BBC shows long Muslim propaganda videos during News (challange inside)

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
I've no ideas how you get that interpretation.

[/ QUOTE ]
THIS QUOTE:
"our foreign policies are in some small way responsible for what happens aren't they? and we are ins some way responsble for that aren't we?"
So Iran is justified in killing US/UK soldiers in Iraq? What is the casus belli this opinion?

[ QUOTE ]
BTW I don't think this is gunboat diplomacy, that was a cheap bluff where it was considered there was relatively little chance of being called.

[/ QUOTE ]
So when Reagan sank 1/2 the Iranian navy in one day this was a bluff???!!!! LOL! I wonder what you would call a raise? I suppose if Reagan invaded Iran and put all their cities to the torch and plowed their land with salt you would call this check/calling. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've no ideas how you get that interpretation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


THIS QUOTE:
"our foreign policies are in some small way responsible for what happens aren't they? and we are ins some way responsble for that aren't we?"
So Iran is justified in killing US/UK soldiers in Iraq? What is the casus belli this opinion?

[/ QUOTE ]
hmm I don't believe that some small responsibility justifies killing anybody. I'm arguing against that, you are the one who seems to agree with this hideous idea.


[ QUOTE ]
BTW I don't think this is gunboat diplomacy, that was a cheap bluff where it was considered there was relatively little chance of being called.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So when Reagan sank 1/2 the Iranian navy in one day this was a bluff???!!!! LOL! I wonder what you would call a raise? I suppose if Reagan invaded Iran and put all their cities to the torch and plowed their land with salt you would call this check/calling.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was thinking more of thios type of thing: "Gunboat diplomacy had its origins in the Opium War, when the Chinese rebelled against the British importation of opium into China, and the British response was to send a gunboat up the Yangtze River" but it may just be a US/UK different use of the same language - hopefully we agree not to fight over that [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

chez

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
I argue that bombing their oil fields will accomplish that and perhaps lead to the downfall of their evil regime.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really doubt the former will ever be employed unless there's no other means to achieve the latter. We're kind of caught in this spot of separating the leadership in different Mid-East states from the people, and most of our tactics seem to be focused on preserving the welfare of the civilians while engaging the leaders.

Sure, we could take out Iran's oil pipeline, but that's really just an extension of taking out the their power, water, and food supply-line. There's nothing that could prevent us from doing this, just like there would be nothing to prevent us from doing that in Iraq, but it doesn't necessarily fit into our overall objectives.

I think the overall objectives are:
1) preventing the emergence of a ME super-power.
2) the establishment of a quasi-democratic states (1970's Iran).
3) complete instability if (2) can't be established.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
I truly believe that that was a truly glorious page in American history.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="brown"> It was now a few minutes after 10:00 o'clock. Secretary McNamara announced that two Russian ships, the Gagarin and the Komiles, were within a few miles of our quarantine barrier. The interception of both ships would probably be before noon Washington time. Indeed, the expectation was that at least one of the vessels would be stopped and bearded between 10:30 and 11:00 o'clock.

Then came the disturbing Navy report that a Russian submarine had moved into position between the two ships.

It had originally been planned to have a cruiser make the first interception, but, because of the increased danger, it was decided in the past few hours to send in an aircraft carrier supported by helicopters, carrying antisubmarine equipment, hovering overhead. The carrier Essex was to signal the submarine by sonar to surface and identify itself. If it refused, said Secretary McNamara, depth charges with a small explosive would be used until the submarine surfaced.

I think these few minutes were the time of gravest concern for the President. Was the world on the brink of a holocaust? Was it our error? A mistake? Was there something further that should have been done? Or not done? His hand went up to his face and covered his mouth. He opened and closed his fist. His face seemed drawn, his eyes pained, almost gray. We stared at each other across the table. For a few fleeting seconds, it was almost as though no one else was there and he was no longer the President.

Then it was 10:25 -- a messenger brought in a note to John McCone. "Mr. President, we have a preliminary report which seems to indicate that some of the Russian ships have stopped dead in the water."

