NationStates Jolt Archive

I can't imagine that this didn't get posted. It seems to be a bit of news, if I dare say so myself. According to the BBC, who reported on a story from the Guardian, the US, and specifically Bush, nixed an Israeli plan to strike Iran, and further, indicated that the US would not support any Israeli strike option, at least while his administration was in office.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7637550.stm

If true, this should put a stop to any and all rumors that the US is preparing to attack Iran any time soon. If we are unwilling to permit a proxy to do it, and if even the Bush administration is bright enough to realize how awful of an idea that this is, then I'd think that the odds of a war with Iran are virtually nil.

Can we finally admit that I was totally frickin' right? I've said it every time it has been brought up. The US is not going to invade Iran. I've argued with the same people, again and again, who claimed that it was imminent. Can this finally put their crackpot conspiracy theories to bed? Hmmmmmmmm?

Did....did Bush do something....that I agree with?


Holy shit.

Did....did Bush do something....that I agree with?


Holy shit.

Isn't it shocking?

Isn't it shocking?

I want to know who that man is and what he did with our president.

Actually, they can keep him.

I find it pathetic how Bush is becoming increasingly cowardly as his time in office comes to a close. First, he refused to aid Georgia, a staunch ally, in the fight against Russian tyranny; now, he actively prevented Israel from destroying the nuclear program of a fanatical, Islamo-fascist country. He seems to have morphed into a wimpy leftist throughout the past year; it's saddening.

What does Islamo-fascist mean, and why can't the term "fascist" simply be used?

I want to know who that man is and what he did with our president.

Actually, they can keep him.

Honestly?

I feel like the administration has been slowly changing since the Iraq War, and as a result of the Iraq War. Probably, internally, they admitted the neoconservative project was a failure very shortly after their predictions of democracy and prettiness didn't magically pan out. Other events drove the change, the obvious being Katrina and the 2006 mid-term thrashing that the R's suffered. But, this incarnation of the Bush administration is a totally different animal from the 2002 Bush admin. I'd say this one is almost even tolerable. Since having first perceived these changes, I have come to defend Bush a little bit more than I would have in, say, 2005, but his presidency is still one massive screw up after another, and leaves me unimpressed.

Islamo-fascism is the intersection of Islamism and fascism. It is particularly apt in this situation as modern-day Iran largely resembles Nazi Germany, except for its religious extremism, which is a fundamental component of the fascist doctrines espoused by modern-day Islamist states.

What does Islamo-fascist mean, and why can't the term "fascist" simply be used?

It's got to be trolling. That's the only reason I can think to do it.

What does Islamo-fascist mean, and why can't the term "fascist" simply be used?

An Islamo-fascist is someone who supports an oppressive system of government specifically derived from a radical interpretation of the Qur'an and Sharia Law.

An Islamo-fascist is someone who supports an oppressive system of government specifically derived from a radical interpretation of the Qur'an and Sharia Law.

No, see, that would be a theocracy.

No, see, that would be a theocracy.

They don't have to be mutually exclusive. Also, Iran isn't quite a theocracy.

What does Islamo-fascist mean, and why can't the term "fascist" simply be used?
Because then with our astonishing ignorance of the world, we wouldn't know the particular brown people who missed being bombed are A-rabs.Yes. Sarcasm.

It's got to be trolling. That's the only reason I can think to do it.

Different terms have varying degrees of precision. For example, conservatism encompasses a plethora of differing ideologies. Fascism, however, is more specific; thus, we refer to, say, Italy during the 1930s as "fascist" Italy, not "conservative Italy" or "right-wing Italy," as is reasonable. Consequently, I don't call Iran a "fascist" state when "Islamo-fascist" is a far more exact classification.

Consequently, I don't call Iran a "fascist" state when "Islamo-fascist" is a far more exact classification.

It's a made up term to neatly equate fascism (and therefore the evils of Nazism, Hitler, genocide etc) with Islam.

Simple 'education' of the masses in preparation for any potential conflict in the future, nothing at all to do with 'classification'.

When does Israel do anything other than as it damn well pleases?

They don't have to be mutually exclusive. Also, Iran isn't quite a theocracy.

Or a fascism.

The point?

It's a made up term to neatly equate fascism (and therefore the evils of Nazism, Hitler, genocide etc) with Islam.

Simple 'education' of the masses in preparation for any potential conflict in the future, nothing at all to do with 'classification'.

It can mostly be instantly dismissed as stupidity, especially when you see it used in conjunction with organisations like Al Qaeda, which fits into the definition of 'fascism' almost as comfortably as 'fish' fits into the definition of 'bicycle'.

I have used "Islamo-fascist" to refer to the ideology of Osama bin Laden and his ilk.

To replace it, I propose the term "shahidism", referring to the ideology of violent jihad against the West. Al-Qaeda, Hizbollah, and Hamas are shahidist organizations. Iran as a whole isn't shahidist, though many elements of government are.

According to the BBC, who reported on a story from the Guardian, the US, and specifically Bush, nixed an Israeli plan to strike Iran, and further, indicated that the US would not support any Israeli strike option, at least while his administration was in office.


Your source says that Israel denies the conversation ever took place, and the US says that they have not taken any actions off the table.

Or a fascism.

The point?


What are you saying here, that Iran is not fascist?

When does Israel do anything other than as it damn well pleases?

Because Israel doesn't want to become a total pariah state, or lose the support of the US.

If Israel believes it has no choice, it will launch a strike on Iran.

What are you saying here, that Iran is not fascist?

Of course it isnt. Iran is the land of happy bunnies and unicorns! Everybody there is happy and lives in a 20,000 square foot house with a five car garage. And all of their cars are solar-powered Ferrari's.

It's a made up term to neatly equate fascism (and therefore the evils of Nazism, Hitler, genocide etc) with Islam.

Simple 'education' of the masses in preparation for any potential conflict in the future, nothing at all to do with 'classification'.

Or you know, it's a term used to describe a form of Islamic fascism and people who support it.

Your source says that Israel denies the conversation ever took place, and the US says that they have not taken any actions off the table.

Would you expect the Israelis would admit to seeking permission for a pre-emptive strike against the Iranian government, and then getting turned down?

Do you think that the US would ever publicly remove "all options from the table"?

Of course not, on either count.

It's quite plausible that the US pulled the plug on an Israeli strike. What benefit, praytell, would the US derive from this sort of a strike?

What are you saying here, that Iran is not fascist?

I believe you said: "Also, Iran is not quite a theocracy".

Similarly, it's 'not quite a fascism', either.


And yet - rather than call it, for example, a militant theocracy, it get's referred to by the similarly accurate 'islamo-fascism' terminology.

Or you know, it's a term used to describe a form of Islamic fascism and people who support it.

Thank you for proving my point.

Would you expect the Israelis would admit to seeking permission for a pre-emptive strike against the Iranian government, and then getting turned down?

Do you think that the US would ever publicly remove "all options from the table"?

Of course not, on either count.

It's quite plausible that the US pulled the plug on an Israeli strike. What benefit, praytell, would the US derive from this sort of a strike?

I don't know what answers you think will satisfy you.

The article clearly says that - while one UK newspaper says these things happened, BOTH of the parties involved say it didn't, say that it speculates a situation that doesn't exist... and basically call it a sham.

In absence of any other evidence, your assertions that 'ha ha! ha ha! See! America would NEVER invade anyone!' seem a little more optimism than realism.

I believe you said: "Also, Iran is not quite a theocracy".

Similarly, it's 'not quite a fascism', either.


And yet - rather than call it, for example, a militant theocracy, it get's referred to by the similarly accurate 'islamo-fascism' terminology.

Well what kind of fascism are you talking about, if you're merely referring to the specific form practised by the axis powers during WW2, then it's not quite fascism. However, I don't think the definition of fascism is that specific.

Well what kind of fascism are you talking about, if you're merely referring to the specific form practised by the axis powers, then it's not quite fascism. However, I don't think the definition of fascism is that specific.

