Home Politics & Debate
At The Mix, we want to make our services as helpful as we can. To do this, we’d love to ask you a few questions about you, your visit to The Mix and its impact. It should take only about 5-10 minutes to complete. Take this survey and get a chance at winning a £200 Amazon voucher​.
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Sign up here

We should attack Iran - but we can't

1246

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    William Blum is a fruitcake however

    Typical and unsurprising (and equally intellectually evasive) retort by dis who runs for the smear as fast as he can to avoid confronting the horrible truth that those he so loves to parrot without question could possibly have more truly nefarious aims behind their glowing self promotional rhetoric.

    Don't bother thinking too hard dis, we understand you prefer the big lie.
    we can make is that the effects, so devastating, so catastrophic were probably part of what prevented the use of such instruments of destruction again.

    Again, don't dare simply decry their use (especially in the face of details provided to debunk your previous false historical assertions) as wantonly evil, not so long as it is your delusionally internalised notion of "our side" that committed the act. Of course if it had been any nation proclaimed by our own leaders as "the evildoers" you would be including them as the archetypal example of monstrousity incarnate against the poor Japanese (or whomever happened to be the target of such an act).

    Truth is, this act made all the more likely that with sufficient passage of time and sufficient longterm decontextualisation and misinformation, the conditions would be ripe for a new generation of willingness to apply such weaponry, such as we see steadily and incrementally reemerging today - with mounting advocacy of the deployment of new nuclear armament technology by the progeny of those who were the only ones to ever employ it in the past. However flagrantly in violation of the very NPT they use to villify their desired targets their owm actions happen to be.

    Young morally duplicitous minds such as yours refuse to admit that the real monsters are those right at home in OUR seats of power, not the tinpot gadflies they so emotively rant against to divert public scrutiny away from themselves.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    subject13 wrote:
    To say them wanting Nukes is purely to defend themselves is naive beyond belief.

    No it's not.

    North Korea have nukes, do they use them? No.
    India and Pakistan both have nukes, and they haven't used them either.

    Nuclear armaments are an insurance policy, they buttress your political power and make you untouchable. Israel has nukes to stop Iran and Syria invading it again. Iran has nukes to stop the US invading it. That's what they are there for.
    MAD does not work when one side is led by religious fanatics whether it be Christian nuts like Bush or Islamic Nuts like those ruling Iran.

    Do you not get it though?

    Iran isn't ruled by "religious fanatics", its used by common-or-garden tyrannical nutters who are using religion as the basis for their power. The same reason why Bush won't use nukes is the same reason why Iran won't- how can you rule when you, and all your people, are dead?

    Don't believe the hype. The leaders of Iran are deeply odious individuals, but don't for one second believe the bollocks spouted about them. Sure, they'll get other people to blow other people up, but its never themselves is it?
    Everyone seems to want to say Israel will be invading? Does anyone serious think Israel is going to send troops to Iran? They are not, they are going to stay home and kill Palestinians.

    A US-led invasion of Iran continues to be a real possibility, and don't try and claim it doesn't.

    And as the US is in the pocket of Israel, and continues to be so (note how many US sanctions there's been on the biggest defier of the UN), Israeli interests will undoubtedly be involved.

    The US has made it clear how much it values Iranian lives during the Iran-War when the delightful US administration gave Saddam gas, and satellite maps showing where and when to drop the gas to kill as many Iranians and Kurds as possible. Do you think anything has changed?
    I am not excusing what the Allies did to the Japanese, i am saying that is war! That is what happens in War, you kill the enemy and in a situation where the enemy has stopped obeyng the rules of war and killed civilians, they have changed the war to that level

    Some things are excusable in war, and some things are not.

    The merits and disadvantages of usuing nuclear weapons in Japan are very complex, but the simple fact of the matter is that the USA dropped two nuclear devices on Japan knowing full well what it would happen. And the Japanese are still living with the genetic side-effects of what happened, and probably always will be.

    As for Dresden, there was no need to raze the city in the way that it was razed. It was an act of revenge, nothing more and nothing less. And I'm sick of the bullshit spouted about how the Allies were justified in killing hundreds of thousands people simply because it saved some hypothetical Allied lives.

    And cut the childish bollocks about how I'm "naive" and "clueless" about WWII. I've studied it to a high standard, and I've watched the excellent World at War series by the BBC. And I've decided that the Allies did some disgraceful acts which are conveniently washed over because it was only Krauts and Japs that died.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Kermit wrote:
    the excellent World at War series by the BBC.

