Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Attack on Iran

July 16, 2008

Advertisement

To the editor:

It seems more and more likely that something will occur quite soon in Iran. It is inevitable that Israel will act before the November elections. It would also be highly beneficial to the Republican Party if they did so.

From Israel's point of view an attack makes very good sense because they cannot sit idle much longer and expect the United States to back their actions. They can hardly wait and risk losing that support, which may well be the case in the event of a Democratic landslide.

The decision to act has already been made, and the rehearsal has happened. The airstrikes will at least send the message even though the nuclear program in Iran is widely dispersed. The strikes will at least delay the annihilation of Israel and create a panic in Europe. However it will force the attention of the world upon the problem. I feel confident in this prediction because from Israel's point of view with the covert encouragement of the present administration it will bring advantages to both parties.

E.G. Hickam,
Lawrence

Comments

chet_larock 6 years, 5 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

jafs 6 years, 5 months ago

It would be in our best interests to look at the bigger picture from time to time.The Taliban grew in Afghanistan after the US had sent lots of money and weapons to help them fight the Soviets, and then after they had won (at great cost to the Afghan people), we simply forgot about them.If we had helped them rebuild and form a more stable situation, it's very likely the Taliban wouldn't have grown so strong there.Also, there is a valid question - who has the "right" to have nuclear weapons, and who gets to decide that?And, finally, we need to look at our ties to Israel, and how that affects the Arab perception of the US. Israel was formed at the end of WWII (for understandable reasons) by Britain and the US without any consideration for the Palestinians already living there. Also, Israel is occupying territory it shouldn't be. According to Jimmy Carter, Israel is not correct in many ways.If we continue to blindly support Israel, both monetarily and with weapons, we will continue to fuel the flames of Arab anti-American sentiment, and not without good reason.If we continue to occupy Arab territory, we will continue to justify their opposition - one of the five pillars of Islam is the exhortation to fight against those who would occupy your land (again, not without reason.)And, before we get the predictable anti,...I am Jewish, not anti-Semitic. And, my comments are made in order to help us become more secure - I am not "anti-American".

Brent Garner 6 years, 5 months ago

  1. Iran has been offered numerous "deals" that would allow it to develop peaceful nuclear power and have rejected each of them. Among those were offers by the Saudi's to practically pay for Iranian enrichment provided the enrichment was done in a third country under international supervision. Iran said no. Russia made a similar offer and it got rejected. 2. Russia and China will never support a UN action against Iran as that would not fit into their national interests one of which is to expand their sphere's of influence and drive out the hated West--read that US. So as long as Iran can be used as an irritant against the US, Russia and China will foil any and all efforts to keep the lid on this boiling pot.3. Both the Iranian President and the Supreme Ayatollah have called for a world without Israel and the US. Additionally, Iran has engineered the take over of Lebanon by Hezbollah and has heavily infiltrated Hamas in Gaza. Further, they have completed a military and defense alliance with Syria which gives Iran practically full control over the Syrian military. Iran has armed Hezbollah to the teeth with an estimated 40,000 conventional ballistic rockets of all calibers. These are not the actions of a nation seeking to "peacefully" co-exist with either its neighbors or the rest of the world.4. Public speeches given by the Iranian President have increasingly referenced the Mahdi--Islamic messiah--and the violent conditions needed for him to appear. These are true believers who feel it their religious duty to bring on the apocaclypse so that their messiah will appear. Such people should NEVER be allowed WMDs of any kind!5. Ths US will have no choice but to confront Iran even though our military is indeed stretched. We are in the same position vs our defense needs as the British where facing Hitler in 1939--woefully ill prepared. We have disarmed, downsized, and stripped our defense establishment so bare that we can be legitimately taunted and threatened by upstarts like Iran. Will a strike, not invasion, of Iran be expensive economically? Absolutely! But, how much more expensive will it be to have Iranian nukes used on cities from Israel to the US. (No, the current missile arsenal cannot reach the continental US, but can anyone guarantee that future Iranian missiles will not be able to do so? Plus, missiles are not the only way to convey a nuclear device to the US. Think ship borne threat!)6. The world is in a very tight place. The only way forward, barring rationality arriving in Iran, is with significant pain and suffering. The only choice we have right now is to determine what level of pain and suffering we will have to endure.

jafs 6 years, 5 months ago

I was trying to look at the larger picture, and find less violent ways of preventing violence.Pre-emptive strikes are aggressive, and would not meet the legal definition of self-defense unless there was very clear and persuasive evidence that we were in imminent danger.Who is "we" and who gets to decide which leaders are insane? It seems to me that the current administration is willing to sacrifice our people to attack our enemies. Should America be allowed to have nuclear weapons?Why is it ok for Israel, but not Iran, to have nuclear weapons?It seems to me we'd be much better off fixing our own errors first, and then worrying about other nations. And, perhaps, if we improved our actions, we might find that there are fewer "enemies" out there.