But you DO think that 'theocracy' is?

What exactly do you think fascism is, and how does Iran fit? And theocracy? What does that mean - and why ISN'T Iran one?

I find it pathetic how Bush is becoming increasingly cowardly as his time in office comes to a close.You're way behind the mark there. He was a coward when his country supposedly first needed him (or anyone really did), since he couldn't make his physicals *sniff* and ran off to work for a congressman. He was also quite a coward on 9/11.
First, he refused to aid Georgia, a staunch ally, in the fight against Russian tyranny;Who *actually* started that now? Whose friends were in on that now?
He seems to have morphed into a wimpy leftist throughout the past year; it's saddening.So it was all projection, this cowardly bullshit attack on so-called "libruhls", eh?
Explains a lot. Well, back to the mounds of coke and desertion for him, most certainly.

I don't know what answers you think will satisfy you.

The article clearly says that - while one UK newspaper says these things happened, BOTH of the parties involved say it didn't, say that it speculates a situation that doesn't exist... and basically call it a sham.

Which, I might add, is exactly what they would say. Israel has a vested interest in making sure that Iran thinks a strike is possible. That whole "carrots and sticks" approach to diplomacy, and whatnot.

In absence of any other evidence, your assertions that 'ha ha! ha ha! See! America would NEVER invade anyone!' seem a little more optimism than realism.

What benefit would the US derive from invading, or even just striking, Iran? More to the point, with what resources would the US manage to pull this sort of thing off, or, at least, clean up after the Israelis made a mess.?

The US will not invade Iran.

Wow. Bush responded sensibly to a foreign policy issue. Must be like the broken clock is right twice a day, its impossible to always be wrong:p

I find it pathetic how Bush is becoming increasingly cowardly as his time in office comes to a close. First, he refused to aid Georgia, a staunch ally, in the fight against Russian tyranny; now, he actively prevented Israel from destroying the nuclear program of a fanatical, Islamo-fascist country. He seems to have morphed into a wimpy leftist throughout the past year; it's saddening.

Not as saddening as this post.

Islamo-fascism is the intersection of Islamism and fascism. It is particularly apt in this situation as modern-day Iran largely resembles Nazi Germany,

Not really.

When does Israel do anything other than as it damn well pleases?

When we tell them not to.

In all seriousness, Israel only appears to do what it wants because we let it. The fact that they backed down when we said so shows what many of us have suspected. Israel is our bitch.

But you DO think that 'theocracy' is?


Yes, but fascism is a broad term, many nations who have described themselves as fascist are actually different in many ways to each other.


What exactly do you think fascism is, and how does Iran fit? And theocracy? What does that mean - and why ISN'T Iran one?

source (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/fascism?view=uk): • noun 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

Which, I might add, is exactly what they would say. Israel has a vested interest in making sure that Iran thinks a strike is possible. That whole "carrots and sticks" approach to diplomacy, and whatnot.

What benefit would the US derive from invading, or even just striking, Iran? More to the point, with what resources would the US manage to pull this sort of thing off, or, at least, clean up after the Israelis made a mess.?

The US will not invade Iran.

Missing the point.

The source you provided DOESN'T say anything that backs your argument.

It says a newspaper has printed a story that has been contested by ALL those involved. How do you think this is evidence of anything?

So that leaves us with your 'US will not invade Iran' opinion... which, as an opinion, has exactly the value of an opinion.

Yes, but fascism is a broad term, many nations who have described themselves as fascist are actually different in many ways to each other.

source (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/fascism?view=uk): • noun 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

Okay - the first definition refers to a specific form of government. That's not a broad delineation, so clearly we're not using that one.

The second definition says 'extreme, right wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practises'.

Sure - you can describe Iran as that, just like you can the US, or France since their last election.

So - 'not exactly a fascism' - NOT an unreasonable claim.

But - since we're talking definitions, let's use your source for a moment, and see what it says about theocracy?

noun (pl. theocracies) a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.

So - EXACTLY like Iran then. You were wrong - Iran IS 'exactly a theocracy'.

It's certianly much more definitively, accurately, a theocracy, than it is a fascism.

Missing the point.

The source you provided DOESN'T say anything that backs your argument.

It says a newspaper has printed a story that has been contested by ALL those involved. How do you think this is evidence of anything?

The source I provided references the testimony of European diplomats, who have been involved in the negotiations over the claims of an Iranian nuclear program. If they do exist, what benefit would they derive by fibbing to The Guardian? It does say plenty to back my argument. You just choose to ignore it, because making the US look like an evil bully reaffirms your worldview and makes you feel better, or so Solomon and Pyszcynski would say.

So that leaves us with your 'US will not invade Iran' opinion... which, as an opinion, has exactly the value of an opinion.

A opinion is only an opinion, true, but it's not that simple. When it is backed up by key facts, it has far more validity than merely an unsupported opinion. In this case, my opinion is backed up by several key facts, including the current overstretch of the US military and the massive fiscal expenditures the US has undertaken in response to the financial crisis are the two most logistically daunting. Further, the risk of regional chaos, explosion of oil prices, the potential for the total collapse of an already teetering financial system are the inherent risks of such a war.

The US has not taken any of the steps one would expect to see in terms of preparation for such a war. US Carrier Battle Groups have not been relocated to the Persian Gulf, the US military presence in Iraq is declining, and military hardware sales to Israel have not been increased, the last of which is the most long-term indicator of a war with Iran.

Finally, the US has taken an interest in the use of "sovereignty" as a tool to use in international relations, after the little Russia-Georgia fiasco. Invading Iran would take that tool out of the US diplomatic arsenal for decades.

Oh, and what benefit would the US derive from invading Iran?

Oh, and what benefit would the US derive from invading Iran?

The same we derived from invading Iraq.

The source I provided references the testimony of European diplomats, who have been involved in the negotiations over the claims of an Iranian nuclear program. If they do exist, what benefit would they derive by fibbing to The Guardian? It does say plenty to back my argument. You just choose to ignore it, because making the US look like an evil bully reaffirms your worldview and makes you feel better, or so Solomon and Pyszcynski would say.

A opinion is only an opinion, true, but it's not that simple. When it is backed up by key facts, it has far more validity than merely an unsupported opinion. In this case, my opinion is backed up by several key facts, including the current overstretch of the US military and the massive fiscal expenditures the US has undertaken in response to the financial crisis are the two most logistically daunting. Further, the risk of regional chaos, explosion of oil prices, the potential for the total collapse of an already teetering financial system are the inherent risks of such a war.

The US has not taken any of the steps one would expect to see in terms of preparation for such a war. US Carrier Battle Groups have not been relocated to the Persian Gulf, the US military presence in Iraq is declining, and military hardware sales to Israel have not been increased, the last of which is the most long-term indicator of a war with Iran.

Finally, the US has taken an interest in the use of "sovereignty" as a tool to use in international relations, after the little Russia-Georgia fiasco. Invading Iran would take that tool out of the US diplomatic arsenal for decades.

It would have been much simpler, and taken less keystrokes if you'd spelled this: "You are right". More accurate too.

And it would have saved leaping into bizarre conspiracy theories about how the newspaper has it all right and everyone else in the world is lying.

Oh, and what benefit would the US derive from invading Iran?

Does that matter?

What interests me, here, is your assertion that the US won't... based on nothing.

A newspaper story.

And not EVEN the newspaper story, itself.. but a BBC story ABOUT a newspaper story.

And not even THAT, even... a BBC story ABOUT a newspaper story, that ALREADY contains other sources saying the newspaper story was untrue.

It would have been much simpler, and taken less keystrokes if you'd spelled this: "You are right". More accurate too.

You are not right. That's admittedly not shorter, but it is decidedly more correct, than your proposed spelling.

And it would have saved leaping into bizarre conspiracy theories about how the newspaper has it all right and everyone else in the world is lying.