Stopped dead in the water? Which ships? Are they checking the accuracy of the report? Is it true? I looked at the clock. 10:32 "The report is accurate, Mr. President. Six ships previously on their way to Cuba at the edge of the quarantine line have stopped or have turned back toward the Soviet Union. A representative from the Office of Naval Intelligence is on his way over with the full report." A short time later, the report came that the twenty Russian ships closest to the barrier had stopped and were dead in the water or had turned around.</font>

There's always perspectives - there are times when lines in the sand need to be drawn.

It's one thing to look at situations from an objective perspective, whether philosophical or political, but that's a luxury that the people who take an oath to protect and serve the interest of the United States of America are not given. Idealistic and democratic ideals for the rest of the world are nice, but they really don't factor into the equation.

The cold facts are that the United States is dependant on the free-flow of oil from the Middle East. And not just so we can chug around in our SUV's - but for our national defense. In the event of an attack on our country, we simply cannot defend ourselves without the unimpinged oil supply from the Mid-East. To do so would render the U.S. defenseless, in a conventional manner, and it would be a literal act of treason for a sworn-in government employee to aid and abet in this scenario.

From the context of your posts, I'm assuming you have an adequate understanding of history to grasp the reality and gravity of the situation. Japan didn't just wake up one day and decide to attack Pearl Harbor - the attack was a direct (90 day) response to the United States' cut off-of their oil supply.

I'm not saying it's pretty, ethical, good, or right - but it is reality.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I truly believe that that was a truly glorious page in American history.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="brown"> It was now a few minutes after 10:00 o'clock. Secretary McNamara announced that two Russian ships, the Gagarin and the Komiles, were within a few miles of our quarantine barrier. The interception of both ships would probably be before noon Washington time. Indeed, the expectation was that at least one of the vessels would be stopped and bearded between 10:30 and 11:00 o'clock.

Then came the disturbing Navy report that a Russian submarine had moved into position between the two ships.

It had originally been planned to have a cruiser make the first interception, but, because of the increased danger, it was decided in the past few hours to send in an aircraft carrier supported by helicopters, carrying antisubmarine equipment, hovering overhead. The carrier Essex was to signal the submarine by sonar to surface and identify itself. If it refused, said Secretary McNamara, depth charges with a small explosive would be used until the submarine surfaced.

I think these few minutes were the time of gravest concern for the President. Was the world on the brink of a holocaust? Was it our error? A mistake? Was there something further that should have been done? Or not done? His hand went up to his face and covered his mouth. He opened and closed his fist. His face seemed drawn, his eyes pained, almost gray. We stared at each other across the table. For a few fleeting seconds, it was almost as though no one else was there and he was no longer the President.

Then it was 10:25 -- a messenger brought in a note to John McCone. "Mr. President, we have a preliminary report which seems to indicate that some of the Russian ships have stopped dead in the water."

Stopped dead in the water? Which ships? Are they checking the accuracy of the report? Is it true? I looked at the clock. 10:32 "The report is accurate, Mr. President. Six ships previously on their way to Cuba at the edge of the quarantine line have stopped or have turned back toward the Soviet Union. A representative from the Office of Naval Intelligence is on his way over with the full report." A short time later, the report came that the twenty Russian ships closest to the barrier had stopped and were dead in the water or had turned around.</font>

There's always perspectives - there are times when lines in the sand need to be drawn.

It's one thing to look at situations from an objective perspective, whether philosophical or political, but that's a luxury that the people who take an oath to protect and serve the interest of the United States of America are not given. Idealistic and democratic ideals for the rest of the world are nice, but they really don't factor into the equation.

The cold facts are that the United States is dependant on the free-flow of oil from the Middle East. And not just so we can chug around in our SUV's - but for our national defense. In the event of an attack on our country, we simply cannot defend ourselves without the unimpinged oil supply from the Mid-East. To do so would render the U.S. defenseless, in a conventional manner, and it would be a literal act of treason for a sworn-in government employee to aid and abet in this scenario.

From the context of your posts, I'm assuming you have an adequate understanding of history to grasp the reality and gravity of the situation. Japan didn't just wake up one day and decide to attack Pearl Harbor - the attack was a direct (90 day) response to the United States' cut off-of their oil supply.

I'm not saying it's pretty, ethical, good, or right - but it is reality.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why did you include Mickey's quote about the Skokie Nazi march? If this was a response to Mickey's post I'm totally confused. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

EDIT: Maybe you're making a point about both incidents being glorious pages in American history, one in a feel-good kind of way, the other in a realpolitik kind of way. Am I close?