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

Jafs:"If we want real change (and the chance to create fewer enemies), we need to look at this problem." - jafsUnfortunately sometimes war is necessary, and preemption is sometimes justified. Belief that if we were less violent the enemy would go away is naÃive (see malcolm x obama's comments at 10:00).

jaywalker 6 years, 5 months ago

Let us all pray ( or merely hope) for no more war in the Middle East. It won't be good for anybody. I certainly don't want Iran to have nukes, but hopefully increasing pressure from Europe, and more importantly Russia, could stop their program.

staff04 6 years, 5 months ago

I don't like the idea of Islamic apocalyptics with nukes any more than I like the idea of Christian apocalyptics with nukes.

Speakout 6 years, 5 months ago

BK, sorry you didn't read my lenghthy post that got truncated. Since I work for a living and do not spend my entire day reading and responding on here, I will answer briefly:1) Not an apologist, just a reader of Quran and Sunnah. I do not ascribe to any school of thought because these writers, like me, have their opinion and I have mine. AND I have more research, methodology and statistics than they had which makes my thinking more exact. Second, they concluded, in the 8th or 9th Century, that after they wrote and made all the research and thinking that was necessary, there would be no need for more. I couldn't agree LESS. We need constant research and understanding.2. I do not speak for anyone but me and I clearly pointed out that the proof of what I said is in the Quran its self. Read it and you will see many times that it "is clear" "easy to understand and Remember" etc. Read it your self.3. I speak for what is written, not what is done or misunderstood by those who can't read. Terrorists read a part, misunderstand it and use it to make war on innocents. Not cool and not permitted in Islam, but ignorants, like them, believe it fully.Blast away, but if you would take the time to enlighten yourself and read it yourself to see if I am wrong. The Quran is not a book of quotes although it can be quoted. It has long sentences and sometimes its point goes over two or three verses. Read the whole of what it is saying, not take out of context bits and pieces. For example: Did you know that Jesus said in the Bible, that "No one comes unto the Father"?Not the whole though is it? Not the whole sentence but this is how the ignorant quote the Quran.So the ignorant say that Islam believes in violence because (and they quote): ":Kill them where they fight". Actual quote from a post a few days ago.But what it really says is : "And if they oppress you and fight you, kill them where they fight you, but if they cease, then fight them not".Read it ALL yourself.Since there is no clergy in Islam, as Islam is clearly written in the Quran, there is no authority above me except God. I do not ask you to believe me, but for the truth, you should read it yourself. Read the whole thing and you will see what I am saying. If you do not read it, do not debate me, for I don't debate ignorant people. Thanks.

Speakout 6 years, 5 months ago

Well, I have work to do, so you guys think what you want and act accordingly. Ideas are fine, truth, sometimes, is ellusive for people who are not used to it. Lets put a truth spin on things instead of following derogatory talking points invented by prejudice people.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 5 months ago

Whoo hoo! A chicken-hawk flag before 8:00AM.

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

Jafs:"If we had helped them rebuild and form a more stable situation, it's very likely the Taliban wouldn't have grown so strong there." - jafsIf you were attempting to refute my argument that, "if we knew about the 9/11 attack before it occurred we would have used pre-emptive measures, and therefore pre-emptive measures are sometimes necessary," the you have failed."who has the 'right' to have nuclear weapons, and who gets to decide that?" - jafsSovereign nations have the right to do whatever they want. The real question is: Do we want to allow, or should we prevent nations with leaders that are insane and would gladly sacrifice their own nations to attack their enemies, the access to such weapons. I think the answer is clear. The methods of prevention are really the only point of debate.