Everyone else in the world is not saying that they are poppycock spewing buffoons, just two parties who are interested in maintaining an image of "potential for force." Why, exactly, should I trust them?

Okay - the first definition refers to a specific form of government. That's not a broad delineation, so clearly we're not using that one.

The second definition says 'extreme, right wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practises'.

Sure - you can describe Iran as that, just like you can the US, or France since their last election.

So - 'not exactly a fascism' - NOT an unreasonable claim.


The Us and France are right wing, but not in an 'extreme' sense. The definition was coined during a time where the most 'liberal' countries relatively were probably even more right wing than the US is today.


But - since we're talking definitions, let's use your source for a moment, and see what it says about theocracy?

noun (pl. theocracies) a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.


I guess you could sort of call Ali Khamenei a priest in some ways. But again, although he is the supreme leader, executive decisions over policy go to the president technically, so it's not fully theocratic. But I don't have a problem with calling it theocratic.

Does that matter?

What interests me, here, is your assertion that the US won't... based on nothing.

A newspaper story.

And not EVEN the newspaper story, itself.. but a BBC story ABOUT a newspaper story.

And not even THAT, even... a BBC story ABOUT a newspaper story, that ALREADY contains other sources saying the newspaper story was untrue.

Beyond that, the Guardian article does not contain testimony from the Israeli or US government seeking to deny the claim. The BBC article does, but the Guardian article does not.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/25/iran.israelandthepalestinians1

While the article relies on confidential sources, if true, and I have always emphasized the nature of this being uncertain as to its veracity, if it is true, then it is portentous as to the intentions of the US in regards to Iran.

You are not right. That's admittedly not shorter, but it is decidedly more correct, than your proposed spelling.


Here is what I said:

"The source you provided DOESN'T say anything that backs your argument.



It says a newspaper has printed a story that has been contested by ALL those involved. How do you think this is evidence of anything?"


And then you posted a lot of stuff that, at no point, showed that the source you presented backs your story.

Thus - I was... right. I'm sure you enjoyed typing all that other stuff, though, and I'm sure it was ever so compelling... but it failed to contradict.. or even address, the point I made.


Everyone else in the world is not saying that they are poppycock spewing buffoons, just two parties who are interested in maintaining an image of "potential for force." Why, exactly, should I trust them?

These would be the same two parties that the story was attributing actions to?

Why should you trust them? Well, in simple 'evidenciary' terms - because there are two corroborative sources, and one conflicting one, and the conflicting one is secondary, at best.

The same we derived from invading Iraq.Where was that again?
Seems to me the so-called expert on foreign policy in the running doesn't know where that place is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVfU8g8dlNg&feature=related
Hope we don't accidentally invade India or something.

Where was that again?
Seems to me the so-called expert on foreign policy in the running doesn't know where that place is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVfU8g8dlNg&feature=related
Hope we don't accidentally invade India or something.

lol McCain is senile.

Beyond that, the Guardian article does not contain testimony from the Israeli or US government seeking to deny the claim. The BBC article does, but the Guardian article does not.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/25/iran.israelandthepalestinians1

While the article relies on confidential sources, if true, and I have always emphasized the nature of this being uncertain as to its veracity, if it is true, then it is portentous as to the intentions of the US in regards to Iran.

Okay - if the Guardian article proved to be true, it might mean something. Might.

Or it might not, of course... just because US minister x and Israeli minister x come to an understanding, it doesn't necessarily equate to anything solid.

But the source you already presented attempts to validate the claims of The Guardian... and can't. It's not the MOST convincing argument.

Here is what I said:

"The source you provided DOESN'T say anything that backs your argument.



It says a newspaper has printed a story that has been contested by ALL those involved. How do you think this is evidence of anything?"


And then you posted a lot of stuff that, at no point, showed that the source you presented backs your story.

Thus - I was... right. I'm sure you enjoyed typing all that other stuff, though, and I'm sure it was ever so compelling... but it failed to contradict.. or even address, the point I made.


As a start, I presented the other evidence to your "The US would never invade a country" comment. Not to back the article, although proving that the US does not have an interest in invading Iran would also lend credence to the claim of the article's sources.


These would be the same two parties that the story was attributing actions to?

Why should you trust them? Well, in simple 'evidenciary' terms - because there are two corroborative sources, and one conflicting one, and the conflicting one is secondary, at best.

And those two parties also happen to be interested parties, they're testimony is biased. Honestly, if you've got the guilty party on the stand in a trial, do you think they're going to say that they committed the crime? Clearly not. It's pretty obvious to me.

Okay - if the Guardian article proved to be true, it might mean something. Might.

Or it might not, of course... just because US minister x and Israeli minister x come to an understanding, it doesn't necessarily equate to anything solid.

But the source you already presented attempts to validate the claims of The Guardian... and can't. It's not the MOST convincing argument.

I'd want sources from parties not quite as interested in the matter at hand full refutation. The US and Israel have a vested interest in making Iran think that a war would be imminent.

lol McCain is senile.I'm waiting for him to start trying to eat with his elbows, any day now.
And Palin'll be his spongenurse.

I'm waiting for him to start trying to eat with his elbows, any day now.
And Palin'll be his spongenurse.

Ew.

The Us and France are right wing, but not in an 'extreme' sense. The definition was coined during a time where the most 'liberal' countries relatively were probably even more right wing than the US is today.


France just elected a nationalist as premiere. The US is currently under an undeclared christian government that has sought to strip rights based on racial appearance, nation of origin, gender orientation, and sexuality... and that has spent 8 years targetting a racial minority as being the cause of ecomic problems and crime in the fatherland.

That's fairly extreme. Authoritarian... right-wing... and intolerant.


I guess you could sort of call Ali Khamenei a priest in some ways. But again, although he is the supreme leader, executive decisions over policy go to the president technically, so it's not fully theocratic. But I don't have a problem with calling it theocratic.

There is no 'you could call him a priest', not only is the Ayatollah the supreme leader of Iran, he is also the religious leader of Iranian Shiites. Also - only the Ayatollah can declare war, for example. The real power in Iran is the Ayatollah.

I'd want sources from parties not quite as interested in the matter at hand full refutation. The US and Israel have a vested interest in making Iran think that a war would be imminent.

Okay.

So - in these meetings between, let's say, an Israeli minister and a US minister.... you're willing to accept the testimony of a third party that wasn't there, or other third parties that might or might not have been there... but not the two parties, themselves?

On top of that - you're not willing to believe their governments, either?

Just who exactly would YOU ask?

Ew.Thought i heard something about her turning Alaska into the Rapture Refuge for the Infirm and Incontinent, keeping them going until The Great Scoop comes on.
But i hear a lot of things.

As a start, I presented the other evidence to your "The US would never invade a country" comment. Not to back the article, although proving that the US does not have an interest in invading Iran would also lend credence to the claim of the article's sources.


Putting your text in white doesn't make it invisible.

You invoked the idea that this piece of wonder-evidence for once and for all put paid to the idea of US aggression.

Awesome. Then let's discuss this piece of evidence.

But you don't want to discuss the evidence, because it's crap. So you use my referencing your hidden text, as a chance to go back to your old saw about how the US never invaded no one, honest.


And those two parties also happen to be interested parties, they're testimony is biased. Honestly, if you've got the guilty party on the stand in a trial, do you think they're going to say that they committed the crime? Clearly not. It's pretty obvious to me.

And, if it were a court of law, and 'evidence' consisted of the testimony of two accused, and the statement of one 'eyewitness' who wasn't there....

France just elected a nationalist as premiere. The US is currently under an undeclared christian government that has sought to strip rights based on racial appearance, nation of origin, gender orientation, and sexuality... and that has spent 8 years targetting a racial minority as being the cause of ecomic problems and crime in the fatherland.

That's fairly extreme. Authoritarian... right-wing... and intolerant.