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Why did you include Mickey's quote about the Skokie Nazi march? If this was a response to Mickey's post I'm totally confused.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was simply an additive to great/defining moments in an ideology and possibly broadening its scope. The confusion is on me (my bad). But I enjoy Mickey's perspective on things, so I was just creating a little, slightly off-topic dialog.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
McNamara ... Russian ships ... quarantine ... Washington time ... Russian submarine ... John McCone ... Kennedy ... Cuba

[/ QUOTE ]IMO, the Cuban missile crisis and how it was handled by the American leadership of that time are a superb lesson in crisis management. One should start with the actual CIA transcripts of the White House meetings and communications, and then peruse the memoirs written by the various protagonists, incl. Krutchev's.

Hate JFK for whatever you want but he didn't crash our bus at Deadman's Curve.

Mickey Brausch

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Should I remined everyone once more of the Jewish lawyer from the ACLU defending the American Nazis' right to march through Jewish-inhabited Skokie, Illinois? (link) A truly glorious page in American history, that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this a clear freedom of speech issue? When people are prevented from doing things like this (as odious as they may be) it only gives them ammunition to use against us.

[/ QUOTE ]
He wasn't being sarcastic.



[/ QUOTE ]Thanks, bdk3clash. I didn't undertand what ojc02 meant by his post but now I do. He thought I was being sarcastic. But I wasn't. I truly believe that that was a truly glorious page in American history.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh, ok, sorry Mikey, I really should've noticed the lack of [sarc][/sarc] tags [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I should've realized that it would've been totally out of character for you if you had meant that.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I argue that bombing their oil fields will accomplish that and perhaps lead to the downfall of their evil regime.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really doubt the former will ever be employed unless there's no other means to achieve the latter. We're kind of caught in this spot of separating the leadership in different Mid-East states from the people, and most of our tactics seem to be focused on preserving the welfare of the civilians while engaging the leaders.

[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately I think you are correct.
There is a Chinese proverb that says, "A lion uses all its might when attacking a rabbit". My argument is to kill this rabbit with one mighty pounce. My view is in the minority....

Diplomacy with Iran is useless and other posters have made posts the Chi-Coms are giving UN cover to Iran in exchange for discounted oil. Only a decisive military option will change Iran's evil goals...

[stjohnychan]

Felix-
I've kindof even lost the thread of what you're advocating re: Iran. We are supposed to kill them w/ one mighty pounce, most likely nuclear? But what for, exactly?

This preemptive stuff is like when you're playing cards w/ a nutto so you decide to be a nutto too. And then you end up in a hand where you both have squat but you both five bet-bluff at it becuase each knows the other is nut... and most likely some third player ends up catching you both off guard and gettin all chips from both of you...

I just don't get the point. It's some dick measuring contest or something- relies almost entirely on the premise that "they're evil." Well maybe they are but more likely they're just different. And who's on the evil list these days anyways? Iraq was, Iran is, you also have mentioned Egypt, Saudi Arabia, probably Syria, you'd have to include Sudan... but why stop at just Islamic coutries? Throw in N. Korea, China, possibly Russia, why the hell not- "they're evil!" Are we supposed to fight every evil country? Or just the worst ones? And all at once or can we pick? And if we're picking why didn't we pick the most dangerous one? (N.Korea both before Iraq and currently) Or the most ready for democracy? (Iran before Iraq, but now noone really) Or the easiest? (Sudan- [censored], we could conquer the largest country in africa w/ a couple of helicopters and a jeep, stopping a genocide instead of avenging a couple of thousand deaths a decade old). Anyways attacking Iraq was stupid and attacking Iran would be worse.

For generations, Western foreign policy was defensive-- just fighting off whatever threat was coming at us, while relying on the strength of our ideas to win all the best immigrants in the short term and nations in the long term to our side... and it worked- democracy slowly and consistently expanded.

... Then came the neo-cons and their ridiculous reverse-domino theory. Didn't they learn anything from the cold-war? Nations aren't dominos, one doesn't become something just because the one next to it did- whether that something is democratic or communist. But anyways now we use trumped up excuses to invade countries, and clumsily.

Anyways I'm rambling now but your ideas are just so ill-formed and well, dangerous that they really bother me.