Even the French..... Dont want a Nuclear Iran

Burritos,
Iranians aren't BROWN!!!!

They're Aryan!!!!!

It is an insult to call them brown, which would equate them with their neighbors, those filthy (an Iranian opinion) Arabs!

By the way, just for a Brown point of reference, Mexican birth certificates in the U.S. used to read "Caucasian" not sure what they read now. Probably several variations of brown, thanks to liberal screaming about the differences in race instead of their commonality.

Stop criticizing current struggles with history that is inapplicable. The number of wars the U.S. has been in is immaterial, the reasons for the past wars are immaterial, some were justified, some probably not. The questions are: 1) does some entity pose a direct threat to the U.S.; 2) what is that threat; 3) What to do about it. Analyze the now.

Your brand of moral rationalization (as in we are no better than they are no matter what they do because we have done bad stuff too so who are we to pass judgement) is what lead (or failed to let the world stop) the first world and set up the second.

Now, as in the present, the Iranians have stated their goals, the destruction of Israel and the Islamisation of the West. THEY HAVE SPECIFICALLY STATED THIS AS THERE COUNTRIES GOALS.

The difference between us and them, and mind you it takes intelligence to see this, is that for the most part execution of our political adversaries is not necessary for the political process. There are lots of countries we have serious disagreements with that, one, don't threaten to kill us or our allies, and two we don't threaten to kill them or their allies.

Iran supports groups that INTENTIONALLY murder civilians for the purposes of inflicting terror upon them. Again a subtle difference here, we announce where we are going to strike, who we are striking (with a focus on specific targets NOT CIVILIANS) and when and then strike with easily recognizable forces. Not to mention that the current crop of "bad" guys we fight specifically hide amongst civilians to jack-up the civilian death count. I know it sucks we kill people too, but in reality, sometimes how you kill people counts for something.

You can either recognize evil, and deal with it, or wait until it shoves a red hot poker up your butt. If you equate the U.S. with the actions of Iran on an equal footing then you are lost, and the world will pay in unimaginable ways for your opinions. Mark these words, without another "Student" revolution in Iran, the ruling Mullahs will do something stupid, because their balls will have grown large by our perceived weakness, not our threatened strength, resulting in the deaths of millions of people.

Time frame five to ten years, tops. Probably sooner. The action will come via a proxy, as in some terrorist organization will detonate a weapon built by Iran, Iran will disavow knowledge, and the world will be tested.

This time frame can also be extended or negated by pre-emptive action by the U.S. or Israel which slows Iran's acquisition of Nukes.

 

There is something to keep in mind when talking about Iran.

The Iranian President is not the Commander-in-Chief of the Iranian military.
The C-in-C is the Supreme Leader. Who also can override the President in matters which actually are in the President's area of power.
Amhadinejad doesn't have the power to tell a private to take a hike, much less drop any bomb. He pretty much serves at the Supreme Leader's and mullahs' whim. He's useful to them because he irritates the West. Irritating the West may lead to external pressure on Iran. External pressure will lead to the Iranian populace solidifying in face of that pressure. Which distracts them from speaking out against the mullahs.

Remember the title president does not confer the same powers and responsibilities as it does in the US.

 

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2007/09/2...oud-ahmadinejad
If you care to hear what he has to say heres a link.
Im not condoning him.I dont favor Iran over Israel .
I havent listened closely to the whole thing yet in detail ,but so far he says in so many words,Iran is not supplying weapons in Iraq, wants peace with Israel and wants to resolve the Palestinian problem ,and claims Iran is not seeking nukes.
I dont know if hes lying.
But I do know that the Neocons and Bush have lied about EVERYTHING so far.Why should anybody believe them over anyone?They have earned the worlds distrust.It would be a huge mistake to go to war again just on their word.
They have cried wolf so many times , wolves might look trustworthy in comparison.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Sep 26 2007, 10:46 AM) [snapback]517983[/snapback]</div>

Not quite.

The Arab fighters in Afghanistan were a joke, and the Afghan fighters quickly banished Osama to his hillside cave to await their martyrdom there. Why? Because they were there to be martyred, while the Afghans wanted to win:

From Pulitzer Prize winning author Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower - Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11", page 106.


It was the Afghani war lords who drove out the Russians, not the disaffected, religious extremists attracted by the thought of martyrdom under bin Laden's leadership. Osama has claimed credit for the Russians leaving, but there is only one insignificant battle where his men did anything ... firing on a retreating Russian column and then quickly retreating themselves before the Russians destroyed their cave-encampment.

American support went to the Afghan fighters, the same allies we called upon after 9/11 to drive out the Taliban. bin Laden was a groupie, a "hanger on", a 'security guard' among a group of real cops.

 

I certainly haven't heard anyone talking about the "need" to attack Iran except for the far right neocons like Bush and yourself, Berman.

It's been pretty well documented how this administration has lied to the people by presenting half-truths, or ignoring certain pieces of information that don't fall into their particular world view. When it comes to trusting Bush and the rest of the administration, they wore out my trust a long time ago.

