ForumGarden

I think also, one of the reasons why Irish people tend not to "spank the yank" as much as their English cousins, is that America was always good to us, it was one of the only places in the world we could go to escape from the British.

Galbally;824834 wrote: I am not talking about governments, I am talking about people, Irish people consider the whole Island their homeland, (which of course it is) not just the 26 counties of the Republic, we were treated as aboriginies in our own country for centuries, who couldn't speak their language, practice their religion, send their children to school, or own land, and the majority had to flee or in famine times they died like flies, hence a country with a population of nearly 10 million in 1830 had only 4.5 million in 1900. Then the last rising and the war of independence, and the country was divided losing 6 counties of Ulster because of the huge numbers of Scottish Presbeterians who were settled there, and we had to accept that as well because we had not the means to do anything about it. Its all history now, even though the Island is still divided, but at least its now a peaceful situation, and everyone wants to conduct politics constitutionally, but its not a series of facts that you would ever forget. Its not completely the same as anyone else's situation, it just means that we certainly don't share the historical perspective of countries such as Britain or America, which only know success and power.


All true, and not the most glorious episode in English history. I can point out that the Normans controlled England by right of conquest, which was accepted as God's verdict at the time, and the Norman invasion of Ireland was on the same principle. Secondly, had the English not controlled Ireland we would probably never have been a world power because we'd have been invaded by Spain or France using Ireland as an advanced base (much the way the Allies used the UK in WW2) before we'd developed an effective navy - as was the original plan for the Armada and attempted by the French on more than one occasion, but it remains a blot on English history.

However, the democratic principle is now established and I believe that the Catholic birth rate is still higher than the Protestant in the North, so Ulster should be able to vote itself into the Republic in my lifetime should it so wish. This raises the intriguing prospect of Paisley getting on his hind legs and encouraging his congregation to "Fock like Bannies," (if you'll excuse my attempt to transcribe the flat Ulster accent:)).

spot;824678 wrote: I do wish people would realize that Iran is, at most, a regional power. What we get from this nemesis talk is the idea that Iran, having built a (gasp) NUKE! or ten, is going to lob one into either Washington DC or Tel Aviv. The Soviets were the bogeymen with alleged plans for World Domination and even they weren't believable in the role. Did they, despite all the Better Dead Than Red rubbish, lob a nuke? Despite having thousands and having delivery systems? No they didn't. The motivation for Iran doesn't fly either for exactly the same reasons.

What Iran's leaders have, by complete contrast with their detractors, is moral virtue.




I will leave the nuclear issue to one side, but are you really suggesting that the fatuous, self-righteous, homophobic, misogynistic, xenophobic, militarisitc ruling junta of Iran who deny homosexuality exists, who threaten to wipe out other states by force, who openly call Jews "pigs", who propogate a tirade of hate against everyone who is not like them, who execute their own citizens for such despicable crimes as having sex with people they happen to fall in love with, or criticizing the state or aspects of the religion that is imposed by the state, and seem hell bent on immersing their country in a confrontation in the region regardless of the cost to the ordinary people of Iran are on a higher moral level than their western counterparts?

Galbally;824834 wrote: I am not talking about governments, I am talking about people, Irish people consider the whole Island their homeland, (which of course it is) not just the 26 counties of the Republic, we were treated as aboriginies in our own country for centuries, who couldn't speak their language, practice their religion, send their children to school, or own land, and the majority had to flee or in famine times they died like flies, hence a country with a population of nearly 10 million in 1830 had only 4.5 million in 1900. Then the last rising and the war of independence, and the country was divided losing 6 counties of Ulster because of the huge numbers of Scottish Presbeterians who were settled there, and we had to accept that as well because we had not the means to do anything about it. Its all history now, even though the Island is still divided, but at least its now a peaceful situation, and everyone wants to conduct politics constitutionally, but its not a series of facts that you would ever forget. Its not completely the same as anyone else's situation, it just means that we certainly don't share the historical perspective of countries such as Britain or America, which only know success and power.


