become a means to an end for them. But first, they still need to convince everybody that their definition of Jihad is the corect one. They've already done a very thorough job at convincing predominantly christian nations of this, because we know exactly what they're talking about in spite of the weasel wording. The only question left is, will they convince the rest of Islam?

Actually, much of the area that is now Muslim was once Christian, as Christianity predates Islam by 700 years. Before Islam their was a Christian North Africa, a Christian Egypt, florishing christian cultures in the Middle East, and all those christian cultures were introduced to a violent Islam whose armies swept the region, conquered them and forcibly converted them. The old cultures were crushed and were replaced with an Arab culture. The first acts of the crusades were to defend Europe against Invasions by muslim armies. Spain, for instance was once ruled by Muslims, and Turkey was once the Byzantine Empire, a stronghold of Christianity. Byzantium was under seige by the Islamic Turks for centuries, before finally succumbing in the 1400s. You act as if the Middle East was Always Islamic and was suddenly introduced to Christianity by the Crusaders, this was not the case believe me. Christianity was the official state religion of the Roman Empire before it fell, and as you know the Roman Empire covered both sides of the Mediterreanian, not just Europe. Islam, by defintition of its existance, had to be the first aggressors. Muslims used two means to spread their religion, first they Evangelized, and when they got enough converts, they formed armies and invaded the lands of people who were not thus pursuaded. Islam has never been shy about using the military arm of the state to spread its doctrine.

C M Edwards · 2006-10-09 12:18:26

Islam has never been shy about using the military arm of the state to spread its doctrine.

"Never" has been defined just as loosely for Christians, even though the Pope hasn't had an army for some time now. I suppose I could do that here, too.

Let's have a show of hands. Anyone care to fight a holy war against Islam?

Islamists are out there asking the same question about Western Culture, but they're not likely to get a majority vote, either, medieval muslim armies or no medieval muslim armies. Osama bin Laden is no Saladin. Today, the majority of arabs, turks, and assorted moslems of all stripes oppose islamist terrorists just like we do, because their people are terrorist targets, too.

But what good is having a common enemy if you leave it to your enemy to decide who you fight?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-10 00:06:01

Islam has never been shy about using the military arm of the state to spread its doctrine.
"Never" has been defined just as loosely for Christians, even though the Pope hasn't had an army for some time now. I suppose I could do that here, too.
Let's have a show of hands. Anyone care to fight a holy war against Islam?

Any one care to be attacked by Islam? Anyone care to sit still for being attacked by Islam and not defend himself for fear of being called a bigot if he were to do so? Anyone at all? if the majority of Muslims are not sympathetic to Terrorism, then we have nothing to fear, we might as well let down our guard.
Islam is the religion with the Ayatollahs who say Death to America, the ones that dictate who can run for president of their country, the ones that put up lists of those they want assassinated for insulting Islam, but nobody every listens the the Grand Ayatollah of Iran, he is just a kook, a lone deranged individual and so we have nothing to fear from him because Islam is a peaceful religion.

Islamists are out there asking the same question about Western Culture, but they're not likely to get a majority vote, either, medieval muslim armies or no medieval muslim armies. Osama bin Laden is no Saladin. Today, the majority of arabs, turks, and assorted moslems of all stripes oppose islamist terrorists just like we do, because their people are terrorist targets, too.
But what good is having a common enemy if you leave it to your enemy to decide who you fight?

The Iraqis have their favorite terrorists, even as they fight other terrorists, they like Hezbollah because they are Shiite and they kill Jews, but we shouldn't let this color our judgement of the Iraqi people should we, just because their democratically elected leader supports Hezbollah. We should overlook this little foiable after all they want to kill Jews, and naturally that is only to be expected of Arab people. No, I do not excuse it. I don't excuse the Palestinians for electing the Hamas terrorists into their government, they have no excuse at all, they couldn't have all been fooled into thinking that Hamas wasn't a terrorist organization, could they? That would be like us voting in the NAZI party into our Congress and saying, "well those are good NAZIs, well they may kill a few Jews here and their, but they are good at eliminating corruption, and they run a very efficient government besides. We didn't vote for them because they hated Jews, oh no not by a long shot, it was for their good works of course and their civic honesty."