    :eek: Kermit likes BBC shocker. ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    As for Dresden, there was no need to raze the city in the way that it was razed. It was an act of revenge, nothing more and nothing less. And I'm sick of the bullshit spouted about how the Allies were justified in killing hundreds of thousands people simply because it saved some hypothetical Allied lives.

    And cut the childish bollocks about how I'm "naive" and "clueless" about WWII. I've studied it to a high standard, and I've watched the excellent World at War series by the BBC. And I've decided that the Allies did some disgraceful acts which are conveniently washed over because it was only Krauts and Japs that died.

    Whilst i'd agree that the allies did some pretty brutal things, I'm pretty sure that Dresden was justified.

    You cannot see Dresden on its own without the context that it took place in, ie it was part of a campaign of bombing raids and whilst the Germans might have been about to surrender they were still fighting back hard.

    Taking the second point first, Dresden took place on 13th February 1945. The Remagen Bridge wasn't taken until 8th March (and even that went nowhere). Operation varsity, the main Rhine Crossing, wasn't until 23rd March. On the other side, the Russians had only just (days before) crossed the German border.

    Whilst most people thought the war might be over in 1945, May was being regarded as optimistic.

    And there was plenty of killing still to go - against the 30,000 in Dresden*, approximately 1m Jews died in 1945 (probably about half of them after Dresden). 2300 RAF bomber command aircrew were still to die. In the Battle of Berlin alone (started April 16th - 2 months after Dresden) the Germans lost at least 150,000 military casualties and probably around the same number civilian. The Soviets suffered 100,000 dead (and that's probably an underestimate). Its been suggested that in 1945 the Germans lost 800,000 killed, the Soviets over 1.5m .

    and that's before we even include those in Holland dead of malnutrition, continued British and American losses etc, etc. These are not hypothetical deaths - they're real and the aim of bombing was to shorten the war and save real lives.

    Which brings me onto my second point. Dresden was planned and executed in no different a way from hundreds of other raids which the RAF and USAAF had being doing (the British since 1940, the USAAF from 1942). In 1944 the bulk of British bomber crews were in the Lancaster, they did two tours of thirty flights (with a gap in a training unit or staff role in-between). Casualties during 1943 and much of 1944 were around 5% of bombers dispatched, ie the average crew couldn't expect to survive one tour, never mind two. And I mean survive literally - out of the Lancaster crew of seven, there was an average of one survivor**.

    What was the point of the bombing campaign?
    When it began in earnest neither the US nor the USSR was in the war and it was the one way the British could show they were still fighting. Once the USSR joined it was the only pratical way the British could support her and once the US joined it (and Italy) was a way to stop an early second front (which the majority, albeit not all, now accept would have been a disaster and meant either a later negotiated peace with Germany or Soviet domination - under Stalin, rather than one of the later 'nicer' Soviet leaders.

    It was also an attempt to win the war by bombing alone. It failed in that, but if it had suceeded in 1943/44 Europe would have been spared the pleasures of the Cold War and against 600,000 Germans killed in bombing, approximately 300,000 Germans civilians killed (and often raped) by the Red Army in 1945 would have been spared - to say nothing of at least 60,000 Sudenten Germans who were murdered post-war by Stalin and about 3-4 million inmates of the concentration camps are likely to still be alive. And again we haven't even looked at the other civilian and military casualties.

    So what did bombing achieve? Actually a fuck of a lot. Whilst it may have failed to bring down Germany on its own it was a significant contributor to it. 75% of all German anti-aircraft guns were protecting their cities against bombers rather than their front line forces against Thunderbolts. And many of these AA guns were the ubiquitous 88mm (in October 1941 alone these destroyed close to 2000 tanks and over 5000 other vehicles). Even Speer, never one to overestimate bombing says 'if we had had these at the Russian Front ... then the losses of the Russians in their tank attacks would have been disastrous for them'.

    By 1944 it is estimated 30% of German heavy guns, 33% of the optical industry and 50% of the eletrotechical industry was devoted to defence against bombing. In 1943 Hamburg alone was supplied with 305 new fire engines, resources which would have been better put into tanks.

    I could go on, but hopefully you get my drift. If Germany hadn't been bombed it would have been stronger on the battlefield and by having survived longer, there is no doubt the suffering of millions, soldiers and civilians, would have been prolonged - fatally for many.