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

Jafs:"Pre-emptive strikes are aggressive, and would not meet the legal definition of self-defense unless there was very clear and persuasive evidence that we were in imminent danger."- jafsExactly, pre-emptive strikes are necessary when "there (is) very clear and persuasive evidence that we were in imminent danger" which is the same reason JFK was willing to risk a war with the Soviet that could have cost the U.S. millions of lives to prevent Cuba from getting missiles."Who is "we" and who gets to decide which leaders are insane?" jafsSince we are a sovereign nation as well we can decide which countries/leaders we feel are a threat to our security. Would you rather outsource our nations defense to the worthless U.N. decide? Or how about Iran can decide when Iran is a threat to the U.S."It seems to me that the current administration is willing to sacrifice our people to attack our enemies." jafsSometimes sacrifice is necessary in order to save lives. Freedom is not free. My guess is you would also order an military attack against Al Qaeda before 9/11 if you knew then what we know now, even if it was at the cost of "sacrificing (some of) our (military) people" "Should America be allowed to have nuclear weapons?" jafsYes, because we are a sovereign nation, and no one can stop us. "Why is it ok for Israel, but not Iran, to have nuclear weapons?" - jafsBecause Israel is a democracy that doesn't want to kill all of its neighbors simply because they are of a different faith (they could if they really wanted to), whereas Iran is a theocracy that believes Israel and the U.S. should be destroyed. "It seems to me we'd be much better off fixing our own errors first, and then worrying about other nations." - jafsShould we do absolutely nothing while an enemy that vows to destroy us arms itself to the teeth (this does not necessarily mean the U.S. should attack Iran)? This is an isolationist stance that is naÃive.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 5 months ago

"TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran's new president has repeated a remark from a former ayatollah that Israel should be "wiped out from the map," insisting that a new series of attacks will destroy the Jewish state, and lashing out at Muslim countries and leaders that acknowledge Israel."http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/

Brent Garner 6 years, 5 months ago

Speakout:Finally, given the literally billions of dollar that have been donated by nations all over this earth to the Palestinians can you explain why they still live in such conditions? If those monies had been used to build universities, start businesses, etc., the Palestinians would be some of the wealthiest people on earth. But what happened to all that money? It was secreted away by their leaders into private accounts belonging to those leaders. It was spent on buying weapons, not hospitals, schools, infrastructure. Consequently, the Palestinian people continue to suffer. This serves the totalitarian purposes of their leaders as it gives them a reason to incite their people against a people who are not responsible, to a large degree, for the suffering the Palestinians are undergoing. Take the money and build schools, universities, start businesses and their condition will improve. Stop letting murderous monsters steal your money and bleed you dry. Or is it just too easy to blame someone else, Israel, for all your problems?

monkeyspunk 6 years, 5 months ago

Trobs: "The country is much in the same way as it was back in the 70s when they took Americans hostage." Thats not necessarily true. More than half of the University students in Iran are women. 20% of those up for election in 2006 in Iran were women. This was not the case in the 70's as you say. Yes Ahmdinayabbadabbadoo isn't the Supreme Leader of Iran and isn't the real power but he WAS elected by the people. The most conservative and vile man up for election won because of the threatening stance America took after the invasion of Iraq. Satirical: "After all, if we had a chance to take out the Taliban before 9/11 we would have."First of all, the Taliban did not attack us. Al Qaeda did. Second, we had numerous chances to take out major elements of terrorist leadership before Bush was elected and we didn't.

Brent Garner 6 years, 5 months ago

Ahhh, Temperance, is it your position that allowing Islamic apocolyptics to have nuclear weapons is preferred to the painful economics resulting from a strike at Iran's nuclear weapons program? That would boil down to something like this: Let Tel Aviv/New York burn under atomic fire as long as the finances remain stable ???

Speakout 6 years, 5 months ago

jafs, while I agree with you for the most part, I wonder where this could go. I believe that if the USA did not support Israel with arms and restrict it from occupying Palestinian land, there would be no Al Queda, no Hisbollagh or Hamas. These organizations were build on the premise of defending their own land.The five Pillars of Islam are these: 1) Belief in One God, 2)Prayer to Him, 3) Giving Charity, 4) Fasting the Month of Ramadhan and 5) Pilgrimage if one has the means to do so. Nothing about fighting or killing. The Quran advocates the freeing of ones self from oppression, such as living under the rule of unjust people, in this case Israel.Lastly, the balance of power in the Middle East wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing unless you want absolute power to do as you want. The idea that Iran would have nuclear weapons should be a deterrent to Israel and that Israel's nuclear weapons should be a deterrent to Iran. Sort of balances out. But we Americans want to be supreme and won't allow anyone to be equal or above us in power except Israel. Thus we make it look like they are the bad guys. The Palestinians have been on that land for thousands of years along side the Children of Israel. Not the Israelis, they are European and Western Jews who want to claim this land as theirs.