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-10-10 02:09:47

Iran blames U.S. for N. Korea nuke test
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/ … Korea.html

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-10 09:01:14

North Korea impoverished and humiliated itself. If I was the President, I'd call North Korea's bluff. "Go ahead nuke us if you dare! You know what's going to happen next, we'll then be rid of you, and South Korea will gain some new territory and will clean up the mess left behind by your regime!"

The Democrats are calling for direct negotiation with North Korea, and they say it is not a surrender to ward off anticipated criticism that it is. The only thing that can be accomplished with two party talks is telling the North Koreans the obvious, "If you nuke us, we'll nuke you, and it doesn't matter whether those nukes are delivered by missile or by terrorists, if their is a nuclear explosion in one of our cities, we'll assume its yours and retaliate accordingly."

C M Edwards · 2006-10-10 09:07:47

Here's another twist:

Iran Condemns North Korean Nuclear Weapons Testing

It's consistent with their official position, even if it lacks the ring of truth...

Palomar · 2006-10-10 09:23:09

Here's another twist:
Iran Condemns North Korean Nuclear Weapons Testing
It's consistent with their official position, even if it lacks the ring of truth...

...just slightly.

The comedic value of politics.

Maybe the Iranian President is "worried" Kim Jong Il can/will wipe Israel off the map before he's able to.

C M Edwards · 2006-10-10 09:27:29

The only thing that can be accomplished with two party talks is telling the North Koreans the obvious, "If you nuke us, we'll nuke you, and it doesn't matter whether those nukes are delivered by missile or by terrorists, if their is a nuclear explosion in one of our cities, we'll assume its yours and retaliate accordingly."

Believe it or not, this is a reasonable suggestion.

Nuclear weapons leave isotopic signatures, and we have enough information about the uranium/plutonium sources used by various countries to be able to identify some of them. After a nuclear strike, dirty bomb or thermonuclear (provided it was insufficient to destroy our capability to do so), there's a fair chance that we'd be able to identify the supplier of the original nuclear material.

North Korea is making its own plutonium, which will have distinct isotope ratios determined by their enrichment process. If we could verify those ratios in the residue after a nuclear attack, it would be reasonable to assume the North Koreans were just as responsible as those who perpetrated the attack, whether they deployed the bomb or not.

C M Edwards · 2006-10-10 09:32:15

Maybe the Iranian President is "worried" Kim Jong Il can/will wipe Israel off the map before he's able to.

Well, I suppose it's good to have a goal. :twisted:

clark · 2006-10-12 06:01:19

Holding millions of peoples lives hostage is not a sensible strategy.

The strategy fails if the leaders are willing to accept the loss of life caused by a nuclear exchange.

Half of korea starving, and you think threatening to obliterate the nation with nukes will mean something? Maybe it makes you feel good to bluster, but think it through, if you are capable.

In this scenerio, we have far more to lose. Our allies have far more to lose.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-12 09:38:48

Holding millions of peoples lives hostage is not a sensible strategy.
The strategy fails if the leaders are willing to accept the loss of life caused by a nuclear exchange.
Half of korea starving, and you think threatening to obliterate the nation with nukes will mean something? Maybe it makes you feel good to bluster, but think it through, if you are capable.
In this scenerio, we have far more to lose. Our allies have far more to lose.

Who has more nuclear weapons? Not Kim. He doesn't even have enough nuclear weapons to destroy us, the means at which he has to deliver them are questionable. Once we give in to a dictator, where do we stop? I don't think we are willing to accept him as our dictator in order that some of us aren't destroyed by his Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons. I'll take my chances with his nukes rather than live under his thumb any day.

