Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

One of my big concerns with Obama is in dealing with Iran. I'm afraid that he'll be too lenient with them. I'm 100% sure, if Iran gets their hands on nuclear technology, we're fucked. Ever heard of the Compton Effect?

Another person who would rather see the United States go to war rather than try diplomacy. Obama will not be lenient. He will be smart and do what is necissary: talk to them first. If that fails he will not hesitate to use force.

What is it with Americans? What is so wrong with diplomacy? How does it hurt you to see the United States engage in diplomacy with Iran?

Nebiros wrote:Another person who would rather see the United States go to war rather than try diplomacy. Obama will not be lenient. He will be smart and do what is necissary: talk to them first. If that fails he will not hesitate to use force.

What is it with Americans? What is so wrong with diplomacy? How does it hurt you to see the United States engage in diplomacy with Iran?

We can't even reason between democrats and republicans and you want us to reason with people who chant "death to America" in their mosques?

I'm Portuguese and i'm not saying, let's go to an all out war. I'm just fearing the possibility of Obama giving them too much rope.

Seraphan wrote:I'm Portuguese and i'm not saying, let's go to an all out war. I'm just fearing the possibility of Obama giving them too much rope.

Like I said, he can't even SAY, "war on terror".

Freakzilla wrote:

Seraphan wrote:I'm Portuguese and i'm not saying, let's go to an all out war. I'm just fearing the possibility of Obama giving them too much rope.

Like I said, he can't even SAY, "war on terror".

Doesn't mean he won't fight, just means he doesn't support the propaganda name for a war that had very little to do with terror after Afganistan. Just because he doesn't agree with the term (likely because he doesn't think it fits) doesn't mean he'll hesitate to fight someone. I actually expect Obama to get into some kind of armed conflict within his first year, and I would be very surprised if he didn't - he'll be out to proove very soon that he is not weak.

He doesn't say war on terror - because there simply is no war on terror at the moment.

I think we'll be attacked before he has a chance. He's already showing weakness which will encourage our enemies.

First of all, I am so happy to see him not using the term "war on terror" because to do so would dignify this retarded war, which as I said earlier was NOT motivated by the evil-doers who want to strike the US. Stop kidding yourselves. It's blind and stupid to continue thinking that the troops are over there solely to protect you from terrorists. Open your eyes to the big picture here.

By not using that term, Obama is setting a tone of honesty with the American people, and the world. Don't you want your president to be honest with you, rather than feed you lies on a need-to-know basis? Like Nebiros said, Bush would nitpick and truth-bend and downright make shit up, in order to suit his goals. Obama's goal is to end fighting in Iraq, because he recognizes that it was never neccessary in the first place. This isn't showing weakness, it's being moral. There's nothing wrong with admitting one's wrongdoing. In fact, I think it takes more balls to admit error, than it does to say "nope, we gotta fight the evildoers to the end" and to keep fighting and make a bigger mess. The latter option is stupid and childish, like a certain former president.

And again, I am simply not surprised, nor am I concerned about the Gitmo inmates whatever they choose to do with their time now that they're free. It's not like they've learned their lesson and will never oppose the US again. They'll continue their militancy, but that doesn't mean the US is in much danger. I elaborated on this a page or two ago.

Sandrider is bang-on here with the environment-of-fear thing. That's what this is all about, and for fuck's sake America needs to realize it. They were played for fools by war-mongering politicians who needed to help out their oil buddies. These politicians were so determined that they shaped the facts to fit their lies, and now everyone else has to clean up their mess. Sure, Osama is still out there and he could very well be responsible for 9/11, but like I said before, Bush feinted with Afghanistan, and his real target was toppling Saddam. He just needed a reason to get into the sandbox, so he used 9/11 to do it. He also used it to scare the rest of you into backing him up, and to this day you can't get the words "war on terror" out of your heads.

Freakzilla wrote:We can't even reason between democrats and republicans and you want us to reason with people who chant "death to America" in their mosques?

