Did I hear GW right? Iran nuke related.

[rn79870]

GW is in Germany doing what presidents do when they are not planning wars. He made a statement to Iran that "All the options are on the table" and that "We prefer to pursue the peaceful ones first."

Does Mr. GW really think he is going to get the congress, or the American people to rally behind him in this cause. Absent a Pearl Harbor type event, I doubt he could convince anyone to commit American troops to a parade let alone a military campaign.

What do you think - Who should deal with Iran?

[stopcamping]

We should've dealt with them instead of Iraq. W is such an effin 'tard.

[rn79870]

I remember when Iraq and Iran were involved in a war, and how we tried to stop it. Big mistake, huge mistake.

[audtatious]

We should've dealt with them instead of Iraq. W is such an effin 'tard.

Carter should have done something about Iran when they were holding hostages. Since then, it's been downhill.

[audtatious]

I remember when Iraq and Iran were involved in a war, and how we tried to stop it. Big mistake, huge mistake.

Guess he could have come out and told Iran that we were going to do nothing to them for any of their actions.

[HashiriyaS14]

Iran is going to gain nuclear capability in the next decade whether we like it or not.

We'll sanction the shxt out of them, but it isn't going to make any difference.

An invasion isn't justified by the fact that they may be nearing nuclear capability, given that they haven't really shown a penchance for attacking other countries, just angry rhetoric.

There's no way Bush could/would take us to war with Iran at the end of his second term, it's just not going to happen (short of the aforementioned "Pearl Harbor" scenario).

Furthermore, Iran doesn't WANT to go to war with us. Ahmadinejad loves to come off as the next Joseph Stalin (i.e. "man of iron"), but he knows that war against us would be suicide. He *just* watched it happen next door, after all.

He wants to use nuclear capability as a bargaining chip on the world stage because he knows his oil is going to run out in the next half century. He doesn't want it so he can randomly incinerate other countries. No, not even Israel.

I mean, he's a bastard, but this isn't something worth going to war with him over given that it's not something we're going to stop anyway. The age of nuclear arms being limited to 5-6 nations is rapidly drawing to a close. That's now technology works....it advances and becomes more accessible.

[audtatious]

Iran won't get nuclear because Israel will probably take them out just like they did that secret location in syria.

[HashiriyaS14]

Iran won't get nuclear because Israel will probably take them out just like they did that secret location in syria.

Israel will not use nuclear weapons against *any* muslim nation in the mideast, period. Not unless attacked in kind first.

That would be political suicide for their relationship with us, and their relationship with us is the only reason any of them are alive.

If you mean just a spec-ops mission to shut down an Iranian nuke development site, then yeah, I could see that happening. Frankly, it would remove *some* of the heat from us, so I wouldn't mind it if they did do that.

I will go on record as saying that the creation of Israel was a bonehead idea and I wish it never happened, but that will probably make me unpopular. The Mandate of Palestine was a poorly considered idea.

[audtatious]

I never said Israel would use a nuke.

Palestine as an "area", or "ancient Palestine" includes Israel and the Palestinian territories, as well as part of Jordan, and some of both Lebanon and Syria. Why are the Palestinians only focusing on Israel and not the other countries? If the area that is Israel was given to someone other than Jews do you think this would be a problem today?

[OriginalWheelman]

Perhaps it's my Italian side talking, but I believe in peace through conquest.

[audtatious]

Usually that works

[Logan76]

I think trying to start a war against any country you don't want to see have a nuclear arsenal is insane, due to the fact in 20 years every country will have readily available nuclear weapons. The thing is, just because everyone has them doesn't mean anyones going to use them. Conventional warfare will still in my eyes be how we will live to see wars fought.