I was talking about the role the Government of the Republic played in the Northern Irish peace process, when (and this is an assumption) they put pressure on PIRA to come to the negotiating table? Who is playing that role with Hamas?

Not arguing with your facts.

Clodhopper;824850 wrote: All true, and not the most glorious episode in English history. I can point out that the Normans controlled England by right of conquest, which was accepted as God's verdict at the time, and the Norman invasion of Ireland was on the same principle. Secondly, had the English not controlled Ireland we would probably never have been a world power because we'd have been invaded by Spain or France using Ireland as an advanced base (much the way the Allies used the UK in WW2) before we'd developed an effective navy - as was the original plan for the Armada and attempted by the French on more than one occasion, but it remains a blot on English history.

However, the democratic principle is now established and I believe that the Catholic birth rate is still higher than the Protestant in the North, so Ulster should be able to vote itself into the Republic in my lifetime should it so wish. This raises the intriguing prospect of Paisley getting on his hind legs and encouraging his congregation to "Fock like Bannies," (if you'll excuse my attempt to transcribe the flat Ulster accent:)).


I understand that, its just the way things panned out, we were unlucky enough to encounter a people and a nation that were more powerful and organized than ourselves, and who were in a phase of great expansion and power, who had their own reasons for doing the things they did. There is no point trying to get too moralistic or blame the English for everything, because essentially, in this world, you make your own way, you do not depend always on the kindness of strangers, and if you do, you are likely to be robbed at some point.

My only point is to try and outline the kind of things that inform the national physche of a country, be it Ireland, England, Israel, Palestine, Russia, whatever, history is not always fashionalble, but its a powerful force in human identity and you ignore it at your peril.

The Irish are famously obessed with their history though, for obvious reasons, in 1904, in a novel by James Joyce's one of the characters (and Irish Jew by happenchance) says of the past, "History is a nightmare from which I am still trying to awake", I think that summed up the Irish position on the national question for most of the 20th century, thankfully things do seem to have changed significantly. Though whether Ian Paisley is ever going to encourage unionists to make love for Ulster is something I could make no comment on. :wah:

Clodhopper;824852 wrote: I was talking about the role the Government of the Republic played in the Northern Irish peace process, when (and this is an assumption) they put pressure on PIRA to come to the negotiating table? Who is playing that role with Hamas?

Not arguing with your facts.


I understand your question better now, but its hard to have a direct correlation between the situation in the holy land now, and that in Northern Ireland, I will have a think about it.

Galbally;824851 wrote: I will leave the nuclear issue to one side, but are you really suggesting that the fatuous, self-righteous, homophobic, misogynistic, xenophobic, militarisitc ruling junta of Iran who deny homosexuality exists, who threaten to wipe out other states by force, who openly call Jews "pigs", who propogate a tirade of hate against everyone who is not like them, who execute their own citizens for such despicable crimes as having sex with people they happen to fall in love with, or criticizing the state or aspects of the religion that is imposed by the state, and seem hell bent on immersing their country in a confrontation in the region regardless of the cost to the ordinary people of Iran are on a higher moral level than their western counterparts?


Spot: This is why I was startled by your claim you'd feel safer in Iran than the US, and why I suggested that you tend to get a bit carried away by your own logic.

Glad you do, though. Makes me think.

Galbally: Ah, that glorious gift of the gab.

Galbally;824851 wrote: I will leave the nuclear issue to one side, but are you really suggesting that the fatuous, self-righteous, homophobic, misogynistic, xenophobic, militarisitc ruling junta of Iran who deny homosexuality exists, who threaten to wipe out other states by force, who openly call Jews "pigs", who propogate a tirade of hate against everyone who is not like them, who execute their own citizens for such despicable crimes as having sex with people they happen to fall in love with, or criticizing the state or aspects of the religion that is imposed by the state, and seem hell bent on immersing their country in a confrontation in the region regardless of the cost to the ordinary people of Iran are on a higher moral level than their western counterparts?