Please don't be so naive about Islam. There are radical factions out there, no doubt. Some states support terrorists only because our word for them HAPPENS TO BE "terrorists." Sure, they want to bomb US embassies and such, but their reasons are just as political as ours are for bombing their churches and schools. In fact, they probably have a word for our troops in their language that is of equally negative connotation as "terrorist." As we all know, many terrorists call themselves freedom fighters. I'm not saying that we're "just as bad" or that they're more righteous, I'm just saying that IT'S ALL RELATIVE. Each side is looking back to the ways the other side has wronged them in the past, and believe me it goes back-and-forth for a long time. That said, a VERY SMALL fraction of Islamist are radicals and chant "death to america" in mosques. Do some research, or try talking to actual Islamists and you'll find out that Islam is against such violence. The radicals simply take bits of it out of context, and mosque-going Islamists will tell you this. It saddens them to see suicide-bombings and other atrocities that Jihadists commit. I've known a lot of Arabs, and I always learn a lot from them.

And Seraphan mentioned Rumsfeld's relationship with Iraq back before the Gulf War. This reminds me of when the US backed Afghanistan by giving them the ability to effectively fight the Soviets back in '80. Sure, it seemed like a great idea to fight a covert war and defeat the Soviets because it suited their interests back then. Problem is, right as the Soviets were retreating, the Taliban moved in and acquired all this great technology that the US had supplied. Last night, I watched Charlie Wilson's War which was about that situation. There's a great bit at the end of the movie where Philip Seymour Hoffman's character tries to warn Tom Hanks about the possible negative ramifications this victory might bring. He tells him the story of the Zen master and the little boy, which goes something like this:

In a small village, a little boy received a horse on his birthday. The whole village said "oh, isn't that wonderful?" The Zen master said "We'll see." Later that year, the boy fell off that horse and broke his leg, crippling him. The villagers said "Isn't that terrible?" The Zen master replied "We'll see." Many years later, when that boy was a young man, there came a great war, and all the other young men had to go fight, while the crippled boy could not, and of course the village said "Isn't that wonderful?" You can guess what the Zen master said.

Tom Hanks' character doesn't quite grasp what Hoffman's character is saying, and tries to shrug it off, but Hoffman grabs the celebratory drink out of Hanks' hand and throws the liquid to the ground, saying "LISTEN to what I'm saying." He doesn't say anything more, but it is implied for the audience that he's saying that this could be very negative for the US one day. It's a very powerful moment and a great movie too.

I think this could be compared to how the US keeps prolonging the Iraq occupation. They are really pissing people off down there, and are probably cooking up thousands of future extremists who have very good reason to hate the States. Where's the foresight?

At least Obama has the decency to end an unjust war. It's not out of weakness, it's just the right thing to do.

Freakzilla wrote:

Seraphan wrote:I'm Portuguese and i'm not saying, let's go to an all out war. I'm just fearing the possibility of Obama giving them too much rope.

Like I said, he can't even SAY, "war on terror".

there is no "war" on terror.

11 Sept 01 was not an "act of war".

It was a crime, and should have been treated as such.

meh.

"You cannot win a war on terror. It’s like having a war on jealousy."

- David Cross

Drunken Idaho wrote:Sure, they want to bomb US embassies and such, but their reasons are just as political as ours are for bombing their churches and schools.

Because we use them as weapons caches and human shields?

Actually I was talking about actual churches and schools. The stuff you see Iraqi mothers crying about on Al Jezeera. They're not crying about human shields, they're crying about the collateral damage when the US military receives mistaken info about neighbouring buildings. What I was getting at was that with all the Iraqi civilian casualties since 2003 (more than 90,000* which is about 30 September 11's) it's no wonder why there is so much hate towards Americans. I think it's important to recognize this hate, and politely back down. Especially considering the unjust and immoral cause of the war.

*it's somewhere between 90k and 98k, but that includes all violence since 2003, not just that caused by the troops, although they do take up a large majority of it as bombs are quite efficient.

Nebiros wrote:Another person who would rather see the United States go to war rather than try diplomacy. Obama will not be lenient. He will be smart and do what is necissary: talk to them first. If that fails he will not hesitate to use force.

