A day to day acount of the whacky and wonderful world of Muggaz - i tend to be having too much fun these days, and often cannot remember moments due to debauchery - its time the internet repayed my loyalty by recording my antics.
based on ugly precedents set by their enemies.
Published on August 18, 2004 By Muggaz In International
The Olympics are supposed to be a time of reflection and enjoyment, with ideals of peace being put on the table by the worlds athletes, it would seem that Iran is out to ruin everyone’s party though

A few days ago, and Iranian athlete refused to compete with an Israeli athlete, which is fair enough, each to their own, we can move on from that, but now, the Iranian government is not ruling out pre-emptive strikes on US and Israeli forces in the Middle East should they feel their Nuclear reactor at Bushehr under threat.

Iranian Defence Minister – Ali Shamkhani has warned “We will not sit (With arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us. Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventative operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly” This was during an interview with Al-Jazeera TV when asked if Iran would respond to an attack on its nuclear facilities.

"America is not the only one present in the region. We are also present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the Gulf and we can be present in Iraq,"

The commander of the Elite revolutionary guards, General Muhammad Baqir Zolqadr has also warned - "If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant, it should permanently forget about Dimona nuclear centre, where it produces and keeps its nuclear weapons, and Israel would be responsible for the terrifying consequence of this move,"

They look like fighting words.

Should the Iranians make the first strike against Israeli or US forces, It will be safe to say we will have a genuine bloody conflict on our hands. We think Iraq and Afghanistan are human rights tragedies, we haven’t seen anything yet.

Iran would obviously be comfortable with making a pre-emptive strike, because they feel genuinely threatened. They maintain that their nuclear facilities are for energy production – That is for them to say, and us to believe.

The threat that Iran will attack opposing forces in the region is a very real one if they feel threatened. It’s a shame that the targets of Iran's hostilities set the unfortunate precedent that pre-emptive strikes are acceptable.

BAM!!!

Comments (Page 7)
8 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 
on Aug 20, 2004
Pretty interesting thread. A comment & some replies.

Little_whip & BakerStreet: Ditto. Couldn't begin to say it better. Well done.

As for striking preemptively, well, the US has suggested that such an action is legal, so really if the US can do it to spread democracy, then it's only just that Iran can do it to spread theocracy and oppression. Otherwise everyone in favour of preemption and US foreign policy is just a hypocrite.

Such a position is morally & ethically vacant, assuming that democracy and theocratic dictatorship are morally equivalent. They are not. Too often, in a misguided attempt to be "fair" and feel better about ourselves, we impute qualities to our enemies which simply don't exist, something they relentlessly work to their advantage, aided by the addle-brained press which so loves to hate America.

It is now known that the current president encouraged the inteligence community to come up with evidence to invade Iraq, and even after being told that the evidence was false he had it inserted into the state of the union. The difference is that the president knew it was a lie.

God, this fiction just won't die! Doesn't anyone have a silver cross stashed somewhere? What do we have to do?

The 9/11 Commission Report. I repeat, the 9/11 Commission Report. I repeat, the 9/11 Commission Report.

This article is a mere report on the fact that because USA has pre-emptively struck at Iraq on the premise of threat, that Iran would be perfectly justified to do the same, and the USA, the usual moral measuring stick, has no right to say a pre-emptive strike would not be ethical.

See above. I'm running oout of energy.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Aug 20, 2004

I don't agree with your use of the word 'capable' (I added the italics in quoting your statement); I would say 'likely' would be more suited


i'll concede the point (although i think its worth noting there is a consistent conceptual subtext to validate my choice of term)


You may not agree that Iraq fits this description, but that doesn't disprove the merits of using a preemptive strike towards nations that are seen by the rest of the world as seeking and planning to use modern weapons or terror to advance their agenda or their borders.


therein exists the crux of contention no?  i offered the 'massed on your border' thing only as a simple illustration of justification.  clearly today's technology greatly widens the 'border' threat because an icbm is 'massed on everyone's  border' regardless of its physical location. unilateralism is the exact wild card driving this thread.  if each nation has the right to act on its perception of a threat--which is exactly what the bush doctrine claims for the usa--the world is quickly faced with a dilemma of having to accomodate  iran's perception or north korea's perception as well as ours.  just as in our daily lives we encounter situations in which someone claims 'everybody knows' or 'everybody agrees' something that may or may not be universally known or agreed to, nations may conclude the whole world sees a situation the way they do.   by breaking a working process through which the world's collective viewpoint can be determined in favor of indulging in self-righteous unilateralism, the bush doctrine makes the planet a much more dangerous place for all of us.  at best it forces us into the position of world cop. at the same time, it opens the door to pakistan (for example) justifying nuking hindus to shiva's planet..or iran doing israel...or vice versa, etc.  at worst, flawed intelligence (or some similar screwup) causes us to do something horrible and unnecessary. 

on Aug 20, 2004
kingbee

I have never bought into the 'unilaterally' argument. The term is tossed around wildy and there is no basis for it. The US would have to be the single nation in the world that wanted to strike against Iraq, for the term to be appropriate. There were, and are, many supporters for the action in Iraq and, if I'm not mistaken, the dissenting nations didn't number that high in quantity. I have never seen an explanation of why the opinion of 3 nations .. France, Germany, and Russia .. were described as the world view.