[heliochrome85]

Look, the issue isnt Muslims vs. Jews. It just isnt. If you think it is, then you are just outright wrong. Palestinians have been upset, and justifyably so, for being foracbly kicked out of their country. Unfortunately, their presence in the neighboring countrys, with the exception of Jordan, where most of the country is of palestianian decent, has been met with less than enthusiastic responses. In Lebanon, they are not allowed to work, or live amongst lebanese. They have no status in Lebanon and therefor have posed a very big problem to their government. Hence the civil war in the 1980s and the current situation there now. In syria, they have syrian citizenship, but largely live in refugee camps in the surrounding areas of damascus due to dire poverty and cycles of destruction. they tend to be so focused on their anger that it prevents any positive/upward movement. Realistically, jews and muslims have coexisted quite peacefully for millenia in the region. It wasnt until 1918 with the Sykes-Picot agreement that the balance of power shifted in the Middle East, where foreign powers came in and told the Arabs, hey, you dont own this land anymore, jews do. In the 30 years between the Paris Peace accords following WWI and the creation of Israel in 1948, Arabs were forcably moved out of the area of Present day Israel through various means, few of which are admirable. The current situation is just an expansion of that saga. The problem isnt jews, its the Zionists who believe they are entitled to all the land between the mediterranean to the Euphrates. (Hence the two blue lines in the israeli flag). Im travelling to Damascus next week. I really hope W doesnt pull a card from his sleeve while im there. luckily, i live down the street from the American embassy if it hits the fan.

/end rant

[audtatious]

Havn't the Jews been living in that area for over 3300 years beginning with Abraham (1800BCE) and their rule of the area started around 1250BCE with the conquest of Joshua? It wasn't until 587 BCE that the Jews were pretty much run out of the area to "Babylon" (Iraq). From that time forward it was ruled by the Babylonians, Persians, Greek Hellenistics, Roman and Byzantine Empires, Islamic and Christian crusaders, Ottoman Empire, and the British Empire (in that order). It was under British rule that it was turned back over to the Jews.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here as I really only know some of the history of the area. Most people I run into seem to think the Jewish people were simply "plopped" in there in the 1940's.

[heliochrome85]

they largely were in the 1940s. the US didnt want them. See. U.S.S. St. Louis. Sat outside of NY Harbor for a long time, filled with Jewish holocaust survivors while the US debated whether to let them in. Give us your tired, sick, hungry indeed.

Like i said, Jews lived in the region before, but they werent in any sizable numbers. Oddly enough huge amounts of jews lived in Baghdad and Iran until the 1950s, when they moved to Israel.

if you are really interested in islamic terrorism and 9/11, i highly suggest reaidng a book called The Looming Tower. Its the only book ive read that actually does a good job of trying to find the real sources of terrorlst activity in the middle east.

[audtatious]

Jews seem to get persecuted wherever they go. It's no wonder they are so protective of what they have now. The soluton is what tho? While small I don't beleive they would sit idly by while being forced to break up their current infrastructure. If others would leave them alone and let things mellow out then things would be much better for the region as a whole. BUT, I don't see the surrounding countries doing that,

[heliochrome85]

i agree. the solution isnt to break them up. but the reality is that a 2 state solution HAS to happen. the palestinians living within Israel right now are being allowed to fester, like gaza. the israelis then point to the palestinians and say, well look at them, are they fit for self-governing. the issue is, living within israel, they have no chance of making money or controlling their lives. imagine being under house arrest for your life, while everyone around you lives a normal life. you'd go crazy. If a 2 state solution is reached, 99% of the arab world would be in support of such a solution. it would be a place where the palestinians can return to, and thereby leave the country they currently live in. it would quiet the terrorists since some semblance of a compromise would be reached. and it would practically guarantee israel's security. the problem up until this point is that israels actions have basically amounted to a quiet land grab. they have built this gigantic fence to prevent terrorists from entering the country. while it has worked to a certain degree, the issue is that it extends beyond israel's legal borders as established by the 1967 treaty lines. Settlements are springing up, at the behest of the government, into areas beyond israels borders, and israel is quietly annexing that land. If you look at a map of israeli settlements now and one of 10 years ago, you can clearly see what im talking about. the arabs are a proud people, but they are not a stupid people. people like ahmadinijad say those things because its what the party dictates. in reality, no one one the ground believes it at all. its groups like AIPAC and the GOP that play up the commentary, ala Rev. Wright and drum the drum of war. Its sad that we have no choice but to go with the flow...