Yes.

I could make out a similar tirade over their counterparts but it wouldn't add to the harmony of the site.

Would it help if I provided quotes from the people you're describing that would tend to dispute each of your sentences? I'll happily do that if you like.

spot;824858 wrote: Yes.

I could make out a similar tirade over their counterparts but it wouldn't add to the harmony of the site.

Would it help if I provided quotes from the people you're describing that would tend to dispute each of your sentences? I'll happily do that if you like.




Oh by all means, thats what this site is for.

posted by galbally

The Irish are famously obessed with their history though, for obvious reasons, in 1904, in a novel by James Joyce's one of the characters (and Irish Jew by happenchance) says of the past, "History is a nightmare from which I am still trying to awake", I think that summed up the Irish position on the national question for most of the 20th century, thankfully things do seem to have changed significantly. Though whether Ian Paisley is ever going to encourage unionists to make love for Ulster is something I could make no comment on.


He's Presbyterian. Borderline wee free. He can suggest it but only so long as no one has actually has a good time while doing so. Think catholic guilt without the benefit of confession. Mankind wasn't put on earth to be happy.

When people debate the middle east and compare it with the west one factor is that they are going from medeival society to an industrial one in very short order. It's easy to forget the constant warfare, both religious and secular, ad the tremendous social upheaval we went through in the west to end up with liberal democracy. We have a genius for warfare that is a result of centuries of constant warfare.

fatuous, self-righteous, homophobic, misogynistic, xenophobic, militarisitc ruling junta


At one point or another you could apply that description to just about every country on the planet.

gmc;824957 wrote: At one point or another you could apply that description to just about every country on the planet.


Absolutely, I am not saying morally the west is superior to anyone, but I hardly think we really need lessons in ethics and morality from the Revoutionary Party of Iran. That's spot's bag.

Sometimes I wish I still had the time to write detailed and lengthy posts containing my assessments of world issues with supporting evidence. As a result of not having time I'm stuck with making brief observations until my next day off and hoping that I will still be taken seriously. Here goes...

One of my biggest concerns in regards to the wars, both real and cold, that are happening in the Middle East are that the American public is, by opinion poll, against military action but their opinion has no effect upon the actions of their country. Just as the massive protests prior to the Iraq war did not affect England's decision to join the "coalition of the willing." I worry about living in a world where dominant nations do not respect the will of their people. That America has made a mission for itself of transforming other countries into democracies, while ignoring the will of its own people and refusing to negotiate with the elected officials of Palestine, makes them not only appear to be a rogue governnment based on lies... it makes that appearance factual.

In regards to Iran, there has been villification happening for a long time in attempts to influence public support for any aggressive action taken against Iran. This villification has been happening ever since they overthrew the puppet Shah.

From a Noam Chomsky article:

A missile defense system is never going to stop a first strike, but it could, in principle, if it ever worked, stop a retaliatory strike. If you attack some country with a first strike, and practically wipe it out, if you have a missile defense system, and prevent them from retaliating, then you would be protected, or partially protected. If a country has a functioning missile defense system it will have more options for carrying out a first strike. Okay, obvious, and not a secret. It's known to every strategic analyst. I can explain it to my grandchildren in two minutes and they understand it.

When we consider the above explanation it is hard to get around recognising that the US has effectively already started a war against Iran without any official declarations, attempt to seek support from their own populace or even a presentation of any justification for said war.

This greatly concerns me as a Canadian since we share a massive undefended border with a rogue nation and Canada is a little simple minded when it comes to planning for the future.

koan;825088 wrote: Sometimes I wish I still had the time to write detailed and lengthy posts containing my assessments of world issues with supporting evidence. As a result of not having time I'm stuck with making brief observations until my next day off and hoping that I will still be taken seriously. Here goes...