It's also an extremely simplified and deliberately ambiguous summary. But whatever, if you want to also call the US fascist, that's fine, that doesn't mean Islamo-fascist is now meaningless.


There is no 'you could call him a priest', not only is the Ayatollah the supreme leader of Iran, he is also the religious leader of Iranian Shiites. Also - only the Ayatollah can declare war, for example. The real power in Iran is the Ayatollah.

King Henry VIII was also supreme leader and head of the Church, however England at the time was not a theocracy.

I find it pathetic how Bush is becoming increasingly cowardly as his time in office comes to a close. First, he refused to aid Georgia, a staunch ally, in the fight against Russian tyranny; now, he actively prevented Israel from destroying the nuclear program of a fanatical, Islamo-fascist country. He seems to have morphed into a wimpy leftist throughout the past year; it's saddening.

Bush a leftist?:D:D:D

Nor do leftist and wimpy always go togeather. Look at FDR and Kenedy.

Sometimes you have to accept that its not the right time to start another war. Hopefully diplomacy will work on Iran, but if not, we have to wait until we're extricated from Iraq. The economy can't handle a third front, especially one that could cut off a lot of oil supplies. Nor can the millitary handle it without a draft given the size of Iran, its rugged terrain, the need for more troops in Afghanistan, and the way the military is already overstretched(I'm sure a draft would go over real well the American ellectorate, but hey, screw em. Its not like America's a free democracy, right?)

I'm afraid you need to start thinking with your brain instead of your balls.

Not surprising actually. Republicans tend to be the least supportive of Israel. mostly because the Jews are a Democrat voting block not a Republican one.

Not surprising actually. Republicans tend to be the least supportive of Israel. mostly because the Jews are a Democrat voting block not a Republican one.

Prove that?

The right is also highly Christian, and more likely to believe that horseshit about Israel's role in the end times.

I find it pathetic how Bush is becoming increasingly cowardly as his time in office comes to a close. First, he refused to aid Georgia, a staunch ally, in the fight against Russian tyranny; now, he actively prevented Israel from destroying the nuclear program of a fanatical, Islamo-fascist country. He seems to have morphed into a wimpy leftist throughout the past year; it's saddening.

Aid Georgia with what? I suppose we could have thrown money at them but we didn't have the troops to help. I mean with every single one of them being in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, and a bunch of other foreign nations we have no business meddling with. We had about 120 advisors in Georgia, that was all the help we could spare anyway.

The right is also highly Christian, and more likely to believe that horseshit about Israel's role in the end times.THIS!!!!
*nods emphatically*

Prove that?

The right is also highly Christian, and more likely to believe that horseshit about Israel's role in the end times.

Read From Beirut to Jerusalem by Thomas L. Friedman. Id give page numbers but i've loaned my copy out to my Gf in Korea (I was visiting). focus on the last five chapters.
You will see things like
Clinton being less restrictive with funding.
The Clinton administration was unwilling to apply pressure to Israel to compromise. The PLO commented that the white house offered us less then the Jews did.

Read From Beirut to Jerusalem by Thomas L. Friedman. Id give page numbers but i've loaned my copy out to my Gf in Korea (I was visiting). focus on the last five chapters.
You will see things like
Clinton being less restrictive with funding.
The Clinton administration was unwilling to apply pressure to Israel to compromise. The PLO commented that the white house offered us less then the Jews did.

Does Obama follow in this line? If so, I'd be a bit put off, but it would be yet another blow to the GOP and their efforts to grab the Jewish vote this time around.

I think that "Islamo-fascism" is too simplistic a term to describe Iran today. I also think that the West caused the relious reaction in Iran by installing the Shah as a pro-Western puppet. Oil politics has dominated that region for most of the last century and western countries have been up to dirty tricks for all that time.
Why do we call Frankenstein the monster without examining the Dr Frankenstein who created it? Our best bet is to work with young Iranians to liberalise their country - and with young Chines to liberalise theirs- and with young Russians.......
Let's just stop playing "Cold War politics" shall we? The neo-cons have made the West weak!
You should all get out "Syriana" from your local video library and watch it.

Does Obama follow in this line? If so, I'd be a bit put off, but it would be yet another blow to the GOP and their efforts to grab the Jewish vote this time around.

it is kinda hard to say. He just hasn't been in the senate long enough to get a firm grasp of the difference between what he says and what he does(votes).
Though in the Democratic party there is sort of a rivalry between the African Americans and the Jewish types. then again he is not the normal African American democrat.

it is kinda hard to say. He just hasn't been in the senate long enough to get a firm grasp of the difference between what he says and what he does(votes).
Though in the Democratic party there is sort of a rivalry between the African Americans and the Jewish types.

That last sentance seems steriotypical to the point of racist. And Obama has spoken to members of the black community criticizing the anti-semitic behavior of some in that community.

If true, this should put a stop to any and all rumors that the US is preparing to attack Iran any time soon.
Yes, IF true, as of now it's just another rumor.


Can we finally admit that I was totally frickin' right? I've said it every time it has been brought up. The US is not going to invade Iran. I've argued with the same people, again and again, who claimed that it was imminent. Can this finally put their crackpot conspiracy theories to bed? Hmmmmmmmm?

this proves nothing.

it is kinda hard to say. He just hasn't been in the senate long enough to get a firm grasp of the difference between what he says and what he does(votes).
Though in the Democratic party there is sort of a rivalry between the African Americans and the Jewish types. then again he is not the normal African American democrat.

WTF?

What other than racism motivates these comments?

That last sentance seems steriotypical to the point of racist. And Obama has spoken to members of the black community criticizing the anti-semitic behavior of some in that community.
And your last sentence is evidence of the rivalry.
Its not just blacks and Jews. There are several of such rivalries in the democratic party. Think like this since WWII and a while before the democrats have always been roughly twice as large as the republicans. But the republicans still win their fair share of the elections. The reason is the democratic party is more broad and encompasses more groups. Where as the republicans are smaller better funded and more organized.
It is why the whole Obama got picked over Hillary doesn't really hurt the Democrats chance of winning the election. The democrats always alienate one or two groups with whom they pick, it is just more visible this time.

though to be honest the republicans will never win many Jewish people over. Jews tend to view anything even slightly right winged as a stepping stone toward Nazism.

And your last sentence is evidence of the rivalry.
Its not just blacks and Jews. There are several of such rivalries in the democratic party. Think like this since WWII and a while before the democrats have always been roughly twice as large as the republicans. But the republicans still win their fair share of the elections. The reason is the democratic party is more broad and encompasses more groups. Where as the republicans are smaller better funded and more organized.
It is why the whole Obama got picked over Hillary doesn't really hurt the Democrats chance of winning the election. The democrats always alienate one or two groups with whom they pick, it is just more visible this time.

though to be honest the republicans will never win many Jewish people over. Jews tend to view anything even slightly right winged as a stepping stone toward Nazism.

Stereotype much?

WTF?

What other than racism motivates these comments?

Its a rivalry not conflict not hatred. And it has more to do with the target demographics African American candidates and Jewish candidates tend to go for in congressional elections. they both tend to do well in poor areas as they favor social programs. This often puts Jewish and black candidates in competition during primaries.

I think that a change happened in the Jewish community sometime between the 6-Day War of 1967 and the Yom Kippur War of 1973. What had been a quite left-wing Jewish community here in Australia and over there in America split politically. I was probably happening for class reasons anyway, but Jews felt attacked over Zionism. The relationship forged between Jewish and other ethnic communities around the world in the 60s (civil rights, anti-apartheid, anti-war) became strained.
Many Jews thought that "The Left" had become anti-semitic because of an anti-Zionist mood. I do think that this perception pushed many members over to the conservative side of politics and the conservative parties were quick to capitalise on it and become "Good Friends of Israel".