What good is deterrence unless the enemy thinks we will do terrible things to him if he does terrible things to us? So long as the enemy thinks this way, then we won't have to do terrible things to his country. If he doesn't or is a fool, then we will have to do terrible things. So far we've managed to avoid nuking the Soviet Union and killing millions of Russians. If Kim is not deterred by our deterrent then we'll just have to use it to destroy his country I'm sorry to say. That's what Mutually Assured Destruction is all about, with the current situation between North Korea and the USA, it means more assured destruction for the North Koreans than it does for us. I can't help it if Kim Il Jumg is suicidal and wants to bring hiw whole nation down with him. Hopefully if he gets the urge to commit suicide with his people, he'll do so when he has fewer nuclear weapons so that fewer Americans get killed.

What is your alternative by the way, I don't believed you've mentioned it? I don't believe Kim is in any position to threaten us, he only has Hiroshima sized nuclear weapons and few of those, he knows that the moment he uses them on us or our allies, we'll commit genocide on his people.

clark · 2006-10-12 10:54:09

So he doesn't have enough weapons to destroy us or a reliable way to deliver them. So color me stupid! Why on earth should we worry about this?

My solution for this, and all other problems you care to cite is to build an elaborate, reliable, and uncomfortable catapault and use it to launch you and all like you into space.

It may not lead to a direct solution to an immediate problem, but I think, given enough time, history will judge that my solution was the wise one. Stay the course or the terroists win!

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-12 13:55:23

I did not invent Mutually Assured Destruction! So please do not make personal attacks on me If describe how it works, and until you got something else...
Do you get my drift?

EuroLauncher · 2006-10-13 01:14:28

Iran blames U.S. for N. Korea nuke test
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/ … Korea.html

Blame America - why not, they blame the USA for just about everything. How long before Iran starting blowing up Nukes ?

Here's what those French think
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/ … index.html
Iran's nuclear activity is a cover for a clandestine weapons program, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy has said in France's most direct attack on Tehran

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-14 01:22:50

It is interesting that the Russians are suddenly so terribly concerned about the Iranian people, especially considering how the leveled Grozny in Chechenia. Why is the murderer of hundreds of thousands of Chechens suddenly concerned about the Persians. Russia certainly is not an Islamic country. Russian troops happily murdered thousands and thousands of Muslims in Afghanistan, and all of the sudden Russia considers itself the protector of Islam? I wonder how much the Russian People would like to fight World War III with us over Islam? Imagine the hundreds of millions of Russians and Americans dead that comes from a nuclear war springing from Russia protecting Iran as it develops an independent nuclear weapons capacity, while the USA tries to destroy such. Do the Russians truly feel safer in a World with more nuclear powers, or are they just a bunch of knee-jerk anti-American idiots willing to take it all the way to global thermo-nuclear war?

I think we are more interested in stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and are more willing to risk a nuclear war over that than the Russians are willing to risk nuclear war with us white trying to spread them, this happened before when they tried to spread nukes to Cuba. I think we should call the Russians bluff.

DonPanic · 2006-10-14 02:33:17

LO

Back at the time of the Crusades, Islam was rather violently introduced to another religious institution, Christendom, which had not only throroughly incorporated this same idea of holy war but had its own armies. Christendom was a united entity then in the same way that Islamist nationalists and other extremists are calling for today. It was an aggressive major power, willing and able to force itself upon innocent people for no other reason than that it was entitled, taking both what was God's and what was Ceasar's. And it remained that way for several hundred years.

Here, in France, southern populations still have some rememberance of the the middle ages crusades at their ancestors led by northern France barons, the first crusades have been led by christians against Cathars christians, which main "sin" was that didn't recognised the roman catholic pope. This to say that the first real crusades were led by so-called christians at other christians far before crusades at Muslims
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathar
Before, there had been wars and slayings against aryanist christians which "sin" was that they believed that Jesus was just a holly man, a prophet, but in no way "Gods' son"

It is interesting that the Russians are suddenly so terribly concerned about the Iranian people, especially considering how the leveled Grozny in Chechenia. Why is the murderer of hundreds of thousands of Chechens suddenly concerned about the Persians.

