War Buildup Against Iran

[Danian]

Before, the US was content to let Iranian hardliners and reformers fight it out amongst themselves, perhaps even encourage a little civil war. However, the administration's declaration of "We will not tolerate Iran obtaining nuclear capabilities" and Iran's response of "We reserve the right to defend ourselves through preemptive strikes" and Isreal's response of "We ALSO reserve the right to protect ourselves through preemptive strikes" have not made the situation any easier. A recent spike in analyses regarding war with Iran could be considered alarming to some.

What are your thoughts on a slow move to a war footing against Iran?

 

[limerickman]

The problem (and as I write, I know that this message will be interpreted as being racist/bigotted but in this country we're allowed to call it as it is) is Israel.

I go back to the point made earlier - if Israel was not foisted on Palestine in 1948, I don't reckon we would have a problem in the Middle East.

I go back to the original Balfour summit and declaration.
If the jewish homeland was created (as was suggested) in Argentina, instead of Palestine, there would have been none of what we see today in the Middle
East.

Unfortunately, the British goverment in 1948 acquiesed to the Zionist lobby (probably out of guilt ?!) and allowed the statelet of isreal to be created in Palestine.
This decision was widely opposed at the time (Secretary Marshall in President
Truman's goverment told Truman that USA backing for the creation of israel
was a fundamental error).

If the Argentina option had been taken - instead of the Palestine option - it would have avoided what we see today.

Most Arabs oppose the creation and imposition of israel in Palestine since 1948.
If israel has nuclear weapons (and it has - just look at the Vannunu case), it is only fair that other country's in the region oppose that threat presented by
israel.
We know that israel has been developing a nuclear program since the late 1970's.

Unfortunately, the US political system allows itself to unequivocally support
Israel.
No matter what.

That's the crux of this whole matter.

 

[Weisse Luft]

No, the problem started when mineral wealth was discovered in foundering Islamic countries, giving said dying empires new lifeblood. Islam has a trend of a wildfire spread and rapid burnout if new territory is not conquered. Islam needs fresh blood to survive and now they are up against a wall.

Look at how the Hebrews were treated in Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Ethopia, Europe and Asia. The only two places where they found freedom from persecution was England and the United States. I refer you to Jakebrake's posting on the history of the Jewish homeland. Its patently obivious some here are bigots.

 

[lokstah]

Its patently obivious some here are bigots.

These are complex matters of history and entitlement; there are plenty of individuals on both sides of the Zionism issue with valid perspectives.

No one has said anything in regards to the injustice of Zionism which is any more villifying and rash than the "bloodthirst" characterization of Islam you just leveled.

 

[Weisse Luft]

What happened to the polythesistic religions common to Arabia after 600 AD? That was the FIRST wave of genocide committed by Islam.

 

[lokstah]

What happened to the polythesistic religions common to Arabia after 600 AD? That was the FIRST wave of genocide committed by Islam.

There's nothing wrong with acknowledging the bloody history of Islam (or the arguably bloodier history of Christianity), though it's not a very logical answer to another person's observation that the Israel issue is at the crux of the Middle East problem. It comes across as little more than an angry, anti-Muslim complaint. Did you loose your way while looking for the "7th Century Bloodshed" thread?

I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[ausgirl]

I agree with Limerickman that the creation of Israel in that particular location did cause problems. I don't think he was being racist or a bigot on this point. Here's why and let me put this in a very simplistic way - any country who is forced to give up a portion of their land for the creation of a new country will end up holding a grudge and probably go to war over it. The reason - thousands of citizens of that country lose homes, land, farms, businesses and so on. Whether or not this caused the present problems it's hard to say, but it probably contributed a huge amount to a lot of wars in that region.

 

[Jakebrake]

I agree with Limerickman that the creation of Israel in that particular location did cause problems. I don't think he was being racist or a bigot on this point. Here's why and let me put this in a very simplistic way - any country who is forced to give up a portion of their land for the creation of a new country will end up holding a grudge and probably go to war over it. The reason - thousands of citizens of that country lose homes, land, farms, businesses and so on. Whether or not this caused the present problems it's hard to say, but it probably contributed a huge amount to a lot of wars in that region.

There are millions of Jewish descendants of people in Israel who were forcibly deprived of their homes in Europe and throughout the Middle East and who have no hope of reclaiming their ancestral residences. Should they be given the right of return?