I can't imagine that this didn't get posted. It seems to be a bit of news, if I dare say so myself. According to the BBC, who reported on a story from the Guardian, the US, and specifically Bush, nixed an Israeli plan to strike Iran, and further, indicated that the US would not support any Israeli strike option, at least while his administration was in office.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7637550.stm

If true, this should put a stop to any and all rumors that the US is preparing to attack Iran any time soon. If we are unwilling to permit a proxy to do it, and if even the Bush administration is bright enough to realize how awful of an idea that this is, then I'd think that the odds of a war with Iran are virtually nil.

Can we finally admit that I was totally frickin' right? I've said it every time it has been brought up. The US is not going to invade Iran. I've argued with the same people, again and again, who claimed that it was imminent. Can this finally put their crackpot conspiracy theories to bed? Hmmmmmmmm?


Actually I incline to disagree with that. The United States may be contemplating an invasion (and likely are) but they won't execute any time soon because frankly, despite having a very capable and competent military, it isn't large enough to carry out ANOTHER regional conflict of the scale an Iranian invasion would entail. As for telling Israel to not attack, thats completely understandible as well. Can you IMAGINE what kind of wrath an invasion of Iran by Israel would entail? The arabs already detest us, so it'd be amplified all the more by an invasion. Despite their love for invading this nation, any move against them is "blatant imperialism and war mongering", and thus bolsters their resolve to annihilate the Jewish state. So...it really makes sense for the US to tell the Israeli government to back down, ESPECIALLY if they want to invade.

There is no 'you could call him a priest', not only is the Ayatollah the supreme leader of Iran, he is also the religious leader of Iranian Shiites. Also - only the Ayatollah can declare war, for example. The real power in Iran is the Ayatollah.

This is total and complete accuracy.

Stereotype much?

no. But I do discuss voting blocks and their use in determining elections.

What does Islamo-fascist mean, and why can't the term "fascist" simply be used?

Because it's an American Right Wing catchphrase that pretty much declares all Muslims are fascists by nature.

Because it's an American Right Wing catchphrase that pretty much declares all Muslims are fascists by nature.

Not nessisarily. I suppose a lot of people use it that way though. Since you can't get away with racial slurs anymore.

Actually I incline to disagree with that. The United States may be contemplating an invasion (and likely are) but they won't execute any time soon because frankly, despite having a very capable and competent military, it isn't large enough to carry out ANOTHER regional conflict of the scale an Iranian invasion would entail. As for telling Israel to not attack, thats completely understandible as well. Can you IMAGINE what kind of wrath an invasion of Iran by Israel would entail? The arabs already detest us, so it'd be amplified all the more by an invasion. Despite their love for invading this nation, any move against them is "blatant imperialism and war mongering", and thus bolsters their resolve to annihilate the Jewish state. So...it really makes sense for the US to tell the Israeli government to back down, ESPECIALLY if they want to invade.

You know, that's close to how I read the story and the debate here. It's plausible, but there is no evidence.

The US taking violent action against Iran would have medium term consequences (diplomatic and economic) which would send McCain to a crushing defeat. The well is dry of patriotism, the Republicans' only chance is to portray Iraq as a tolerable result (which it almost IS) but More Of The Same would be a disaster, whether McCain endorsed it or not.

But if McCain gets elected it's back on the table. Four years to show something which can be called "victory."

Did....did Bush do something....that I agree with?


Holy shit.

Yeah, you begin to question everything....


When does Israel do anything other than as it damn well pleases?.

They'd no hope of carrying it off without US support.

Because it's an American Right Wing catchphrase that pretty much declares all Muslims are fascists by nature.

Yes.

Wikipedia dissembles at great length about the origins of the phrase, but for me, sticking a very dirty word (fascism) on the other side of a hyphen from the generic phrase for a major religion ... can only be malicious. Even the Bush Administration recommends not using that phrase.

I don't, never will, and despise all who would use sincerely, such a vile phrase.

Etymology isn't just a game. It's essential to what we mean when we use a word.

Gauthier, your pungent statements often move me, but I rarely agree entirely. This time I do.

Not nessisarily. I suppose a lot of people use it that way though. Since you can't get away with racial slurs anymore.

Bummer eh? Racial slurs were good clean fun.

NSG has a long and cherished tradition of religious slurs. So long as one refers only to a poster's perceived deity, it's not personal.

Your personal God is an illusion, a spectre of historical resentments, a scar of bad parenting. Your personal God is a fly-ridden crock of moldy old shit. Nothing personal!

;)

Of course Bush wouldn't support a strike, there's no way he'd take responsibility for breaking the army. Even if he really wanted to support, our armed forces just aren't capable of waging another war.

Because then with our astonishing ignorance of the world, we wouldn't know the particular brown people who missed being bombed are A-rabs.Yes. Sarcasm.

Actually, they're Persians. Completely separate race.

Islamo-fascism is the intersection of Islamism and fascism. It is particularly apt in this situation as modern-day Iran largely resembles Nazi Germany, except for its religious extremism, which is a fundamental component of the fascist doctrines espoused by modern-day Islamist states.

Iran may be currently theorcratic and authoritarian it isn't fascist. Early 1930's Austria was more Religon-Fascist than Iran. Hell, NzG didn't even practice original fascism, it practiced a derivative. If you want to say Iran is fascist then you'd better bring comparisons between Iran and Italy, not Germany

Care to mention what these policies are? Or just could this (shock, horror :eek:) be a quick swipe from the Justice League?

What are you saying here, that Iran is not fascist?

Well, the fact that it's not a corporate state kind of makes it hard to be fascist, yes.

Bummer eh? Racial slurs were good clean fun.

NSG has a long and cherished tradition of religious slurs. So long as one refers only to a poster's perceived deity, it's not personal.

Your personal God is an illusion, a spectre of historical resentments, a scar of bad parenting. Your personal God is a fly-ridden crock of moldy old shit. Nothing personal!

;)

I don't know, I've heard of getting in trouble for attacking someone's religion in Nation States.

Haven't had a chance to read the posts....but am familiar with the issue. I think we will see Israeli conflict with Iran, a preemptive strike FOLLOWING the US elections and this is a prediction based on all the data and facts I am privy to. We will see.

Well, noone would thank Bush for starting a third land war in Asia before the election would they?

Haven't had a chance to read the posts....but am familiar with the issue. I think we will see Israeli conflict with Iran, a preemptive strike FOLLOWING the US elections and this is a prediction based on all the data and facts I am privy to. We will see.

they will wait 12 months. that way Obama is good in office and take the blame for it.

they will wait 12 months. that way Obama is good in office and take the blame for it.

Right conclusion, but wrong reason.

Obama might seem like a slam dunk to you, but I'm not seeing the ball in the net yet. An escalation in strife in Iraq and Afghanistan would tilt the US election in Obama's favour, surely?

So if you look at it from Israel's point of view, and not knowing for sure how the presidency will go ... they'd want to be sure they didn't do anything to harm McCain's chances. I mean, a President who justifies and defends US intervention in the Middle East would have to be their preferred candidate, right?

Also, we shouldn't rule out that Israel might have decided they can tolerate nuclear weapons in Iran, a few years hence. Despite the tough talk, Iran probably doesn't want nuclear weapons to wipe out Israel, and it's doubtful the weapons would achieve that even if some crazy mullah took over and had a go.

Right conclusion, but wrong reason.

Obama might seem like a slam dunk to you, but I'm not seeing the ball in the net yet. An escalation in strife in Iraq and Afghanistan would tilt the US election in Obama's favour, surely?

So if you look at it from Israel's point of view, and not knowing for sure how the presidency will go ... they'd want to be sure they didn't do anything to harm McCain's chances. I mean, a President who justifies and defends US intervention in the Middle East would have to be their preferred candidate, right?

Also, we shouldn't rule out that Israel might have decided they can tolerate nuclear weapons in Iran, a few years hence. Despite the tough talk, Iran probably doesn't want nuclear weapons to wipe out Israel, and it's doubtful the weapons would achieve that even if some crazy mullah took over and had a go.