What is it with Americans? What is so wrong with diplomacy? How does it hurt you to see the United States engage in diplomacy with Iran?

What form of diplomacy hasn't been tried with Iran that should be? Why don't you answer that question. Sanctions haven't worked. Iran has told the world where to shove their carrots. They don't care about our sanctions and they care less about our incentives. They are not interested. They are not going to give up their program for anything. They have said as much at every turn.

Who wants to have to use the military option? Nobody in their right mind. But it must be an option, and if the other options do not work then what?

By taking the military option off the table you are saying that we can live with a nuclear Iran, which a number of countries in the world can not do. In such a case we are forced to either accept that the Iranian leadership is being truthful when it says their program is peaceful, or are forced to live with the fact that Iran has/will have the ability to strike any of their Arab neighbors, the Israelis, and most if not all the European nations with nuclear weapons.

It's a bit amusing that we likely would have helped Iran develop a peaceful nuclear energy program decades ago had the Ayatollah and his buddies not done what they did. I understand that nuclear energy is a source of pride among average Persians, but their leadership does not have the stability to be allowed to become a nuclear power.

Drunken Idaho wrote:Actually I was talking about actual churches and schools. The stuff you see Iraqi mothers crying about on Al Jezeera. They're not crying about human shields, they're crying about the collateral damage when the US military receives mistaken info about neighbouring buildings. What I was getting at was that with all the Iraqi civilian casualties since 2003 (more than 90,000* which is about 30 September 11's) it's no wonder why there is so much hate towards Americans. I think it's important to recognize this hate, and politely back down. Especially considering the unjust and immoral cause of the war.

*it's somewhere between 90k and 98k, but that includes all violence since 2003, not just that caused by the troops, although they do take up a large majority of it as bombs are quite efficient.

I guess they'd rather be alive than free. Poor, dumb bastards.

Those numbers seem extremely high. I wonder if it includes Iraqi police deaths and deaths caused by suicide bombers?

Freakzilla wrote:

Drunken Idaho wrote:Actually I was talking about actual churches and schools. The stuff you see Iraqi mothers crying about on Al Jezeera. They're not crying about human shields, they're crying about the collateral damage when the US military receives mistaken info about neighbouring buildings. What I was getting at was that with all the Iraqi civilian casualties since 2003 (more than 90,000* which is about 30 September 11's) it's no wonder why there is so much hate towards Americans. I think it's important to recognize this hate, and politely back down. Especially considering the unjust and immoral cause of the war.

*it's somewhere between 90k and 98k, but that includes all violence since 2003, not just that caused by the troops, although they do take up a large majority of it as bombs are quite efficient.

I guess they'd rather be alive than free. Poor, dumb bastards.

Those numbers seem extremely high. I wonder if it includes Iraqi police deaths and deaths caused by suicide bombers?

It does include suicide bombers. The numbers come from http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and they include civilian deaths from all forms of violence since '03. There's a charming quote at the top of the page from General Tommy Franks:

"We don't do body counts."

And yes, the numbers are extremely high. It makes 9/11 look like a mere bitchslap. I tried to find data on how many civilian deaths were by US forces specifically, but was unsuccessful (suspicious! ). The closest thing I found was a 2005 figure of about 30,000.

Not to be a pro war guy that you think i might be Druncan Idaho but i'll tell you two ugly war stories that where witnessed by a late uncle of mine that fought in the colonial wars in Africa.

One time his batallion or whatever you want to call it (dont know exactly when it's called batallion and when it's called squad) was moving to a specific location. A guy shows up riding his bicycle and passes by them. A few soldiers started pointing their guns at him but their officer said "stand down, he's only a civilian". Soon afterwards, they were sudenly under heavy enemy fire and my uncle saw the guy's bicycle laid down on the side of the road.

Another story, a friend of my uncle's, who used to be called "Maria" by his buddies, was a kind soul. He gave part of his rations to civilian kids and everything. One day, they're on patrol and there's a kid drowning on a, not sure if it was a small river or whatever but bottom line, the kid was drowning and that guy, Maria, jumps in to save the kid. The moment he's in the water, bullets start raining down on him. Luckily he was only injured, but his mind kinda snaped.
Shortly after he was sent home, not because of the injuries but because at night, he started sneaking into the armory, took as many grenades as possible, went to the nearest village and started throwing grenades into the huts. Man, women, children, it was all the same to him.