 

[limerickman]

I have no difficulty whatsoever with the repatriation of Jewish people to any location in Europe (or anywhere else for that matter).
No difficulty at all.

But I still contend that the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine is what is the central cause of the problems in the Middle East.
I think that the Balfour declaration's option which identified a part of Argentina as a location for a Jewish state would have been better and would have avoided what we see today in the Middle East.

 

[limerickman]

No, the problem started when mineral wealth was discovered in foundering Islamic countries, giving said dying empires new lifeblood. Islam has a trend of a wildfire spread and rapid burnout if new territory is not conquered. Islam needs fresh blood to survive and now they are up against a wall.

Look at how the Hebrews were treated in Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Ethopia, Europe and Asia. The only two places where they found freedom from persecution was England and the United States. I refer you to Jakebrake's posting on the history of the Jewish homeland. Its patently obivious some here are bigots.

So we're bigots ?

Your view of Islam strikes me as being bigotted - to be perfectly honest.

Jakebrakes analysis of Jewish history was very informative.

 

[Bikerman2004]

There's nothing wrong with acknowledging the bloody history of Islam (or the arguably bloodier history of Christianity), though it's not a very logical answer to another person's observation that the Israel issue is at the crux of the Middle East problem. It comes across as little more than an angry, anti-Muslim complaint. Did you loose your way while looking for the "7th Century Bloodshed" thread?

I'm not sure what your point is.

While you two are arguing which religion is bloodier, the rest of us will examine the current situation. History has shown that whenever Islam rubs up against other cultures there is violence. Arabs will always use the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as an excuse. Iran is not affected by Israel's existence, but Iran uses it as a tool for influence. There is no point arguing the legitimacy of Israel. Right or wrong its obvious they are here to stay. While I do feel for the Palestinians, I don't think the Syrians, Iranians, Saudis and others have any right to attack Israel. They did not lose any land. Again they just use it for influence.

 

[zapper]

What are your thoughts on a slow move to a war footing against Iran?

Iran defies UN on uranium fuel
AP, Reuters Tuesday, September 21, 2004

VIENNA In defiance of the United Nations, Iran announced Tuesday that it had begun converting a large amount of uranium ore into the gas needed for enrichment, a key step in creating bomb-grade fuel.

The UN agency demanded last weekend that Iran freeze uranium enrichment and related activities, such as the building of centrifuges, within two months. Failure to do so could lead to the agency's referring Iran to the UN Security Council, which could impose sanctions

 

[limerickman]

While you two are arguing which religion is bloodier, the rest of us will examine the current situation. History has shown that whenever Islam rubs up against other cultures there is violence. Arabs will always use the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as an excuse. Iran is not affected by Israel's existence, but Iran uses it as a tool for influence. There is no point arguing the legitimacy of Israel. Right or wrong its obvious they are here to stay. While I do feel for the Palestinians, I don't think the Syrians, Iranians, Saudis and others have any right to attack Israel. They did not lose any land. Again they just use it for influence.

I hear what you're saying Biker - but I think you're being selective when you say Islam is more predisposed to violence than other ideologies.
Christianity, Sikhism, Judaism and all other ideologies have blood on their hands too.

Maybe other countries. as you say - do use the creation of Israel and the Palestinian cause as a flag of convenience.
But the central fact is that in 1948, an expedient solution was arrived at, which has caused nothing but trouble since.
If 1948 had never happened, those countries would not have such a flag of
convenience (if indeed it is a flag of convenience).

I don't have a problem with Jewish people wishing to create their own country
- that is their preogative.
However, I do have a problem with that country being created in a region where people were forcibly displaced and in a region where ethnic tensions
proliferate between Judaism and Islam.

In hindsight it seems ludicrous that Israel was created where it now is.
The Balfour option should have been taken (create Israel in South America)

 

[Bikerman2004]

I hear what you're saying Biker - but I think you're being selective when you say Islam is more predisposed to violence than other ideologies.
Christianity, Sikhism, Judaism and all other ideologies have blood on their hands too.

I didn't mean to insinuate that just Islam causes the violence. I'm quite sure other religious zealots are as responsible for the violence. Just look at India and Pakistan.
I don't think the Argentina plan was viable. The Jews don't think of Argentina as their homeland.