One of my biggest concerns in regards to the wars, both real and cold, that are happening in the Middle East are that the American public is, by opinion poll, against military action but their opinion has no effect upon the actions of their country. Just as the massive protests prior to the Iraq war did not affect England's decision to join the "coalition of the willing." I worry about living in a world where dominant nations do not respect the will of their people. That America has made a mission for itself of transforming other countries into democracies, while ignoring the will of its own people and refusing to negotiate with the elected officials of Palestine, makes them not only appear to be a rogue governnment based on lies... it makes that appearance factual.

In regards to Iran, there has been villification happening for a long time in attempts to influence public support for any aggressive action taken against Iran. This villification has been happening ever since they overthrew the puppet Shah.

From a Noam Chomsky article:

A missile defense system is never going to stop a first strike, but it could, in principle, if it ever worked, stop a retaliatory strike. If you attack some country with a first strike, and practically wipe it out, if you have a missile defense system, and prevent them from retaliating, then you would be protected, or partially protected. If a country has a functioning missile defense system it will have more options for carrying out a first strike. Okay, obvious, and not a secret. It's known to every strategic analyst. I can explain it to my grandchildren in two minutes and they understand it.

When we consider the above explanation it is hard to get around recognising that the US has effectively already started a war against Iran without any official declarations, attempt to seek support from their own populace or even a presentation of any justification for said war.

This greatly concerns me as a Canadian since we share a massive undefended border with a rogue nation and Canada is a little simple minded when it comes to planning for the future.


Don't worry Koan, your posts are always interetsing, and I pay attention anyway (well most of the time). I read Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival", and its an interesting book, I don't agree personally with everything he says, because I have a different outlook in general on things, but he certainly makes compelling and powerful arguments about what is going wrong.

The particular article linked in my post makes some interesting points about not confusing the reaction of a country to first strike threats as being natural disorder within the country.

You can see how a number of Americans react just to the thought of other countries posing a threat. Now I'd be interested to see how they'd react if Iran surrounded the USA with first strike weaponry. There would be calls for bloodbath reaction. I think Iran has been rather understated in it's reaction and should be commended.

The recent resignation of Fallon is extremely interesting.

posted by koan

Just as the massive protests prior to the Iraq war did not affect England's decision to join the "coalition of the willing." I worry about living in a world where dominant nations do not respect the will of their people. That America has made a mission for itself of transforming other countries into democracies, while ignoring the will of its own people and refusing to negotiate with the elected officials of Palestine, makes them not only appear to be a rogue governnment based on lies... it makes that appearance factual.




Overlooking the inaccuracies about england rather than the UK. Our electoral system badly needs reforming as it distirts the resuylts and we always end up with a party in power that he majority don't actually vote for. Effectivly we are disenfranchised and the two main parties gave a vested interest in keeping the status quo. Initially a lot of people did support action because they believed what they were told. The concept that a political leader will deliberately stand up and tell lies over such an important issue is one many still don't want to believe.

It is now clear TB lied and it's one of a number of reasons you are seeing the labour party about to cease to be a viable political party -at least for a little while. they are currently even less popular than maggie thatcher in her final days. A lot of people are angry about the war and other issues. I know quite a few diehard labour supporters that are changing their allegiances and I would take bets on Gordon brown losing his seat at the next election.

Don't know about the states, they seem even more disenfranchised we still have our politicians by the balls but have forgotten how to squeeze.

Jester;825280 wrote: Again, its a jewish state, I saw both you and spot arguing that a muslum state has the right to do the exact same thing in thier countries on other threads, why the difference here?I'm sure neither of us has said anything like that, if you quote it I'm sure we'll apologize. It rings no bells with me.

There is one single method of dealing with these problems and that's by applying the law. The law has to be blind to race, religion, creed, gender, sexuality, all those things. That's a given. Israeli law isn't blind to whether you're Jewish or not.

Jester;825280 wrote: Well then there must be a reason why they want tehm controlled, could it be that they cannot trust them because they suicide bomb the Israelis?