    Up until 1945 Dresden had been 'lucky', in having been missed. No particular conspiracy, it had been targetted several times, but either these attacks had been called off or they been unsuccesful and not done much damage.

    Actually in reality that wasn't so lucky. Most other major German cities had been so badly bombed fire breaks of ruined buildings had been created. Not so in Dresden

    In 1945 the allies had perfected mass bombing. In 1941 only one third of British bombs were falling within five miles of the target. In 1945 the average error was several hundred yards. Dresden was also unlucky that the majority of the bombs fell in its historical centre - with plenty of wooden (or partially wooden) buildings. They were unlucky that there emergency services didn't have the brutal experience of Berlin or Hamburg or the Ruhr and what would have been disastrous in other cities was catalysmic in Dresden. Finally the anti-aircraft defending the city had recently been moved to the Ruhr allowing the bombers a relatively safe ride in, increasing their accuracy (though of course the recent deployment of AA guns was unknown to the RAF and USAAF - OKW not being in the habit of letting the allies know the positioning of their AA).

    Dresden was a sad case of everything going right. In the last three or so years of mass-bombing the allies had only had the luck once to do something comparable to a major city, with Hamburg in July 1943***. In the sense of Dresden being a target in 1945 there was nothing special, no fiendish grand plot or secret weapon. It was a normal target, which was unlucky.


    *I'm afraid I don't go with David Irving's 300,000 figure, if you want the reasoning I can go into that on a seperate post.

    ** Though one survivor was rare - the majority went down with all crew, those who survived tended to be in aircraft where several or all of the crew survived.

    *** Though they'd managed to do it succesfully with some minor German cities eg Darmstadt or Lubeck
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    :eek: Kermit likes BBC shocker. ;)

    Strictly speaking it was ITV (Thames) who showed it. BBC later bought and repeated it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    Strictly speaking it was ITV (Thames) who showed it. BBC later bought and repeated it.

    *phew*;)

    Of course I do think Dresden had a lot of justification in it, but I was more attacking subject13's rather simplistic "allies good japs bad" argument.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hope you enjoyed it - its nice to write a brief history essay now and then, and not have to get marked on it. ( albeit with in a style I think my old lecturers would have had a heart attack if they saw)
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Kermit wrote:
    *phew*;)

    Of course I do think Dresden had a lot of justification in it, but I was more attacking subject13's rather simplistic "allies good japs bad" argument.

    Damn. I thought you might have approved of something the Beed did then!

    I hate how we don't study the War anymore at college. Bastards! It is down to me to find out anything that happened after '39.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well i have studied the History of World War one and two at a high level and not had to resort to tv shows to gain the bulk of my knowledge though i have seen those shows.


    You keep ignoring everything i say in my posts so you can argue your own argument Kermit, ignoring what is said so you can say the same thing over and over. I said Israel would not go and invade Iran, but you starting talking about an American led invasion which i never said anything about. You conveniently said Israeli interests and since everyone knows how much in the pocket of the US, Israeli is, it is obvious that Israel will have an interest in American activities towards Iran. Stop blatenly claiming i have been saying things i have not been saying.

    I did not start this "naive" or "clueless" crap, that was you when you came out and said my opinion on World War two was "Stupid", that is your exact wording if you go back and check, so if your goin to get into calling some one childish, do it while looking in a mirror.

    Yet again, you have chosen to make up blatent lies about what i said, even though my posts are there for all to read! I never said anything about "Allies good, Japs bad", since when have i even used the word "Jap" at all? The Allies left their own men behind to die if they got wounded instead of helping them, abandoning them with no food or water or supplies in some cases. The Allies bombed towns, villages, and killed hundreds of civilians, these are not in any dispute in the war with Japan. I said the Allies did what they had to do to win the war as quickly as possible and do what was best FOR THEMSELVES! I never said anything about ethics or morals, so stop this bullshit like im justifying things, when im merely stating facts of history.

    Finally, i think NQA has proven my point on Dresden and Area bombing with me having to say a word.

    Next time you post Kermit, READ the fucking post your replying to, instead of saying what you want to say with quotes that have nothing to do with the points your making.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    subject13 wrote:
    Well i have studied the History of World War one and two at a high level and not had to resort to tv shows to gain the bulk of my knowledge

    Perhaps you should, documentaries are a good way of learning.
    You keep ignoring everything i say in my posts so you can argue your own argument Kermit

    Whatever.