[audtatious]

My question is: If the 2 state system is put in place, what happens if/when the new state decides it wants to become 1 state again (their state)? From the Israeli perspective, why would they not believe that would happen? History has shown that the surrounding countries and others will simply keep persecuting them forever.

[heliochrome85]

the difference is that prior, the jews didnt have weapons or the backing of the worlds most powerful nation. the Syrians/jordanians/lebanese/saudis/egyptians arent stupid. nor do they care. all they currently care is that the palestianians living within their borders have a place to go. they want to reduce the instability in their country. Its in israels best interests as well since palestianians out n umber jews by a large margin. thats why palestinians arent israeli citizens, which would give them the right to vote and therefor change the current government.

[audtatious]

Maybe true but the way to negotiation is not "give us what we want or we will keep sending kids over with explosives strapped on them or keep shooting rockets into the city".

[heliochrome85]

yeah, but it is if all other doors are closed.

[audtatious]

terrorlst bombings and lobbing missles at generic "innocent families" is never going to receive my OK regardless.

[HashiriyaS14]

Why are the Palestinians only focusing on Israel and not the other countries?

Because Jerusalem is in Israel, and they want Jerusalem.

Heliochrome is ON POINT in this thread, btw.

[rn79870]

yeah, but it is if all other doors are closed.

I don't think you really mean that. That ends up being the quickest way to get public opinion to turn against any cause. If they were smart, they would use the press to exploit their situation and their suffering. However, by fostering terrorism, they merely create a situation where violence begets violence. A never ending circle. They also run the risk of the American people turning their back on a sale of B52s to Israel.

Seriously, both sides need to see how they are moving further and further from any peaceful resolution. Unfortunately for Palestine, Israel has the technological sophistication to destroy an enemy many times over.

[heliochrome85]

they "want" jerusalem. they will settle for access to jerusalem. I cant say for certain, but given the current situation, and the fact that the old guard have exited stage left, they are willing to make a deal.

[heliochrome85]

i agree. just remember, its tough for us living here to understand their motives. situation is so dire there that if you take away a persons livlihood, chance for education, pride, you leave them with nothing. that is a bad mix. very. bad. mix.

see:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/....html

you want to bring change? allow the population to fend for them selves and give them a chance to improve. unfortunately, for the palestianians, you take away those chances and its a cycle of FAIL. due to both legitimate and illegitimate concerns by the israelis, its very difficult to break free of the cycle.

these kids are the future of the palestinian people. you want to promote pro-western thought, not give the opposition more fuel to fan their flames.

[heliochrome85]

I actually do. Ive been to refugee camps. they are bad. the situation for the palestinians are bad. The problem is that in the US, we dont see whats really going on there. I have Al-Jazeera (the terrorlst network supposedly) on my tv at home. I also get 12 other arabic channels. The things I see are 180 degrees from what one sees on any of our "News" channels, if you can call them that anymore, since they are chock full of Britney stories and who screwed who. Im sorry, but as a population on whole, the US is very very superficial. You want to know why the US is hated, see what it has done abroad and dont get spoon fed by CNN or Fox News.

The state of affairs is so bad in the region that its difficult to get any accurate descriptions of what is really going on. Inside israel, press have difficultly gaining access to palestinian areas, due to visa and pass restrictions. The fact of the matter is that the conflict isnt sexy. the only way the palestinians will get any press is if Rev. Wright travelled there, burned an american flag, while saluting hitler. thats sad.

You want to see how much we care?

DarfurBurmaBosniaPalestine/IsraelNepalNorth Korea

where are those in the news? oh, no room since Brit Brit took a crap and therefore deserves front page coverage. Its disgusting.