Don't stay with that all-american point of view, study your challengers' point of view, otherwise, your analyses will be a whole misunderstanding, leading to failures such as the Iraq war results, or deep mistakes such as being an ally of Pakistan which harbours the most anti-american islamist terrorits' nests and collaborated in spreading nuke technology toghether with Kim's Korea and Iran.
I think that you mix everything with some kind of a deeply uninteresting black or white short sighting. That's the point with many average US citizens, your country is continental wide, and most of Us citizens, if able to draw the US map, what I couldn't do, are unable to draw quite a correct world map, what I can do.
It's a local balance policy from Moscow, Shiite Iranians are traditionnal ennemies of the Al Qaeda's sunni muslims which support chechen war at Moscow.
Moscow's attitude is also reacted by the US bases spreading in the southern former empire in order to surround and to aim a grab on the world's main oil fields.

Stormrage · 2006-10-14 06:55:57

that Osama bin laden said would be in Iran and would be the center of an authoritative united Arab nation.

I seriously doubt this. The Sunni -Shii relationship might have been partly healed when Hezbollah (Shii) attacked Israel in support of Palestinians (Sunni).

Also Bin Laden doesn't call for or want an "authoritative united Arab nation". What he and many muslims like me want is an Islamic Caliphate. But it will never be in Iran. It will be in early Islamic Capitals like Cairo,Baghdad or Jerusalem.

It would be nice if our energy supply came from a sensible source like the Sun, rather than a bunch of prayerful militants that attack us for not converting to their religion.

It would be nice if you actually thougth before you posted crap. But i'm just dreaming.

Oil is controlled by regimes in the middle east that is friendly to USA. Can you read that? U.S.A. All of them except for Iran get help from USA. If they were to lose support of USA. Islamists like Bin Laden would take over. Guess what would happen?

Israel would be over run. USA would lose their so called control in the middle east and the world would be a happy place. At least for me

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2006-10-14 08:25:29

Oil is controlled by regimes in the middle east that is friendly to USA. Can you read that? U.S.A. All of them except for Iran get help from USA. If they were to lose support of USA. Islamists like Bin Laden would take over. Guess what would happen?
Israel would be over run. USA would lose their so called control in the middle east and the world would be a happy place. At least for me

You as a Muslim might say that a lot of the trouble in the Middle east comes from the Israeli side ?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-14 09:25:53

LO
Back at the time of the Crusades, Islam was rather violently introduced to another religious institution, Christendom, which had not only throroughly incorporated this same idea of holy war but had its own armies. Christendom was a united entity then in the same way that Islamist nationalists and other extremists are calling for today. It was an aggressive major power, willing and able to force itself upon innocent people for no other reason than that it was entitled, taking both what was God's and what was Ceasar's. And it remained that way for several hundred years.
Here, in France, southern populations still have some rememberance of the the middle ages crusades at their ancestors led by northern France barons, the first crusades have been led by christians against Cathars christians, which main "sin" was that didn't recognised the roman catholic pope. This to say that the first real crusades were led by so-called christians at other christians far before crusades at Muslims
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathar
Before, there had been wars and slayings against aryanist christians which "sin" was that they believed that Jesus was just a holly man, a prophet, but in no way "Gods' son"

What do you call the Muslim Conquests prior to the first Chrisitian Crusade to retake the Holy Land? You know the ones where Islam started as a small Cult and spread to the Whole of Northern Africa, the Middle East, and Spain? They used armies and the Natives did fight back. Before their was Islam, their was Christianity. Of the two, I find Islam not to be much of an improvement, it oppresses individuality and enslaves humanity into rigid cultural roles divided by sex. Freedom of speech is sharply curtailed, and democracy is undermined by radical clerics seeking power for themselves and using the Koran as their justification. In France you have modernism, style, and culture; in Islam culture has undergone a deep freeze, its like history is frozen, people wear the same clothes and styles as their forefathers and their fore fathers, every aspect of life is rigidly defined with a rigid unbreakable mold for women and another one for men. New ideas, unless the further a military cause to spread the faith, are rejected.