    I have listened to what NQA said, and it is very cogent and I accept much of it, but I don't accept that the destruction of Dresden was entirely justified. But that is largely irrelevant to my main point- that the only country to have ever used nukes on innocent people is the United States.

    The use of nuclear weapons is never justified, and the US did it twice without a second thought.

    The US and Israeli interests have been colluding and will be quite happy to invade Iran. I don't happen to think the Israelis will put their name to it officially- they never do- but it is simplistic and dumb to say that they won't sanction it.

    WWII is not the point, which is why I'm not getting bogged down in irrelevance.

    The point is that if Iran have nukes they are safe from US invasion, for the same reason North Korea is. I don't think the US would use nukes and I don't think Iran would use nukes, but the fact that the US no longer have better weapons means they cannot invade. That is what MAD is all about.

    I don't think the Iranian leaders are on an armageddon crusade because they can't be tyrannical dictators in a grave. Simple.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Kermit wrote:
    The point is that if Iran have nukes they are safe from US invasion, for the same reason North Korea is. I don't think the US would use nukes and I don't think Iran would use nukes, but the fact that the US no longer have better weapons means they cannot invade. That is what MAD is all about.

    I don't think the Iranian leaders are on an armageddon crusade because they can't be tyrannical dictators in a grave. Simple.

    Quite to the point, and true.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    "Whatever" "Dumb" "Simplistic"

    All your words, all so profound! (Sarcasm by the way)

    You dont want to get bogged down in World War two history, once your shown to be wrong.

    Your original post? Is this the one where you just came at me saying i was "Stupid" or one you made before that before you came at me saying that?


    Yet again, what does any of this have to do with any i have said? I never said using Nukes was justifiable, did i? Yet, you seem to think i did for some bizarre reason. i said the US did what was best FOR THEM. Not for the world or for Japan or for the Allies or for anyone else but themselves and only themselves. Again, not moral, not ethical, just a fact in history.

    Whether or not Iran's true leaders are fanatics is all a matter for debate. You and Alladin say not. Me and MR say so. It is just a difference of opinions, nothing to go mental about arguing. So let us not from now on.

    Out of curiosity, as i cannot recall myself, was North Korea a target for invasion at any time by the USA prior to developing a Nucelar Weapons programme?


    Side note to Clandestine, the manipulation of big business and corporate interest in governments, nations and the world goes back further then the end of World War two, as the British East Company, i believe was the first true super-conglomerate that basically ran the nation of India for a century. Not something to debate, just an interesting thing i have been reading up on lately.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    subject13 wrote:
    Out of curiosity, as i cannot recall myself, was North Korea a target for invasion at any time by the USA prior to developing a Nucelar Weapons programme?

    Yes, it was quite high on the Axis of Evil list and they were threatening it quite alot.

    Then, lo! It gains Nukes and is left well alone. SUPPRISE!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    Yes, it was quite high on the Axis of Evil list and they were threatening it quite alot.

    Then, lo! It gains Nukes and is left well alone. SUPPRISE!

    The US was never going to touch North Korea anyway. And invading Iran was never seriously considered – invading Iran is only being discussed because the Iranians want to develop nuclear weapons. Anybody who thinks the US would have just suddenly invaded Iran with its resources committed in Afghanistan and Iraq with no Iranian nuclear weapon desires is seriously deluded. And even with Iran seeking to develop nukes the US is hardly in a strong position to invade, it’s hands are tied through other commitments.

    As for NK there’s no way the US would have went to war with NK, nuclear weapons programme or no nuclear weapons programme. A war on the Korean Peninsula would destroy Seoul and put thousands of US troops there at grave risk, as well as possibly endanger Japan. Then there’s China whose objections wouldn’t be ignored. NK meanwhile isn’t a great threat; it hasn’t launched an invasion for over five decades and it has not went around threatening to wipe its enemies off the map.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Side note to Clandestine, the manipulation of big business and corporate interest in governments, nations and the world goes back further then the end of World War two, as the British East Company, i believe was the first true super-conglomerate that basically ran the nation of India for a century. Not something to debate, just an interesting thing i have been reading up on lately.

    Nowhere did I make any suggestion to the contrary, insoafr as that was not the point of my reference, subject.

    My reference to the establishment of "paradigms of empire" (and the false histories crafted to extend and entrench the grasp of those who assume the helm) pertained purely to the modern context of the nuclear age and the emergence of the US from pre WWII political isolationism to the forefront of MIC global expansionistic policies and with them the aspirations of global empire.