Obama is not slam dunk but he is the one Id put my Money on.

Obama might seem like a slam dunk to you, but I'm not seeing the ball in the net yet. An escalation in strife in Iraq and Afghanistan would tilt the US election in Obama's favour, surely?


Nope, that'd go towards McCain.

Putting your text in white doesn't make it invisible.

But it does make it quite clear to everyone that my intent was to be smarmy.

You invoked the idea that this piece of wonder-evidence for once and for all put paid to the idea of US aggression.

Awesome. Then let's discuss this piece of evidence.

Your only rebuttal is that two parties whose interests are vitally linked to seeming aggressive deny that this ever happened. It's an extremely flimsy assertion. Yes, it's hearsay, but there's reasons to question it, and there are reasons to question your objections.

But you don't want to discuss the evidence, because it's crap. So you use my referencing your hidden text, as a chance to go back to your old saw about how the US never invaded no one, honest.

No, I've been saying, for a long time, that the US is not going to invade anyone anytime soon. Because of logistical constraints and lessons learned in Iraq. I've never claimed that the US has never invaded anyone.



And, if it were a court of law, and 'evidence' consisted of the testimony of two accused, and the statement of one 'eyewitness' who wasn't there....

The standard in a court of law, though, is different from the NSG standard.

The standard in a court of law, though, is different from the NSG standard.

Indeed. The way the jury here seems to arrive with a great deal of rope to hand is often offputting for newcomers.

But it does make it quite clear to everyone that my intent was to be smarmy.


No argument.


Your only rebuttal is that two parties whose interests are vitally linked to seeming aggressive deny that this ever happened.


Your only argument is that a news source reported that another news source said that they had been told that a conversation took place.


It's an extremely flimsy assertion.


Not by comparison!


Yes, it's hearsay, but there's reasons to question it, and there are reasons to question your objections.


No - there's barely any reason to question it. You have a source reporting that another source says it was told something. Ont he other hand, you have the parties allegedly involved saying 'I know nothing about it'.

What are you invoking, conspiracy?

We should believe the rumour above the people present?

A curious argument for you to be making, considering you keep arguing that the US isn't going to start another war, and that any arguments they might are tinfoil-hat stuff.

Or - is it only wrong to suspect conspiracy if it's other people?


No, I've been saying, for a long time, that the US is not going to invade anyone anytime soon.


Which is a lovely opinion. But that's all it is. An opinion... and it's worth every single cent that goes with that.


The standard in a court of law, though, is different from the NSG standard.

Fair enough. It was you that brought up the question of courts of law - I was talking about assessment of sources.

Nope, that'd go towards McCain.

Why? McCain is the one saying the invasion of Iraq was a good idea, and that it can be brought to a satisfactory ending. More strife, and particularly more targeting of US troops there, would be pretty bad for that case.

No - there's barely any reason to question it. You have a source reporting that another source says it was told something. Ont he other hand, you have the parties allegedly involved saying 'I know nothing about it'.

What are you invoking, conspiracy?

Strong word for a common occurrence. Senior officials of friendly nations sit down and agree NOT to do something ... then deny that they talked. That's not "conspiracy" ... just diplomacy.

And I'd say it happens all the time. International meetings can extend over days, and the public statements about them usually sound like "we had fruitful discussions about a range of issues, particularly trade." I.e. vague to the point of being secretive. You think they spend that time talking about the football?

Strong word for a common occurrence. Senior officials of friendly nations sit down and agree NOT to do something ... then deny that they talked. That's not "conspiracy" ... just diplomacy.

And I'd say it happens all the time. International meetings can extend over days, and the public statements about them usually sound like "we had fruitful discussions about a range of issues, particularly trade." I.e. vague to the point of being secretive. You think they spend that time talking about the football?

The use of the word conspiracy isn't because I think there's a conspiracy... Andaluciae started this thread to continue an ongoing denial that the US has any militant intentions towards anyone, ever... basically. It's hidden in the white text in the first post.

Whenever this assertion is questioned, Andaluciae makes a defence about tinfoil hats or conspiracy theorists, or whatever. I think he even used the phrase 'tinfoil hat' this time... I'm not sure.

So - apparently, if you DON'T think that the US is omnibenevolent and peaceful, it's because of some huge conspiracy.

Contrarywise - since I'm pointing out that Andaluciae's source in this story proves little, if anything - and he's arguing it's 'because they are covering it up'... I feel it MORE than appropriate to drop the same phrase into the debate. In this case, it might actually be appropriate.

Do I think the conversation in question too place? I have NO idea... and, to be honest, there are probably only a couple of people who really DO know. And I doubt Andaluciae is one of them.

Here are extracts from the public speeches of Bush and Olmert before their private meeting in May:

And finally, the Prime Minister and I shared our concerns about the Iranian regime's nuclear weapons ambitions. The United States and the international community have made our common position clear: We're determined that the Iranian regime must not gain nuclear weapons.

I told the Prime Minister what I've stated publicly before: Israel is a close friend and ally of the United States, and in the event of any attack on Israel, the United States will come to Israel's aid. The United States is strongly committed, and I'm strongly committed, to the security of Israel as a vibrant, Jewish state.

I look forward to our continuing discussions after this press conference. I'm not sure the delegations realize this yet, but we're going to shed ourselves of our delegations and the Prime Minister and I are going to go up to the Residence and sit down and have a continued dialogue.

We discussed the Iranian issue. The Iranian regime, which calls for Israel's destruction, openly denies the Holocaust, and views the United States as its enemy, makes every effort to implement its fundamentalist religious ideology and blatantly disregards the demands of the international community. The Iranian threat is not only a threat to Israel, it is a threat to the stability of the Middle East and the entire world. And it could mark the beginning of a dangerous and irresponsible arms race in the Middle East.

Mr. President, we appreciate your efforts to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions, including through the U.N. Security Council. They are of crucial importance. The international community cannot tolerate a situation where a regime with a radical ideology and a long tradition of irresponsible conduct becomes a nuclear weapons state. This is a moment of truth. It is still not too late to prevent it from happening.

I thank you again for your gracious hospitality and for our discussions. I look forward to continue working with you, Mr. President. Thank you very much.

whitehouse press secretary's office (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060523-9.html)

On the same page, in response to a journalist's question, Olmert said this (and remember, he's still talking about discussions where advisors were present):

The Iranian issue was discussed, indeed, between the President and myself. And we'll continue to talk about it later. Obviously, there is a major threat posed, as I've said already, and the President said, by the Iranians and their attempts to have non-conventional capabilities and also to build up delivery systems and the ballistic missiles that can hit major centers all across Europe, not just in the Middle East.

This is something that needs to be stopped. We discussed this issue at length, and there is a total agreement and understanding between the President and myself that there is a need to stop it. And we reviewed the different ways how to do it, and I am very satisfied with what I heard from the President and on what we agreed that we would continue to do in order to achieve this goal.

What we will continue to do. Note that the "complete agreement" is only about the need to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons, he does not say they agree on HOW.

Now, Bush's response to the same question. Compared to the prepared speech, he is predictably wafflesome, but it is unmistakable that he avoids any reference to Olmert's other options and speaks only of what the US intends to do.

Our primary objective is to solve this problem diplomatically. I've told the American people that I will, on all issues, we'll try diplomacy first and exhaust diplomacy. And I explained to the Prime Minister that -- about our diplomatic efforts -- the most important thing in diplomacy is that there be a shared goal and -- in other words, you have to have a common objective, a common goal in order to get people to come together around it. And now we have got a common goal throughout most of the world, and that is, Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. And that's important, and we are now working the diplomatic front around that goal.

We have a variety of options, one of which, of course, is the United Nations Security Council, if the Iranians aren't willing to show progress toward that goal. We're working very closely with what's called the EU3. That's Germany, England and France. And I've been pleased, and Secretary of State Rice has been pleased about their willingness to stay tough on the goal, of achieving the goal. Sometimes when you've got a variety of negotiating parties, it's easier for one -- a non-transparent negotiator to pick off a weak link. And yet, they've been firm, and that's important for Israel to know. It's important for me to praise our partners for that strength of purpose.