I think here is a different issue than just aparthied as it appears, the current conflict being what it is I wouldnt grant rights to a group that I could not trust. I have my own to protect first.

Again, its a jewish state, I saw both you and spot arguing that a muslum state has the right to do the exact same thing in thier countries on other threads, why the difference here?


And maybe the Palestinians cannot trust the Israelis because they knock down their homes and confiscate their fields? The point is that the law must be observed - it is not a case of granting rights it is a case of observing the rights that already exist. The Palestinians we are discussing *are* Israeli citizens and have a constitutional right to be protected by their government. The issue *is* apartheid pure and simple.

ETA - Maybe the reason they want them controlled is exactly the same reason the whites wanted control is South Africa - to hold power and to have an underclass to do all the hard / dirty work.

BTW - could you show me where I argue that a Muslim state has the right to act in a discriminatory way or to abuse its own citizens? I do not believe that I have ever held or stated that opinion.

Jester;825615 wrote: It may be aparthied, but as you said in the quote below, why do you get to dictate to Israel what you did not allow others the opinon of against Saudi Arabia? Why can you and Spot be so free to criticize one country and not another? Are they both not sovoriegn nations with laws that are decided upon themselves?

You two both severly criticize the US for interfering and you want it done yourself when its a subject you think is unjust.

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showt ... bia&page=7


I don't see the comparison - the first case was objecting to applying western cultural values to the legal system of another country, the second is asking that a country acts in accordance with its own laws.

How do you see this as inconsistent?

Jester, there's a difference between justly applying the law of a country to all its citizens equally without fear or favour and having what's effectively a disenfranchised class of second-rate citizens who are excluded from full participation in the economy and the justice system. That's what I meant about the law needing to be blind to such considerations. What the laws are is entirely for the country to choose internally but having an oppressed class is what Abraham Lincoln abolished in 1865. It's not a matter of asking the USA to step in and stop it, it's more a matter of asking you to stop handing billions of dollars a year free to the oppressors please. That way they'll have to stop. While you keep offering them a free lunch they can sit back, belch and stay oppressors.

Since my name was tarnished there as well, I'll just restate what Bryn and spot already pointed out.

In the Saudi Arabia thread, I was against condemning a law that Saudis are applying equally to all the citizens. The reasoning was based on differences of opinions as to how citizens should be punished, the condemnation of the Saudis was coming from a country that still applies the death penalty and recently executed a minor who was mentally handicapped putting them very far from being in a position to preach.

In Israel, if you aren't a Jew you are not treated equally, yet their own laws decree that they should not discriminate.

Apples. Oranges.

Closer analogy although not a brilliant one might be the jim crow laws of america rather than apartheid in south africa. Ostensibly all are equal under the law and have the same legal protections but in practice the reality is very different.

Extremists on both sides have a vested interest in keeping things rolling along.

What's your opinion jester. If the president orders an attack on iran would the military commanders be justified in refusing to carry out the order? Can he actually order it anyway without congress agreeing? Which actually has the final say, congress, senate or president? I've never been able to work it out. In the UK it's clear cut, it's parliament and the MP's. The PM rules at their whim.

gmc;826014 wrote: Ostensibly all are equal under the law and have the same legal protections but in practice the reality is very different. No, that's incorrect and it's important to note the difference. Non-Jews are prohibited from owning land within Israel and the appropriate government agency is prohibited by law from selling to anyone but a Jew. The same distinction exists on renting property within the West Bank settlements. There are many other areas of law in which Jewish identity is an enabling aspect. This isn't a matter of societal discrimination, this is apartheid.

Just a point to make here, in Saudi Arabia Christians are not allowed to practice their religion by law, even in Private, all non-muslim religious symbols are banned and displaying them is punishable by flogging, and non muslims are not even allowed within an exclusion zone placed around Mecca and Medina, again punishable by flogging. Depsite the fact that there are presently millions of non-muslims living in Saudi Arabia from across the world. That's completely discriminatory by the terms of definition being used here, not by Saudi Law I grant you, because its based on an ultra strict interpretation of Sharia law and is completly exclusionary and essetially a totalitarian society based on an extreme version of the Islamic religion. I'm not really making any point, just making an observation.