    Read my comments in that light from then until now to correct your misunderstanding of my argument.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    We can only speculate either way, but had the Iraq war turned out to be the walkover the chimp had expected, methinks the US would have already invaded somebody else- most probably Iran.

    And NK had always presented a far more serious military threat than piss-poor Iraq anyway. If they had not been suspected of having nukes, and if their military would have been any weaker they would have been "liberated" already.

    That's exactly the lesson Iran- and probably a number of other nations that are not in the White House's good books- have learnt. Get yourself nukes, or at the very least the strongest conventional army you can muster, or be prepared to be bombed to fuck by the government of G. W. Bush.

    It's no wonder Venezuela is said to be in negotiations to acquire state-of-the-art SU-35 Russian fighters. All across the world, countries are upgrading their military inventory with anything they can lay their hands on to see off the American Threat.

    The government of G. W. Bush is mostly to blame for the new arms race we're witnessing across the planet.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And the MIC is laughing all the way to the bank for the winfall accruing to them as they sell (in routine fashion) to anyone and everyone who bellies up to the bar with cash, however politically undesirable they may be. All the more fuel to hand to later administration for the next decades contrived arguments about the impending threats and the need for immediate intervention by force. So the wheel goes round as it has been for my lifetime and well before.

    That the public keeps buying into it every 10-20 years is the most serious indictment to the short term "momentary fad" attention spans that plague our western populace. Same repeated rhetoric, same lies, same false decontextualise and sanitised histories, different year.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So crazy old Ahmadinejad wants to sell nuclear technologies to his dodgy neighbours. It's as if he's looking for a fight, goading anyone who'll listen.

    Iran wants to sell nuclear technology

    Turns out he's also a believer in Eschatology, or the end of the world, and that by creating conflict with the West he is preparing for the Mahdi.


    So he's completely nuts basically.

    http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3258

    His description of an address he gave at the UN in New York:

    "one of our group told me that when I started to say "In the name of God the almighty and merciful," he saw a light around me, and I was placed inside this aura. I felt it myself. I felt the atmosphere suddenly change, and for those 27 or 28 minutes, the leaders of the world did not blink. … And they were rapt. It seemed as if a hand was holding them there and had opened their eyes to receive the message from the Islamic republic."


    Religious people eh?
    You want this guy to be in control of a country with nuclear weapons? He believes in a fiery end to the world after a showdown with the infidel (the West). Great!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Apparently you adhere to the same level of critical analysis of your sources as does dis.

    Let's recap:

    An unauthored, unverifiable AP wire story which has all the hallmarks of a planted piece characteristic of the false news-generation for which Doug Feith set up the OSP (Office of Special Plans) in the Pentagon to undertake the lion's share of the effort in manufacturing public opinion in favour of the Iraq invasion.

    followed by...

    The typical ranting of Daniel Pipes, one of the foremost rabid right wing Zionist mouthpieces for Israel's policy prerogatives as well as founder of the McCarthyistic anti-democratic smear machine, Campus Watch.

    Not to mention of course his own rabid advocacy of total Israeli military victory against Palestinians as the only road to peace in the region. Sure, Dan, kill them all and sort it out later. Neo-nazi anyone?

    That's some display of rational assessment indeed! :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Daniel Pipes is well established as an authoritative voice on the Middle East, he’s one of the leading experts on Islam and the Middle East and contrary to Clan’s bizarre ramblings Pipes is very highly regarded in academia. Daniel Pipes even has been praised by many Muslims in the US, despite his sharp criticism of Islamofascism/Islamism which has led to some apparently mainstream groups shunning him. (His father Richard Pipes taught at Harvard for many years and is an expert in Russian history...Richard Pipes stuff on Russia is excellent, far better than Orlando Figes - indeed the TLS and Pipes himself hinted at near plagiarism on Figes' part from Pipes' work).