Obviously, there's other parties we have to work with, including Russia and China. In other words, you can't get anything out of the U.N. Security Council unless there's an agreement that the Iranians are not negotiating in good faith and aren't willing to go forward. And so we're spending a lot of time working with our Russian friends, in particular, to make it clear to them that Iran is showing no good faith.

Even in these public statements, I think there is a clear trend of Olmert urging more drastic action and Bush back-pedalling. I go now to find public statements from after their private meeting ... unless Olmert was too pissed-off to make any.

The use of the word conspiracy isn't because I think there's a conspiracy... Andaluciae started this thread to continue an ongoing denial that the US has any militant intentions towards anyone, ever... basically. It's hidden in the white text in the first post.

*shrug*
That would be a ridiculous claim if taken seriously.

Contrarywise - since I'm pointing out that Andaluciae's source in this story proves little, if anything - and he's arguing it's 'because they are covering it up'... I feel it MORE than appropriate to drop the same phrase into the debate. In this case, it might actually be appropriate.

I agree that the sources are useless. I do see some value in 'news' based on un-named sources and unsupported assertions -- sometimes it's the crack in the levy and better sources come forward to corroborate. It doesn't have to be a 'confession' by one of the players in the deal: one or more senior diplomats who are prepared to put their name to their claim, and provide a plausible paraphrase of the actual negotiations would go a long way.

That didn't happen in this case. Neither the BBC story nor the Guardian article are evidence of any sort.

Do I think the conversation in question took place? I have NO idea... and, to be honest, there are probably only a couple of people who really DO know. And I doubt Andaluciae is one of them.

It took place. Bush and Olmert both say they discussed Iran.

That Israel would have attacked facilities in Iran if the US hadn't forbidden it ... well we might know one day. But it's far too big an assertion to be carried by an un-named source.

There's also the problem of interpretation. If Olmert had said "we're going to bomb a facility if you don't" and Bush had said "Oh, no, you can't do that" I wouldn't even consider that the US calling the tune. I'd want to see substantial threats of retribution, like the US cancelling a peace talk or an arms deal ... before I'd consider it coercion of Israel's action.

It took place. Bush and Olmert both say they discussed Iran.

Yeah... I kinda more meant... took place as described... whether 'that' conversation took place. :)

The use of the word conspiracy isn't because I think there's a conspiracy... Andaluciae started this thread to continue an ongoing denial that the US has any militant intentions towards anyone, ever... basically. It's hidden in the white text in the first post.

Have you ever actually read what I've said? I've said that the US is not going to invade Iran. Not that the US lacks "any militant intentions towards anyone, ever... basically. It's hidden in the white text in the first post." It's pretty straightforward, that I've always argued that knocking over the Iranian regime is not in the US national interest, it's not militarily or economically feasable, and the US government knows that it is a broadly awful idea. I've made the exact same argument since the summer of 2004, and you used to be able to go back through my post history to see it first hand. How on Earth do you get what you claim I said from that?

In the case of Venezuela, on which we've had a similar debate, I've argued that the assertion that a US invasion is even plausible is absurd.

Your only argument is that a news source reported that another news source said that they had been told that a conversation took place.

Actually, I've provided the original source, if you'd care to read it. Is it imperfect? Yes, but part of my argument is, that, if this is true, then it's portentous. Do you have any objections to that claim?



Not by comparison!

It's what you would expect from both parties *shrugs*



No - there's barely any reason to question it. You have a source reporting that another source says it was told something. Ont he other hand, you have the parties allegedly involved saying 'I know nothing about it'.

My thanks to Bunnysaurus for providing the Bush and Olmert statements after the meeting in question. They do seem to offer a degree of plausibility to the claims.

What are you invoking, conspiracy?

We should believe the rumour above the people present?

A curious argument for you to be making, considering you keep arguing that the US isn't going to start another war, and that any arguments they might are tinfoil-hat stuff.

Or - is it only wrong to suspect conspiracy if it's other people?

I'm arguing, that this is exactly the response that we'd expect to see from the US and Israel, if this were true. That's all. States collude for their national interest, and they often do it in secret--is that any shock to you?



Which is a lovely opinion. But that's all it is. An opinion... and it's worth every single cent that goes with that.

Actually, you'd be surprised what my opinion is worth. :) I may or may not (well, not really the 'may not' option) have been compensated for my opinions, and have been published in a, small, but legitimate and peer reviewed academic journal.



Fair enough. It was you that brought up the question of courts of law - I was talking about assessment of sources.

I'm arguing, that this is exactly the response that we'd expect to see from the US and Israel, if this were true. That's all. States collude for their national interest, and they often do it in secret--is that any shock to you?


Collusion. Secrets.

This screams conspiracy theory to me.

You've decided your having it both ways... the same thing that would clear them, you say would incriminate them....

Collusion. Secrets.

This screams conspiracy theory to me.

You've decided your having it both ways... the same thing that would clear them, you say would incriminate them....

It does not incriminate them, and you've dragged me off from my original tack. I used the word 'if' three times in my OP, if you'd care to count. I did not come into this thread with any degree of certainty, or at least, the degree of certainty you came into it with. I merely posited a situation as plausible, and sought to discuss what the potential ramifications of it would be.

You have sought, on the other hand, to prove the claim as inplausible, by providing sources who would, quite frankly, want the world to think otherwise, and have actively been campaigning to have it so.

And, are you going to tell me that states don't bluff when it comes to the use of force? I can certainly come up with a whole heck of a lot of scenarios where they have. Call it a conspiracy theory if you'd like, but it's of a whole different nature than the tinfoil hat types.

Which is a lovely opinion. But that's all it is. An opinion... and it's worth every single cent that goes with that.


I might also add, that this is a debate forum, and what we deal with here is opinions. I know it's a radical idea to you, because you've tried this "opinion" tack a couple of times, but that's what happens here. Whenever someone presents evidence that contradicts your worldview, and then presents analysis, you call it "nothing more than an opinion". What else do you want, kiddo? Peer reviewed academic articles, maybe?

I might also add, that this is a debate forum, and what we deal with here is opinions. I know it's a radical idea to you, because you've tried this "opinion" tack a couple of times, but that's what happens here. Whenever someone presents evidence that contradicts your worldview, and then presents analysis, you call it "nothing more than an opinion". What else do you want, kiddo? Peer reviewed academic articles, maybe?

This thread is still going on?

Let me just point out - you presented some 'evidence' and pretended it proved something. It didn't. And you've provided nothing that DID prove your claim. And even the evidence you DID present, is already contradicted WITHIN itself.

I really don't know what you're looking for here. You proved nothing, you provided a source of PRE-contradicted 'evidence', and yet you don't seem willing to allow that that DOESN'T miraculously prove your assertions.

The GOP-smear campaign crap isn't helpful either. You've provided nothing worth consideration, and yet you want people to believe that my claims you're pushing nothing more than opinion... are now some part of a conspiracy?

This 'opinion tack', as you call it - is simply me pointing out that EVERY time you present unsubstantiated claims - they are just opinion.

If you don't LIKE me pointing that out - stop posting opinion pieces and pretending they matter.

Or, you know, present some actual evidence. Which you can't - because there IS no actual evidence.

This thread is still going on?

Let me just point out - you presented some 'evidence' and pretended it proved something. It didn't. And you've provided nothing that DID prove your claim. And even the evidence you DID present, is already contradicted WITHIN itself.

I really don't know what you're looking for here. You proved nothing, you provided a source of PRE-contradicted 'evidence', and yet you don't seem willing to allow that that DOESN'T miraculously prove your assertions.