Speakout 6 years, 5 months ago

Wrong again BK. The Children of Israel were scattered throughout the diaspora and did not remain in that land. How can you say they are the same people. They have non-Hebrew names, they have a different religion altogether although they call them selves Jews. The Jews are descendants from Judah who was ONE of Jacob's sons and his family were the ones who scattered. The remaining parts of the family are untraceable. Prove to me they are one in the same.There is no such thing as "Islamics". Where did you get that word. Islam is the religion and Muslims are those who follow that religions. Do you have a word "Christianics?". or Judaic's" referring to people who believe in that religion. You are shooting from the hip and since you bring no evidence, just continual gibberish we have heard a million times, I am inclined to believe research and facts.I hae never heard a Muslim or Palestinian (Muslim or not) say that Jews did not have a right to the land. They do. But they have the same right as Palestinians Christian and Muslim. There should be a way to live in peaceful coexistence, but you cannot have that when one occupys the other's as the Israelis do over the WEST BANK. I have said a million times that if Israel gets out of the West Bank the wars will crumble. Let the Palestinians breathe, eat and enjoy some part of life!

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 5 months ago

..."with the covert encouragement of the present..."If it's covert, how in the world can Mr. Hickam know it?

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

Logicsound04:"Wouldn't you think it unreasonable for another country to attack the United States based on our comments." LS04I think a lot of nations and terrorists groups would do serious harm to the U.S. if it had the opportunity, and probably believe that any attack on us is either preemptive or retaliation for whatever. We are free people with great wealth and envied by many. However, we have the greatest military in the history of the world along with brave men and women who are protecting us.Just to be clear: I am not stating that if we simply label something as preemptive it somehow justifies the attack. I am saying pre-emptive attacks are sometimes justified.

Brent Garner 6 years, 5 months ago

Speakout is an Islamic apologist who speaks without authority and would have us believe his version of Islam which disagrees emphatically with the public statements and actions of other Islamics both here in the US and elsewhere in the world. It boils down to this. Who should we believe? This one voice who says X, Y, and Z or the multitude of voices who say A, B, and C? The answer should be obvious.Previously, on a different post, I challenged Speakout to tell uls by what authority he speaks for Islam. I asked him which of the 5 Madh'hab (schools of Islamic thought) he has studied in and been approved by. He did not then respond to me on that topic. I now give him another opportunity. Tell us, Speakout, by what authority you claim your version of Islam and the Qur'an are valid when the vast majority of your fellow believers seem to be saying and acting otherwise.

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

Wow, that pretty well sums it up bkgarner.

monkeyspunk 6 years, 5 months ago

Before the Dubya starting pounding on the war drums and rattling his martini olive skewers, Iran was in the midst of what can only be described as progressive social reforms. (Progressive for Iran, mind you) The security chief of Iran, after the election of Mahmoud thanked America for getting the very loud and conservative leader elected.The current situation with Iran falls squarely on this administration's shoulders. Israel probably won't attack, at least not under their current leadership. They are giving up 5 prisoners, one who was a convicted child killer, for the bodies of 2 Israeli soldiers, KILLED while in captivity (thanks for the help there Amnesty International). They were holding secret negotiations with Syria. The attitude in Israel has shifted, for now. I am not going to make any bold predictions though, Israel could very well take advantage of being able to use Iraqi airspace to launch an attack, undoubtedly utilizing American intelligence on the Iranian air defense systems.

Speakout 6 years, 5 months ago

BK, arguing with you is fruitles and pointless. No matter what I say or point out to you, you believe what you want. Good for you, enjoy yourself and know I won't post again. I have never shrunk from discussing the issues with anyone, but I will not discuss them with those who look at everything with a prejudice and looking to find fault. There is nothing better than critical thinking, but with that comes some sort of THINKING!I suggested that we meet and talk about these issues, but you would rather talk out of the side of your mouth and discredit Islam and Muslims. Your right - and I served to ensure that - so knock yourself out.

Mkh 6 years, 5 months ago

Saterical:"Sovereign nations have the right to do whatever they want. The real question is: Do we want to allow, or should we prevent nations with leaders that are insane and would gladly sacrifice their own nations to attack their enemies, the access to such weapons. I think the answer is clear. The methods of prevention are really the only point of debate."-----------------------------------------Perhaps the better question is why do we give a tyrant leader the means to start a nuclear program only to then later want to invade the country on the basis of them having a nuclear program?