    Pipes knows his stuff and it’s pretty telling that Clan simply attacks the character of Pipes and talks of some vague and bizarre Zionist conspiracy. It’s beyond Clan to even attempt to refute the article posted by Pipes. Clan will argue semantics all day, he’ll talk endlessly of Zionist propaganda and hazy conspiracies that have little basis in logic to reasonable people but make perfect sense to him and the fruitcakes he quotes. (Interestingly while Clan criticises groovechampion for quoting verifiable sources with known authors – Clan himself has before quoted amateur and anonymous home-made websites that are completely unverifiable).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm 99% sure that Iran has no intention of using nukes - its the 1% that worries me. If the way to reduce that 1% to zero bits of Iran get plastered with high explosive that seems to be a lesser price that bits of the Middle East being plastered with radiation.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    I'm 99% sure that Iran has no intention of using nukes - its the 1% that worries me. If the way to reduce that 1% to zero bits of Iran get plastered with high explosive that seems to be a lesser price that bits of the Middle East being plastered with radiation.
    Would that apply to other nuclear nations such as Israel, India, Pakistan or the USA, or are you actually 100% sure they have no intention of using nukes?

    My own current beliefs would be:

    Iran 99% certain they won't

    Israel 99% certain they won't

    India and Pakistan 90% they won't

    USA 60% certain they won't
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    On cue dis provides the all too expected evasive dodge and complete apologetic for a man (Pipes) whose ideological venom is indeed every bit as onerous (and widely recognised so by the bulk of scholars whom dis obviously ignores in favour of his pet few rabid apartheid apologists) as that of David Duke (whom dis also loves to use as some smear toward all those rightly critical of the US-Israeli policy collusion, like Mearsheimer, in one of his recent posts).

    Yes dis, tell us all about smear and then proceed true to form with cowardly evasions like "conspiracy" when the well known ideology of Zionism and the anti-democratic, McCarthyistic witchhunts of its proponents is raised to the fore of public discourse.

    A bigger bunch of flagrant lying lunatics one would be hard pressed to find.

    Go get a real education child and perhaps youll find your precious teenage delusions shattered by the cold reality of just how greatly the hatemongering propaganda of Pipes and those of his ideological ilk contributes to the perpetuation of the Middle East conflict as the decades roll by without any substantive progress toward lasting peace.

    Such gullibility and naivete is breathtaking to behold, truly.

    Excerpt:

    The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which calls Pipes "the nation's leading Islamaphobe," is promising an all out campaign to defeat his nomination, and at least one prominent senator has already expressed reservations. Setting the stage for a possible showdown later this year, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass, says he has "serious concerns" about Pipes, according to Jim Manley, Kennedy's spokesman at the Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee, which must approve the nomination. "It's just a question of whether the Republicans will want to engage in a public battle," Manley added.

    Pipes supporters, who represent both the core of the Republican base and the core of the pro-Israel lobby, are itching for such a fight. He has been endorsed by groups such as the Christian Coalition, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the American Jewish Congress, and the Zionist Organization of America. "The kinds of issues that Daniel has been talking about are the kinds of issues we could stand a debate about in the public at large," says Frank J. Gaffney Jr., the president of the Center For Security Policy, a conservative think tank.

    The issues Gaffney refers to extend far beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A prolific author and columnist with a doctorate from Harvard, Pipes opines exhaustively on just about every aspect of terrorism and the Muslim world. Pipes is also a founder of Campus Watch, a website that compiles public files on college professors who are critical of Israel or certain aspects of American Foreign policy. Several weeks ago he penned a column arguing that the Bush administration should install a "democratically-minded Iraqi strongman" in Iraq. In another column, he asserted that the U.S. had no "moral obligation" to rebuild countries like Iraq and Afghanistan after an invasion.

    A delightful expose of a rabid hatemonger and militaristic apartheid apologist


    Yes Dis andorses a man endorsed by nutcases like the Christian Coalition (a Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell creation) and the ZOA (but dis wants to believe that any mention of ZIonism must be "conspiracy"). What a wonderfully self deluded appraisal of supposed legitimacy by a student who assumes he has any clue whatsoever on the actual agendas driving globalist policy let alone the leading propagandists fueling it.
    Pipes knows his stuff

    Yes, Pipes knows precisely how to speak to the easily impressionable minds of those who buy into the false Zionist whitewashed and excusatory history of the terrorist origins of the modern state of Israel and the subsequent evolution of its two leading terrorist organisations - Haganah and Irgun - into both the Labour and Likud Parties, respectively, to maintain the status quo of ethnocide and apartheid under a duplicitous veneer of "democracy". Indeed he knows his stuff, if hate and bigotry and militaristic paranoia are what you seek.

    Keep grasping at straws, dis. You have a knack for drawing the short straw every time.

    Further expose on the ideological McCarthyistic extremist practices of Pipes and his anti-liberal democratic Campus Watch smear machine.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Would that apply to other nuclear nations such as Israel, India, Pakistan or the USA, or are you actually 100% sure they have no intention of using nukes?