The GOP-smear campaign crap isn't helpful either. You've provided nothing worth consideration, and yet you want people to believe that my claims you're pushing nothing more than opinion... are now some part of a conspiracy?

This 'opinion tack', as you call it - is simply me pointing out that EVERY time you present unsubstantiated claims - they are just opinion.

If you don't LIKE me pointing that out - stop posting opinion pieces and pretending they matter.

Or, you know, present some actual evidence. Which you can't - because there IS no actual evidence.

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of you putting words into my mouth.

I posted this thread as a primarily speculative venture. I did not presume the case to be one way or another, whereas you came in under that presumption.

In the thread, I argued that the situation was plausible, I did not even argue that it was likely, merely plausible. You argued that it was straight up not possible, and you used as evidence that neither of the interested powers has admitted to it.

I argued that the non-admission was not the sort of evidence that would be needed to refute this. I argued that you would need information from a source whose interests were less in line with keeping the world thinking a war was a plausible outcome. You argued that these two powers nonadmission made for "corroborating evidence", and I argued that they did not. You then proceeded to argue that I was claiming the initial article was likely, even that it was factual.

You fell back on your usual "opinions" cognitive defense, and acted all insulted.

In the thread, another poster provided evidence from what was said after the conference at which the claimed exchange occurred, you ignored it.

That's a fair summary.

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of you putting words into my mouth.


You stop saying it, I'll stop claiming you said it...?


I posted this thread as a primarily speculative venture. I did not presume the case to be one way or another, whereas you came in under that presumption.


Horse Shit.

You came in with an original post that presented a certain thing as being - at first appearance - speculative, but paying attention IMMEDIATELY revealed that you were claiming it as EVIDENCE that there was no intention to have war between the US and Iran.

If it's evidence of policy, then you're not speculating.


In the thread, I argued that the situation was plausible, I did not even argue that it was likely, merely plausible. You argued that it was straight up not possible, and you used as evidence that neither of the interested powers has admitted to it.


I didn't say it wasn't possible. I said your sources prove nothing.

Which is still true.


I argued that the non-admission was not the sort of evidence that would be needed to refute this. I argued that you would need information from a source whose interests were less in line with keeping the world thinking a war was a plausible outcome. You argued that these two powers nonadmission made for "corroborating evidence", and I argued that they did not. You then proceeded to argue that I was claiming the initial article was likely, even that it was factual.


You basically made a claim that not admitting it was an admission of guilt. That's a Life of Brian scale 'Okay, I am the Messiah' leap of torto-logical thought.

You're reading claims of innocence as admission of guilt. One has to hope you're not involved in the legal profession.


You fell back on your usual "opinions" cognitive defense, and acted all insulted.


I haven't acted insulted? I accused you of GOP tactics, which you're still employing.


In the thread, another poster provided evidence from what was said after the conference at which the claimed exchange occurred, you ignored it.


Did it corroborate the content?


That's a fair summary.

No, it's YOUR summary. I wouldn't call it 'fair'.

You stop saying it, I'll stop claiming you said it...?

I did not say that this article was definitively true. I'd stop saying it if I could, but I can't, because I never started.



Horse Shit.

You came in with an original post that presented a certain thing as being - at first appearance - speculative, but paying attention IMMEDIATELY revealed that you were claiming it as EVIDENCE that there was no intention to have war between the US and Iran.

If it's evidence of policy, then you're not speculating.

If true, it's evidence of policy, but I never assumed it was true. Stop putting words in my mouth. Debating with you is hard, because you do it constantly.


I didn't say it wasn't possible. I said your sources prove nothing.

Which is still true.



You basically made a claim that not admitting it was an admission of guilt. That's a Life of Brian scale 'Okay, I am the Messiah' leap of torto-logical thought.

You're reading claims of innocence as admission of guilt. One has to hope you're not involved in the legal profession.

Once again, you're trying to put words in my mouth. I argued that it doesn't disprove the article, not that it proves it. There is a significant difference.

I seriously hope you aren't a lawyer.

I haven't acted insulted? I accused you of GOP tactics, which you're still employing.

What GOP tactics, buddyboo?



Did it corroborate the content?

Yes, it did. The perceived tension between what the two leaders said does, to a degree, corroborate, but it does not prove.



No, it's YOUR summary. I wouldn't call it 'fair'.

So, entirely fair, then?

I did not say that this article was definitively true. I'd stop saying it if I could, but I can't, because I never started.


I didn't say you DID say that - but I've repeatedly said that's how you've PRESENTED it.


If true, it's evidence of policy, but I never assumed it was true. Stop putting words in my mouth. Debating with you is hard, because you do it constantly.


That's the silly thing here. EVen if it WERE true, it might suggest policy, but it still wouldn't actually put a rubberstamp on it either way. Not that it matters, because it's STILL an uncorroborated tale.

And... there you go attacking the poster, again.


Once again, you're trying to put words in my mouth. I argued that it doesn't disprove the article, not that it proves it. There is a significant difference.


I think you're quibbling semantics here. You basically said that, if they WERE lying, they'd claim they weren't. You can say that's about disproving x, rather than proving y... but it's semantic.


What GOP tactics, buddyboo?


Right now? The construction of your smear campaign about me 'always using the opinion tack' (or whatever it was you said) would be key.


Yes, it did. The perceived tension between what the two leaders said does, to a degree, corroborate, but it does not prove.


It doesn't even corroborate. Perceived tension could just mean they had bad clams.


So, entirely fair, then?

No. Not even. But then, you already knew that.

I didn't say you DID say that - but I've repeatedly said that's how you've PRESENTED it.

So, you agree that you've been trying to put words into my mouth.



That's the silly thing here. EVen if it WERE true, it might suggest policy, but it still wouldn't actually put a rubberstamp on it either way. Not that it matters, because it's STILL an uncorroborated tale.

If true, it would certainly seem to be the case that it would be a rubberstamp on the policy.



And... there you go attacking the poster, again.

When your behaviors have been so egregiously repeated, I'd say it's fair.

I think you're quibbling semantics here. You basically said that, if they WERE lying, they'd claim they weren't. You can say that's about disproving x, rather than proving y... but it's semantic.

They'd say the same thing either way, that's why I say it's neither here nor there.



Right now? The construction of your smear campaign about me 'always using the opinion tack' (or whatever it was you said) would be key.

It's not my fault that your cognitive defense has been to say "It's only an opinion" in several instances.

It doesn't even corroborate. Perceived tension could just mean they had bad clams.

Well, the first problem with that would be that Mr. Olmert is Jewish, we can discount bad clams quite quickly.

But, more to the fact, what do you think is more likely? That they had some sort of policy disagreement of some sort or another, or, that they were just feeling grumpy?

No. Not even. But then, you already knew that.

I see that it remains you are out of touch with reality.

So, you agree that you've been trying to put words into my mouth.


I didn't say that.

Why are you trying to put words into my mouth?


If true, it would certainly seem to be the case that it would be a rubberstamp on the policy.


It would 'seem' that way, would it?

But it still wouldn't actually certify anything, now, would it...


When your behaviors have been so egregiously repeated, I'd say it's fair.


If you present an opinion, and I say 'gosh, that's an opinion', I'm not sure that really constitutes a 'behaviour'.


It's not my fault that your cognitive defense has been to say "It's only an opinion" in several instances.


Pure McCain, there - it doesn't matter if it's true, just keep hamemring away at it.


Well, the first problem with that would be that Mr. Olmert is Jewish, we can discount bad clams quite quickly.

But, more to the fact, what do you think is more likely? That they had some sort of policy disagreement of some sort or another, or, that they were just feeling grumpy?


Even if they had a policy disagreement, it could have been over jam exports. You need more than grumpy faces to start making value judgements on international political actions.


I see that it remains you are out of touch with reality.

That's probably it....

it is more of technological advance of iran, the nuclear plant is protected by missiles and radars and just think if all the planes are shot down by iranians, the fellow arabs and persians will attack israel because israel is no longer invincible.