It is interesting that the Russians are suddenly so terribly concerned about the Iranian people, especially considering how the leveled Grozny in Chechenia. Why is the murderer of hundreds of thousands of Chechens suddenly concerned about the Persians.
Don't stay with that all-american point of view, study your challengers' point of view, otherwise, your analyses will be a whole misunderstanding, leading to failures such as the Iraq war results, or deep mistakes such as being an ally of Pakistan which harbours the most anti-american islamist terrorits' nests and collaborated in spreading nuke technology toghether with Kim's Korea and Iran.
I think that you mix everything with some kind of a deeply uninteresting black or white short sighting. That's the point with many average US citizens, your country is continental wide, and most of Us citizens, if able to draw the US map, what I couldn't do, are unable to draw quite a correct world map, what I can do.
It's a local balance policy from Moscow, Shiite Iranians are traditionnal ennemies of the Al Qaeda's sunni muslims which support chechen war at Moscow.
Moscow's attitude is also reacted by the US bases spreading in the southern former empire in order to surround and to aim a grab on the world's main oil fields.

Does Moscow want Iran to have the Bomb? Do they or don't they? Do they want North Korea to have the bomb too? Has Moscow lost all interest in curtailing the spread of nuclear weapons? Do local concerns override their global ones of staying alive? Russia gave up the Soviet Republics freely and of their own choosing, they have no say in whatever alliances these new countries may choose to have.

What is more important, maintianing control of their ex-empire which they gave up, you know the French have a saying that you can't have your cake and eat it too, or do the Russians want to avoid a global thermo-nuclear war with us where they might get killed? You know two can play at this global proliferation game. The United States can spread nukes to countries that Russia doesn't like, and then when nuclear weapons are all over the place, someone may lose control of a few, some cities may go up in nuclear fireballs and then comes the retaliation, and all the nukes will get used up in a chain reaction of retaliation. But preserving their ex-empire is more important to typical Russians than their personal survival. If a country is independent, then Russia can't go around telling it what to do as if it was not. Russia ought to mind its own business, its making the World a more dangerous place by proliferating weapons to our enemies by blocking sactions. We can give nukes to Russia's enemies as well, would it like us to do so? This is the path to World War III. I for one am not fooled by Russia's strategy to nuke us by proxy. If the Iranians and North Koreans nuke us, then I blame the Russians and the Chinese, since they used their power at the UN to thwart all attempts at stopping these rogue states from acquiring these nukes, as such I consider both Russia and China as our enemies, they are working to kill millions of US citizens by proxy in letting our enemies develop nukes! If Peace means war by other means, I'd rather go back to the Cold War if you don't mind. I don't like any of this pretending to be friends with the Russians and the Chinese when by their actions, they show themselves to be nothing of the kind.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2006-10-05 07:53:19

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#102 2006-10-05 07:56:29

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#103 2006-10-06 06:48:16

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#104 2006-10-06 07:17:00

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#105 2006-10-06 09:40:24

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#106 2006-10-09 08:11:59

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#107 2006-10-09 08:42:40

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#108 2006-10-09 12:18:26

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#109 2006-10-10 00:06:01

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#110 2006-10-10 02:09:47

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#111 2006-10-10 09:01:14

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#112 2006-10-10 09:07:47

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#113 2006-10-10 09:23:09

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#114 2006-10-10 09:27:29

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#115 2006-10-10 09:32:15

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#116 2006-10-12 06:01:19

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#117 2006-10-12 09:38:48

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#118 2006-10-12 10:54:09

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#119 2006-10-12 13:55:23

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#120 2006-10-13 01:14:28

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#121 2006-10-14 01:22:50

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#122 2006-10-14 02:33:17

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#123 2006-10-14 06:55:57

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#124 2006-10-14 08:25:29

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#125 2006-10-14 09:25:53

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

Board footer