Oh and of course homosexuality is punishable by flogging or death, and women are household property and essentially have no personal rights other than those provided for in mysoginistic religious texts, the government is a absolute monarchy which rules through the sharia and the secret police, there were as many as 250,000 slaves in Saudi up to the 1950s (I think it was only abolished in the 1960s), and people are regularly imprisoned or dissapeared for criticizing the government, or Islam, or even Saudi Buisness practices. Again, just a comment.

Whatever the plan is, the commander of CENTCOM felt it necessary to resign. He seems to have been a rather experienced military man and his stance against attacking Iran was based on such a move being disastrous.

Perhaps, Jester, it is you that is playing into their hands by not fearing war.

Different people give different explanations. If you have a hard time believing in coincidences then the article in Esquire may have been the trigger event.

What you really mean is he's a communist sleeper who's been exposed in the nick of time.

Why's he not in jail?

Jester;826905 wrote: Because with his rise to power under Clinton it shows he was his boy, the tide turned on him when the conservatives took office... In the military the top brass are not apolitical, everybody knows who's boys are who's. This, in my experince, is a cabinet post in the making for a liberal admiral who will come out after the next election, I thinks he's counting his chickens before they are hatched but maybe gambling ona either party getting him in, Admirals cant make too many waves you know, it makes for sunami's in distant shores...


Bush appointed him less than a year ago.



Sorry but your assessment seems foolishly ill informed. On what information are you basing your opinion?

Jester;826629 wrote: I detest war, but it is sometimes necessary, it is not to be 'feared' either way, either you do it and do it fully or you suck at it and it gets prolonged and more die than is required to change what needs to be changed. It's a practical issue for me, it may appear callous, but it is not.




Actually I agree with you there. War is sometimes necessary and if you go to war you shouldn't pussyfoot about. It's something you only do when you have to and it behoves you to be good at it when you do. What I object to is the idea currently prevalent that you can have a "limited" war, or use war as a tool for diplomacy and when you have won your war all the people caught up in it are grateful and so long as you apologise when you kill the wrong people everything will be hunky dory because right was on your side. War always leads to war. It should only be a last resort when all else fails.

posted by jester

I think being gutless is a common factor among both conservatives and liberals.




It always amuses when someone says that liberals are gutless. If they were you wouldn't be living in a liberal democracy. If fact you wouldn't have liberty at all without liberals who value liberty above all else. There would still be slaves, universal franchise would be a pipe dream as would democracy and elected leaders answerable to those who put them there.

Give me liberty or give me death-there's a liberal battle cry for you, can't remember who said it though. All the fascists and communists and tyrant and ideologies of all kinds eventually fall at the hand of liberals and those who want to be free. That is what the word means liberty/liberal they have the same language root Latin libertas, from liber ‘free’. liberalis, from liber ‘free man’


It echoes down the ages, governments and religion have never liked liberals because they want to think for themselves, question the status quo and not just do what they are told. The only real counter argument they have is ridicule which seems to fool some people some of the time.

Kid yourself they are weak all you will (after all you are entitled to think and say what you will in a liberal society) just don't try taking away their liberty.

Jester;827272 wrote: Rank and file my dear, you dont get past the first level of admiral or general without political connections. My 'rise to power' comment does not refer to his appointment to his post but to his rank advancement.


No idea how American generals get appointed, but your logic does allow you to argue that any general who serves at any time under a democrat administration is a nambypamby weak kneed wimp.

However, it also means that I can, using your logic, insist that all high ranking officers in the current US military have risen through the ranks during a republican administration and are therefore quite clearly fascist xenophobic morons whose brains are smaller than their testicles.