When you say "No wonder they hate Americans", bear in mind that civilians are as much victims as some of the soldiers that are sent there. If military action is taken against Iran, it will not be to fight their people, it will be to fight their government, and their government uses his own population as human shields and weapons, like any country. Soldiers are sent to war by their governments, soldiers are not the governments themselves.

The Iraq war was one of the largest fuckups i've ever seen. Convenient excuses to invade a country that's as dangerous as my pubic hairs, for whatever goddam reason, with no solid ocupation plan, and opening way to an all out civil war between sunis and shiites will have repurcutions for years to come. I agree with you 100% on that.
But like i said, if Iran gets their hands on nuclear weaponry, we're all fucked. Israel has already bombed their previous facility and the Iranian government just keeps persisting, persisting, and persisting.
They will stop at nothing to become the dominant superpower in the midle east. And like Purge said, their leadership isnt stable.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela's government can be argued or reasoned with. They are seeking power and are too unstanble to maintain it without causing global harm.

No great harm comes from diplomacy, it should be pursued by all means. If it fails "Hey we tried but they told us to fuck off".
I'm just saying that in the case of Iran, you can go talk to them, but take my advice and tell the military to stand by.

What form of Diplomacy you ask? You say that they cannot be reasoned with. Diplomacy worked with Lybia and North Korea. The least diplomacy can do is postpone war for just a few more days. Maybe even just one. But that is one more day of peace for the men, women and children who will die to enjoy.

I never said to take military action off the table by the way.

Here is the kind of diplomacy I'm talking about: Obama sits down and has coffee with Ahmadinejad and tells him exactly what is at stake (It looks like he will send Hillary instead but close enough). THIS kind of diplomacy has not been tried yet. Try it. It won't hurt. well maybe the feelings of a few bitter Israelis and neo conservatives but who cares?

Do Not just threaten him with sanctions and spout blunt demands. But tell him that if he really cares for his people he will not make nuclear weapons because it will lead his nation to inevitable destruction. Tell him the economic advantages to cooperating with the international community. And finally tell him that if his uranium enrichment program is REALLY for peaceful civilian purposes, let the UN weapons inspectors in and DON'T kick em out before they finish their job.

Now if he does not let the inspectors in or listen to reason coming DIRECTLY from the mouth of the President of the United States, then and only then use military force.

Have I made my point clear?

not really,no.

first off, this type of negotiation is the duty of the SecState,
not the President. If the SecState can make serious inroads,
then a summit attended by the President might be appropriate.

And Ahmad is a puppet, a mouthpiece for the Ayatollahs.
He has no negotiating power and is himself irrelevant in the equation.
Serious discussion can only be had with the Ayatollahs, and they
have no reason whatsoever to talk with any Western nation. They
have all the good cards.

I hate to beat a dead horse, but the root of the problem is still the
1953 CIA coup that re-installed the Shah. Our government could
go along way down the "goodwill" path by admitting what everyone already
knows and apologizing for it.

But reality is this : Iran feels it has the right and destiny to be the
major power in the Middle East. The US government either accepts
this, and tries to make some peace with them, while protecting some
form of right-to-existance for Israel (or not, I've had with them, anyway)

or

Big-ass War. Most likely nuclear in some form. Hundreds of thousands
dead. Could kick off WWIII.

Given the tough choices, Americans always choose costly foreign wars,
and have since 1898.

one for you, Freak :

http://alqaedanews.blogspot.com/

Hey, Nebby! You really should join up over at FED2K!

They enjoy talking about political shit more than about Dune, too!