    My own current beliefs would be:

    Iran 99% certain they won't

    Israel 99% certain they won't

    India and Pakistan 90% they won't

    USA 60% certain they won't

    Well if you can think of a good way to get rid of nukes from those countries without them deciding to let them off let me know. Personally I believe it would have been better if we'd stopped most of those countries acquirng nukes (and North Korea) - we haven't so we are where we are and I don't think the fact that others have them is a good reason to allow Iran to have them.

    I wish they hadn't been discovered, but you can't go back and turn the clocj back, so I think its best the UK has them.

    Yes it might be hypocrisy, but better hypocrisy than a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The fact is NQA, that "WE" are in neither the moral nor legal position to determine who can and cannot pursue a nuclear policy as part of THEIR sovereign national political agenda by any other means than force (economic or military) which in the end will prove us to be, once again, the ones most prone to transnational aggresivism and betrayal of all prior principles set forth in ratified treaties and conventions intended to end such colonialist era practices.

    Only by example, i.e. demonstrating by our own actions our allegiance to the principles our leaders piously spout regularly (democracy, rule of law, observation of our sworn obligations to the NPT for starters) could we legitimise the calls for global consensus (which currently recognises all too clearly the hypocrisy and grasping militant agenda being pursued by our leaders and their corporate cohorts) toward disarmament.

    Until that day those who defend the actions of our war criminal governments will continue to exacerbate the expansion of militant self interested prerogatives by nations who rightly perceive themselves threatened.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nowhere did I make any suggestion to the contrary, insoafr as that was not the point of my reference, subject.

    My reference to the establishment of "paradigms of empire" (and the false histories crafted to extend and entrench the grasp of those who assume the helm) pertained purely to the modern context of the nuclear age and the emergence of the US from pre WWII political isolationism to the forefront of MIC global expansionistic policies and with them the aspirations of global empire.

    Read my comments in that light from then until now to correct your misunderstanding of my argument.


    It didnt have anything to with your arguments, it was just a facinating thing i was reading up on lately and i thought i would mention it. I wasnt trying to start an argument or anything.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I personally am 100% certain Iran, Israel, china, Britain and probably north korea wont use nukes. USA, 99%, India and Pakistan, 95%, France, psh, who knows!

    If we are to say there is no one to judge what may or may not be undertaken by a soveriegn nation with in its own boarders, then maybe it would be best to allow every nation to do as they wish. Provided they do not interfere in other nations why should we get involved at all? If a ruler wants nukes and can develop them alone, let them. If a military engages in genocide of its own people, so long as they are its own people, who are we to stop them? We could forget about the UN and let it fullfill its natural course by going the same way as the League of Nations. Forget international law and what is and is not legitimate and allow nations to interact with one another as they wish in what ever terms they want.

    Maybe that is too narrow a view and too extreme, or not specific enough, but it is a possibility.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If the UN enforced its own inceptual principles and enforced compliance of them amongst all those who would claim membership, rather than serving as a thin smokescreen for the ongoing colonialist era agendas of its strongest corporatist member nations, then there would be no excuse left for those (like some here) who go to any length to excuse the repeated breaches of said principles by parroting the PR mantras of "democratisation", "Justice", "pre-emptive self defense" et al. Nations who refused to part with the will to power over others would simply be cast out or denied membership in the first place and shown clearly to be rogue nations by definition.

    In part, subject, I do concur with you insofar as I contend that interventionism is not conducted in reality for any magnanimous benefit of those invaded, but as ever, for the grasping financial and political power interests of a mere minority.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    I'm 99% sure that Iran has no intention of using nukes - its the 1% that worries me. If the way to reduce that 1% to zero bits of Iran get plastered with high explosive that seems to be a lesser price that bits of the Middle East being plastered with radiation.

    Exactly. They probably won't use them, as it would result in the deaths of millions of their own people and the destruction of their own country. That's how MAD works, but the problem here is that MAD doesn't apply anymore when the country's ruler is a religious nutter who doesn't care as much for real-world earthly things and is more interested in getting ready for the end of the world.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MAD is a crap plan, its based on the fact you've failed already if your opponents have nuclear weapons. Much better to make sure they don't get them in the first place, by negotiation and diplomacy preferably, by force if neccessary.

    Better to be alive and morally compromised, than pure and dead.
Sign In or Register to comment.