I think it comes down to anyone who is against the war in Iraq or Iran is a weak-minded member of a non-Republican origin. Rather like yelling "Commie" in the old days. Nonsense. As usual, we are left to take Jester's word on everything as authority because he has no good sources to show to back his opinions.

The US has surrounded Iran with first strike weaponry. That is an act of war. The only reason there is no war with Iran at the moment is that they have chosed to ignore the US. I can see how that might be aggravating. Of course if Iran acts on their right to defend themselves, many Americans would scream bloody murder and insist that Iran made the first move.

The US right to defend themselves is rarely offered as a right to other countries. We have Americans that are imagining and inventing a threat from Iran and we have Iranians with real and present danger sitting in the Persian Gulf. I think this shows a lot of admirable restraint on the side of the Iranians and they deserve much praise.

Jester;827272 wrote: Rank and file my dear, you dont get past the first level of admiral or general without political connections. My 'rise to power' comment does not refer to his appointment to his post but to his rank advancement.


My understanding of Fallon's career is that he got past first level by being good at his job. If you'd like to put yourself up for comparison and challenge him on a professional level I wish you luck. I realise you've got a military history. That makes you more knowledgeable about war than I am. It does not make you more knowledgeable than Mr. Fallon.

Not long. Natural talent.

Jester;828042 wrote: Its well known in the US military that high ranking officers have a particular bent toward whoever is in office when they are seeking certain rank advancement, most officers hide thier political ideology well, some surprise you occasionally.

Nice insult though, how long did that take you to make it up?


That's true. Colin Powell surprised me in his support for going in to iraq. Perhaps like many he was taken in and trusted those in power not to lie for their own ends. Maybe his fault is like many miliatry in that they are loyal to the idea of the US and get it mixed up with loyalty to the individual holding it even when you think him wrong. Takes guts to stand up and resign from a high powered position, if it is a man of integrity doing it it should make you think. colin powell resigned as well-or was asked to do so since they no longer needed him. Nice take that the so called non political military should be highlly political. If you value freedom keep your military weak at home so they can't be used against the people by a government.

posted by jester

Fallon was in the way of dealing wiht the region in a stern matter, he dod not carry out the orders of the CIC, either he read the writing on the wall, or he has a personal agenda which Im sure we will see in a years time. Thats my opinion, feel free to disagree.


I don't know the ins and outs of US politics and frenkly it's mainly of passing interest. But, my understanding is that the ilitary swear an oath to obey the legitimate orders of those appointed tio command. So what d you do when your CIC is giving you orders you believe to be against the interests of the US and certainly against the wishes of the US public. obey because he is the CIC or resign in protest?

Does GW have a mandate to go to war against iran or can congress actually stop him?

The only way you would win a war against iran is to completely annihilate the place. It would also turn every country on the planet against the US.

posted by jester

When military men finally start standing up for what they belive in and take it on the chin for doing so I'l have direct faith in Brass again.


But when they do and resign over it they are weak? make up your mind. It almost sound like you would favour a military didtatorship

Jester;828040 wrote: The Iranian government is nothing but a thug waiting for the right opportinity to strike. You know, what we get from this is that it's your informed opinion that it's so. On the other hand we have sixty years experience of the USA behaving exactly as you describe a thug behaving, not merely waiting for an opportunity to strike but striking repeatedly at many nations across the world. The Iranians haven't ever behaved like that, they're actually one of those democratic secular republics the US destabilized and appointed a puppet King (of all things!) to rule - undemocratically, as you might expect. He administered Iran on America's behalf with dreadful CIA-trained brutality for over twenty years may he rot. Are you surprised that Iran is defensive when the USA comes round sniffing butts and obviously in heat again?

Just address that point for once, you always glide over it. Iran was a democratic secular republic and the US destabilized it and overthrew the elected government in 1953, and the whole of Iranian history since has led from that action. Discuss that for a paragraph. You have a very nationalist Islamic anti-American country there now. Why are you surprised, you made it that way.