Drunken Idaho wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:

Drunken Idaho wrote:Actually I was talking about actual churches and schools. The stuff you see Iraqi mothers crying about on Al Jezeera. They're not crying about human shields, they're crying about the collateral damage when the US military receives mistaken info about neighbouring buildings. What I was getting at was that with all the Iraqi civilian casualties since 2003 (more than 90,000* which is about 30 September 11's) it's no wonder why there is so much hate towards Americans. I think it's important to recognize this hate, and politely back down. Especially considering the unjust and immoral cause of the war.

*it's somewhere between 90k and 98k, but that includes all violence since 2003, not just that caused by the troops, although they do take up a large majority of it as bombs are quite efficient.

I guess they'd rather be alive than free. Poor, dumb bastards.

Those numbers seem extremely high. I wonder if it includes Iraqi police deaths and deaths caused by suicide bombers?

It does include suicide bombers. The numbers come from http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and they include civilian deaths from all forms of violence since '03. There's a charming quote at the top of the page from General Tommy Franks:

"We don't do body counts."

And yes, the numbers are extremely high. It makes 9/11 look like a mere bitchslap. I tried to find data on how many civilian deaths were by US forces specifically, but was unsuccessful (suspicious! ). The closest thing I found was a 2005 figure of about 30,000.

The U.S. Military doesn't do "civilian" body counts. They do count combat kills. I have a pad of "casualty feeder reports".

I should scan one of those...

What form of Diplomacy you ask? You say that they cannot be reasoned with. Diplomacy worked with Lybia and North Korea. The least diplomacy can do is postpone war for just a few more days. Maybe even just one. But that is one more day of peace for the men, women and children who will die to enjoy.

I don't think Libya can be compared to Iran. Libya actually responded to sanctions and negotiations. Iran has blown them off at every turn. And as for North Korea, what progress exactly are you speaking of? They are still hostile to South Korea, and they are no less nuclear than they were before diplomacy to disarm them began.

I never said to take military action off the table by the way.

I wasn't necessarily directing that at you.

Here is the kind of diplomacy I'm talking about: Obama sits down and has coffee with Ahmadinejad and tells him exactly what is at stake (It looks like he will send Hillary instead but close enough). THIS kind of diplomacy has not been tried yet. Try it. It won't hurt.

Have you read anything coming from the President, FM, etc. of Iran regarding Obama's desire to discuss things? I don't know how many languages they have to say "we will not abandon our program" in before people will believe it.

But hey, let's assume that they actually do get together and talk. And Iran continues to say what they've said all along, which is basically support us or don't, but we are going thru with it. I'd love for them to change their tune but there is no indication that that it will happen. All signs point to them going full steam ahead.

Then what?

well maybe the feelings of a few bitter Israelis and neo conservatives but who cares?

Yes, it's all an Israeli and "neo-con" - which is rarely applied or defined accurately, and is basically become just a negative code word for "Jews" or "Jewish lobby" these days - problem. Nevermind that we are talking about a hostile regime which has made not-too-subtle threats towards other nations and continents, and which is currently developing the ability to create nuclear weapons (on top of whatever chemical or biological weapons they may already have).

By all means, if the world wants to view it as an Israeli/neo-con problem, so be it. It's never "our" problem until the allies we throw to the wolves have been devoured and the wolves are still hungry.

But what about if/when it fails? Then what? What about when they don't change their tune? Then what? More sanctions? More empty talk about how we can never live with a nuclear Iran? Well, in just a little while Iran will be nuclear. Because while we talk they build.

Do Not just threaten him with sanctions and spout blunt demands. But tell him that if he really cares for his people he will not make nuclear weapons because it will lead his nation to inevitable destruction. Tell him the economic advantages to cooperating with the international community. And finally tell him that if his uranium enrichment program is REALLY for peaceful civilian purposes, let the UN weapons inspectors in and DON'T kick em out before they finish their job.

What do you mean threaten? Sanctions have been imposed. That is old news. It's not that they are empty threats, it's that they have had no impact on Iran's decision to keep moving forward with their program. Do you honestly think the things you've said above haven't already been brought to the Iranian leadership? Obama would just be repeating the last four years or so.

Now if he does not let the inspectors in or listen to reason coming DIRECTLY from the mouth of the President of the United States, then and only then use military force.