That doesn't mean that i trust Arhmadjihad either. But, unlike you, i'm willing to listen to what he has to say and evaluate it on its own merits, instead of parroting the party line.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 27 2007, 09:14 AM) [snapback]518437[/snapback]</div>

I think its Israel pulling the strings.
Various Neocons in the media ,such as Bill Krystal and Charles Krauthammer ,create an urgency in the population.
Then AIPAC the Israel lobby ,directs Congress to vote approval.
Then the Neocons in the Bush Regime carry out the implementation.
Bush goes along with it ,only because his evangelical constituents think it will bring upon the Rapture more quickly.
Israel was threatened by Ahmadinejad,and I believe they are justified to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. But I dont think they should manipulate the USA into doing the dirty work.
Dr Berman can you honestly tell me Im wrong?
Please dont try to change the subject by charging antisemitism.

 

Nobody has ever proved that Bush LIED "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. "

Now is some of what he said been proven wrong, or incorrect, Yes.
Did he tell everyone everything, probably not. Except for the Dems on the security commission, they new, and still voted for the war.
Were there people that disagreed with Bush's assesment of what the evideince meant, Yes, but the WORLD consensus was that Saddam could have WMDs,. No one new. So BUSH DIDN'T LIE!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Sep 27 2007, 03:24 PM) [snapback]518663[/snapback]</div>

Why do you suppose the Bush regime "outed" CIA operative Valerie Plame?
Dont you realize it was because Plames husband ,Joseph Wilson , was exposing the true story (of the LIE that Bush would tell Congress)about Yellowcake from Niger.
Do you think the Bush regime would take such an extreme action (of committing a felony)for any other reason than to cover their LIE.

 

No one "outed" Plame.

and why was a covert CIA agent's husband, a known democratic suporter, given such a task? Could some of the State Department people been trying to create the exact situation you are describing because they didn't like the way Bush was handling things and thought foriegn affairs was their turf?

Sounds like a conspiracy nut, but when you look into it, something about Joe Wilson getting that gig is fishy as hell.
http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Sep 27 2007, 07:17 PM) [snapback]518803[/snapback]</div>

You don't seriously expect anyone to believe this ludicrous claim, do you?

Richard Armitage admitted that he "inadvertently" revealed to Robert Novak that Joe Wilson's wife was with the CIA, but he managed to convince special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald that he was not aware of her covert status (Newsweek).

And according to CNN:

Novak identified Rove as the second source who confirmed what he had learned about Plame from Armitage.

 

So if evryone knew Armitage was the "leaker" and there was something illegal with the leak, why wasn't Armitage charged with a crime?

And lets not even get into, If Armitage ADMITTED he "outed" Plame, why was Scooter Libby even giving testimony???

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Sep 27 2007, 10:38 PM) [snapback]518884[/snapback]</div>

I thought you were a lawyer. Outing a covert CIA agent is a specific intent crime. Do remember that concept from law school?

Since Armitage was unaware of Plame's' covert status, Fitzgerald was unable to prove that Armitage had the specific intent to out Plame.

Rove and Libby did know of her covert status when they leaked that information to other reporters, before Novak published it. Fitzgerald, for whatever motives and reasons, chose not to prosecute them for these offenses.

Scooter Libby then went and lied about his involvement in outing Plame. That is why he was charged with obstruction of Justice, lying to FBI agents and perjuring himself before the grand jury.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 28 2007, 05:34 AM) [snapback]518911[/snapback]</div>

Yes, i'm willing to listen to him - i'm willing to listen to what anyone has to say, up to a point. That doesn't mean i'm going to believe him or trust what he's saying - as it's been pointed out, he dodged a bunch of the questions and wouldn't give many straight answers, which says a lot to me about what he's doing.

As for Iran's involvement in killing US troops... what about our involvement in killing Iraqi's? Or creating the unstable situation that created the insurgency, invited terrorist organizations to set up camps, and gave Iran an opportunity to start trying to covertly gain influence among the Iraqi people?

Yes, a half truth is a lie. Which goes back to Devil's Advocate's statement that Bush never lied. What do you call it when you have two reports sitting in front of you that say two conflicting things, both of them equally verifiable and believable, and you chose to only present the one that supports your position? I call it withholding evidence and lying to the American people.

As for the world's press, maybe you should. Read something other than right-wing and Israeli papers. I get plenty of information about views from other parts of the world, and very little of that comes from actual news agencies. you might ask why - it's because all news agencies put their own political spin on it, and it's impossible to tell what the real story might be. It's much easier to get to the real story from independent verifiable sources than from news agencies.


As i've said, at one point i did trust Bush. And i continued to trust him until it was sufficiently proven that he had betrayed that trust. I do the same with everyone - i trust them until i know they aren't worthy of that trust. you might want to give it a try - it leads to a better, happier life than simply suspecting, doubting, and attacking every foreign power you don't like.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 1 2007, 09:42 AM) [snapback]519794[/snapback]</div>

If you want the ONLY expert , honest opinion of the situation (and I doubt very much that you do),read this link to the Jewish Daily.
http://www.forward.com/articles/book-israe...shing-iran-war/

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 1 2007, 09:42 AM) [snapback]519794[/snapback]</div>

The world isn't as black and white as you would like it, Berman. By entering Iraq, we destabilized the country and created a power vacuum. Iran is trying to capitalize on that, as are other interests, something that Bush & co should have seen coming. I'm not sure what you mean about giving them the "freedom", but being there certainly gives them the opportunity, where none existed before. As for protection, that entirely depends on what you mean by protection. Moving troops out of harms way? Or launching an offensive against another nation when we can barely scrape up enough troops to keep this one going?


Tell me, what lies has Ahrmadjihad said that were proven lies by a reputable source? Bush's lies and half-truths are pretty well documented by the people who would be in the best position to know.