As far as opening doors, somehow I don't buy the notion that the nations of the world are waiting to take their cue from what the US does, in terms of legitimizing preemptive strikes. Especially in light of the widely reported view that the US no longer is respected in the world community and is viewed as a bully.

If, as in your example, pakistan nukes the hindus and justifies it by saying "Well the US did it (preemptive strike)", wouldn't you see that as rather transparent? That is just another version of the old child's excuse "Well other kids are doing it." There is no connective causality. Regardless of the US military methods used, if another nation uses those same methods, it is by choice and not an unavoidable result of US actions.
on Aug 20, 2004

As far as opening doors, somehow I don't buy the notion that the nations of the world are waiting to take their cue from what the US does, in terms of legitimizing preemptive strikes. Especially in light of the widely reported view that the US no longer is respected in the world community and is viewed as a bully

my statement reflected this quote from muggaz' article (the basis for this thread)

Iranian Defence Minister – Ali Shamkhani has warned “We will not sit (With arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us. Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventative operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly”

i wasnt advocating or encouraging this type of thinking and i hope to hell iran is just mouthing off.  at the same time, i gotta point out if history demonstrates nothing else, it sure provides plenty of proof there isnt a lotta difference between nations and kids.

on Aug 20, 2004
God, this fiction just won't die! Doesn't anyone have a silver cross stashed somewhere? What do we have to do?

The 9/11 Commission Report. I repeat, the 9/11 Commission Report. I repeat, the 9/11 Commission Report.


I quote CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin. "Before the speech was delivered, the portions dealing with Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were checked with the CIA for accuracy". It turns out that what the CIA told them was the evidence was not good enough to include it in the state of the union. They did so anyways. See the whole article, intrestingly titled "Bush Knew Iraq Info Was Dubious" (hmm a major news organization seems to agree with me) by clicking this link
Link

on Aug 20, 2004
it sure provides plenty of proof there isnt a lotta difference between nations and kids.


You're right on that, kingbee.

When it boils down to it, there aren't really any differences in basic motivations between those of children and those of adults. Adults just, hopefully, control them better.

But what it also boils down to is that choices are made, whether speaking of children or adults (or nations, for that matter), based on personal motivations, not on what someone else does ... despite the attempt to attribute that choice to someone else's actions.
on Aug 20, 2004
See the whole article, intrestingly titled "Bush Knew Iraq Info Was Dubious"


The really interesting thing about this article was the fact that for the first day it was online, the title read "Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False" (emphasis added on the changed word by me). It was determined by CBS that since they had no proof Bush knew it was false, they felt the word dubious was safer.

Later it was determined the info might have legs after all. I've never heard if it was finally determined beyond a doubt whether it was true or false.

on Aug 21, 2004
You are all overlooking the wider issue here.

What is the will of God?

But also, war against the infidels serves England and St George.
on Aug 21, 2004
The point is that bush knew it may not have been true but still quoted it in his state of the union to increase support for the war against iraq/
on Aug 21, 2004
There was a government investigation into the claims that sandy and the rest keep harping on. They offer the "questions", and then fail to mention that there are "answers"... mainly because the answers don't suit their arguement. So they go on and on, asking the same questions, knowing that most will not bother finding out that their accusations are lies, and that the rest of us will just get tired of pointing out their propaganda.

Sad, really. You'd think if Kerry was worth a damn people could spend their time convincing others of what a good job he'll do. Instead, they just have to spread rehashed and disproven rumor and innuendo in the hopes no one will look to hard at Kerry and just vote against Bush.
on Aug 21, 2004
Whos propagandizing now? Why don't you enlighten me to what these answers are.
on Aug 21, 2004
Enlighten yourself, you are the one making accusations that the 9-11 commission has already investigated and answered.

See? "enlighten me". That's the pattern. Make an accusation, demand that people prove you wrong, wait until the dust settles, and then make the same accusation again, hoping desperately that people will get tired of proving you wrong. Truth isn't the point, the accusation is the tool. These are the same people who poo-poo the swift boat vets and then run around screaming "Bush lied" regrdless of evidience.

Like I said, if you are interested in these questions, refer to the 9-11 commission report and the dozen other threads here at JU that have dealt with all the "Bush Lied" bullshit. Me, I don't think you care one way or the other, you just like saying "Bush lied".

on Aug 21, 2004
I haven't recently heard me utter bush lied. And are you now trying to suggest that there is truth behind the swift boat vetrens for truth? What a laugh.
on Aug 21, 2004
" I haven't recently heard me utter bush lied. "


?? What do you think started this part of the discussion? You said Bush lied, people disagreed with you, you demanded we prove you wrong, blah, blah, blah....

"Reply #75 By: sandy2 - 8/20/2004 7:41:45 AM

...There was no reason for Iraq. Bush wanted to go so he dragged the whole country with him. He lied to us. He told us fallacies. He wanted to go to Iraq so he could give billions to his friends at halliburton.... "


That wasn't you? Like I say, you guys make empty accusations that you know will get you nods, demand to be proven wrong, and then do the same thing over again, and again with the hopes that people will get tired of proving you wrong. In the end, the accusation is all that matters.

.
on Aug 21, 2004
That was me, over 25 posts ago. I said it. I believe it. This whole argument is futile and therfore I believe that we will have to agree to disagree on this point becuase of the fact that neither of us can see the others argument. Thank you for your time and discussion bakerstreet.
8 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8