So basically, let's just repeat the last four years or so over again? Hey, go for it, Obama. But let's not drag our feet here. Let's get on the ball. Send your people over there, have this magical conversation, and put the Iranians on the spot (or, more likely, the Iranians will put us on the spot).

The US government either accepts
this, and tries to make some peace with them, while protecting some
form of right-to-existance for Israel (or not, I've had with them, anyway)

Israel's right-to-existence doesn't depend on anything or anyone else, just as the United States', Britain's, or Egypt's right-to-existence doesn't.

Nebiros wrote:Here is the kind of diplomacy I'm talking about: Obama sits down and has coffee with Ahmadinejad and tells him exactly what is at stake (It looks like he will send Hillary instead but close enough). THIS kind of diplomacy has not been tried yet. Try it. It won't hurt. well maybe the feelings of a few bitter Israelis and neo conservatives but who cares?

Do Not just threaten him with sanctions and spout blunt demands. But tell him that if he really cares for his people he will not make nuclear weapons because it will lead his nation to inevitable destruction. Tell him the economic advantages to cooperating with the international community. And finally tell him that if his uranium enrichment program is REALLY for peaceful civilian purposes, let the UN weapons inspectors in and DON'T kick em out before they finish their job.

Now if he does not let the inspectors in or listen to reason coming DIRECTLY from the mouth of the President of the United States, then and only then use military force.

Have I made my point clear?

This is exactly how I feel about the Ahmadinejad situation.

Sandrider wrote:But reality is this : Iran feels it has the right and destiny to be the
major power in the Middle East. The US government either accepts
this, and tries to make some peace with them, while protecting some
form of right-to-existance for Israel

Let's not forget the big boys over there, the Saudis. I have a feeling they'll play a major part in any future affairs in the region. If there is any nation I have a beef with over there, it's them. Not only to they treat women like shit (definitely the worst for that, out of all middle-east counties) but they also treat immigrating workers from other Arab nations like absolute dirt. Don't get Amnesty international started on Saudi Arabia. But they'll treat you like royalty if you're white, likely because they're easily the US's biggest ally over there. Remember Prince Bandar Bush?

Freakzilla wrote:The U.S. Military doesn't do "civilian" body counts. They do count combat kills. I have a pad of "casualty feeder reports".

I should scan one of those...

I'd like to see that. I'm guessing bombings don't really count as combat, since it's more of a hit-and-run. Am I correct?

Purge wrote:Yes, it's all an Israeli and "neo-con" - which is rarely applied or defined accurately, and is basically become just a negative code word for "Jews" or "Jewish lobby" these days - problem.

Are you saying the term neo-con has become a negative code word for the jews? Because I have never had that impression from anyone using the term, until I read your post just now. I always figured it was neoconservatists such as Bush, Cheney, and Condo-sleaze-a Rice who ambitiously intervene in other countries' affairs in order to acquire what they they think is in the best interest of the nation. I never figured it had anything to do with Jews.

Purge wrote:Israel's right-to-existence doesn't depend on anything or anyone else, just as the United States', Britain's, or Egypt's right-to-existence doesn't.

But of course. What bothers me is this idiotically religious notion that Isreal must be protected at all costs. Bush backed it up, with a guise of righteousness for the holy land that I don't buy any more than I buy the utterly insane claim that God wanted Bush to go into Iraq. That's another reason Bush can suck my dick. Not only did he feel the need to lie about the motives of the war, he had to manipulate the heavily Christian population of the US into backing him up. What would Jesus bomb?

Drunken Idaho wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:The U.S. Military doesn't do "civilian" body counts. They do count combat kills. I have a pad of "casualty feeder reports".

I should scan one of those...

I'd like to see that. I'm guessing bombings don't really count as combat, since it's more of a hit-and-run. Am I correct?

Civilian deaths caused by a suicide bomber would not be counted, neither would civilian deaths from an errant US bomb. However, todays weapons are more accurate than ever but on the other hand they are also more deadly. Much now depends on intelligence. The US military NEVER targets civilians. You could blame those civilian deaths on the insurgents just as much as the US.