 

[limerickman]

I didn't mean to insinuate that just Islam causes the violence. I'm quite sure other religious zealots are as responsible for the violence. Just look at India and Pakistan.
I don't think the Argentina plan was viable. The Jews don't think of Argentina as their homeland.

I know that you didn't mean to insinuate about Islam.

Other posters here do, however.

 

[lokstah]

While you two are arguing which religion is bloodier, the rest of us will examine the current situation. History has shown that whenever Islam rubs up against other cultures there is violence.

See, this comes back to the question I posed to Wessie. Comparing the "bloodiness" of the world's competing cultures doesn't interest me either. In discussions on this topic, however, it's routinely the case that an individual like Wessie counter even a thoughtful implication of the Israel factor with a claim of bigotry -- and in the same breath, indicate a Muslim tendency towards violence. "Islam needs fresh blood to survive," he suggests, shortly after labeling Lickerman a bigot.

I'd wager neither is a bigot in the sense I like to use the word, to be clear, but the irony is unfortunate.

I just question the mindset, or the climate, which prompts statements like yours, above, that serve no real informative or rhetorical purpose -- unless, of course, we are convinced that a particular cultural player in this game is nothing but a brutal hun and needs to be exposed as such.

 

[Bikerman2004]

See, this comes back to the question I posed to Wessie. Comparing the "bloodiness" of the world's competing cultures doesn't interest me either. In discussions on this topic, however, it's routinely the case that an individual like Wessie counter even a thoughtful implication of the Israel factor with a claim of bigotry -- and in the same breath, indicate a Muslim tendency towards violence. "Islam needs fresh blood to survive," he suggests, shortly after labeling Lickerman a bigot.

I'd wager neither is a bigot in the sense I like to use the word, to be clear, but the irony is unfortunate.

I just question the mindset, or the climate, which prompts statements like yours, above, that serve no real informative or rhetorical purpose -- unless, of course, we are convinced that a particular cultural player in this game is nothing but a brutal hun and needs to be exposed as such.

I've already noted that I didn't mean to insinuate Islam is responsible for all the violence. However, it is a expanding religion and areas where it is expanding there is bound to be violence between religious zealots.

 

[limerickman]

See, this comes back to the question I posed to Wessie. Comparing the "bloodiness" of the world's competing cultures doesn't interest me either. In discussions on this topic, however, it's routinely the case that an individual like Wessie counter even a thoughtful implication of the Israel factor with a claim of bigotry -- and in the same breath, indicate a Muslim tendency towards violence. "Islam needs fresh blood to survive," he suggests, shortly after labeling Lickerman a bigot.

I'd wager neither is a bigot in the sense I like to use the word, to be clear, but the irony is unfortunate.

I just question the mindset, or the climate, which prompts statements like yours, above, that serve no real informative or rhetorical purpose -- unless, of course, we are convinced that a particular cultural player in this game is nothing but a brutal hun and needs to be exposed as such.

In this country, we call a spade a spade.
From my experience of the USA, one dare not speak about Israel or Jews without being accused of bigotry.
I am delighted to say that the same attitude doesn't pertain in this country.

I don't consider the fact that my view that Israel should have been established in Argentina, instead of Palestine as being bigotted.
People like luft though, try to denigrate people who hold an opposing view as being anti-sematic or being bigots.
It shows the weakness of his argument that he resorts to labelling people.

 

[lokstah]

I've already noted that I didn't mean to insinuate Islam is responsible for all the violence. However, it is a expanding religion and areas where it is expanding there is bound to be violence between religious zealots.

That's true. And there's definitely nothing rash about exploring the obvious reality we currently face: that Islam, globally, constitutes a cultural spectrum containing a lot of turmoil, and a lot of dangerous tendencies.

I didn't mean to single you out, Bikerman. Wessie got me riled up is all.

 

[Bikerman2004]

From my experience of the USA, one dare not speak about Israel or Jews without being accused of bigotry.
I am delighted to say that the same attitude doesn't pertain in this country.

Unfortunately, in the US political correctness reigns. One cannot speak of any group without being labelled a racist or bigot.

I don't consider the fact that my view that Israel should have been established in Argentina, instead of Palestine as being bigotted.
People like luft though, try to denigrate people who hold an opposing view as being anti-sematic or being bigots.
It shows the weakness of his argument that he resorts to labelling people.

I don't having that view makes you a bigot. I can see where some would. But I don't. It is a valid opinion.