Brent Garner 6 years, 5 months ago

Now, addressing the issue of Palestine. The Islamics and their Palestinian brethren would have us believe that they have occupied that land for thousands of years. Further, they would have us believe that any covenant that God had with the House of Israel was broken by the Babylonian captivity. Additionally, Islamic experts working on the temple mount in Jerusalem work aggressively to prevent the discovery of or to destroy evidence of ancient Jewish presence in the area. The Palestinians and Islamics say that the Jews have no right to the land. How can we ignore the ancient history of the area which clearly shows from both religious and secular sources that the Jews were there. And, Speakout, a very nice try at Orwellian newspeak when you say that these are Jews whereas the ancient Hebrews living there were a different group called the Children of Israel. What subterfuge! What deception! The "Jews" of today are the literal descendents of the same Children of Israel you cite. As such, your very statement substantiates their claim to the land.Would it be preferable for both peoples to live peacefully side by side? Yes! However, history seems to show that there is a distinct disinclination to do that, most notably from the non-Israeli side of the problem.

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

invictus.."Cut'em loose they are a sovereign nation."Yeah, great idea. We should have left Kuwait alone, and South Korea, and now that I think about why did we ever rescue so many sovereign nations from Germany and Japan in WWII? I am sure they could have either taken care of themselves or died trying. Not our problem.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 5 months ago

"i have said a million times that if Israel gets out of the West Bank the wars will crumble."In case you've not noticed, terrorists claiming to be Muslim are killing people in Indonesia and other countries in SE Asia. What does that have to do with the West Bank?

Brent Garner 6 years, 5 months ago

Speakout:When I refer to passages from the Qur'an or see others refer to passages, I always read well before that passage and well after to make certain that things are not being taken out of context. And, yes, I have read vast portions of the Qur'an. Have I read it all? Not yet. Working on it. I must say that I find many parts of it alarming and disturbing. Contrary to what you say there are passages that clearly authorize Muslims to kill non-believers, to lie to them, to subjugate them. The Qur'an does not treat men and women equally. Even your false prophet stated that for a matter to be established 4 male witnesses or 8 female witnesses must support the issue. Thus, men and women are not equal under Islam. Then there is the treatment of non-believers under Islam. The tax is called jizya. Hardly equal treatment.Now, given your explanation of your authority to speak for Islam, then I must say here that if that is your authority then my authority is just as valid. You base your authority on your reading of the Qur'an and on your reading only. You convenientlly ignore how others both past and modern have interpreted those same teachings. Then you propose that your viewpoint is the dominant one within Islam when the evidence is to the contrary. If your position is the correct one, then why the war being waged by Muslims against non-Muslims everywhere in the world? Islam is hardly a religion of peace. Judging by the empirical evidence of the behavior of your fellow religionists both here in the US and elsewhere, it is obvious, even to the casual observer that your interpretation does not agree with nor coincide with the dominant behavior. Therefore, the validity of your claims is cast into doubt.

jafs 6 years, 5 months ago

If I hear from a friend that someone is out to get me, and respond by going to their house and attacking them ("pre-emptively"), I would be liable for assault.Why can't we simply defend our borders, and our nation from attack without attacking others first?

neoquixote 6 years, 5 months ago

If Israel or U.S. attack Iran, there should have a purpose, or goal. what is it?the oil? take over the land, or just erase the Nuclear stuff?Does anybody really believe that Iran can finally work out the NB successfully? Or Iran really want to use the NB or spread it to the terrorist against Israel or U. S.?I don't think so. Even Iran really want to develop the nuclear weapons, it is for self defense. they are not mad, they want peaceful and happy life as much as us. On the other hand, if all of these are about national interests, how do we know that there are no other countries standing behind Iran.

temperance 6 years, 5 months ago

A strike on Iran will accelerate their nuclear program, not slow it down. Foreign policy expert Joseph Cirincione: "[A] military strike would be disastrous for the United States. It would rally the Iranian public around an otherwise unpopular regime, inflame anti-American anger around the Muslim world, and jeopardize the already fragile U.S. position in Iraq. And it would accelerate, not delay, the Iranian nuclear program. Hard-liners in Tehran would be proven right in their claim that the only thing that can deter the United States is a nuclear bomb. Iranian leaders could respond with a crash nuclear program that could produce a bomb in a few years."

Brent Garner 6 years, 5 months ago

Speakout: I would also point out to you that the West Bank and Gaza were occupied only because two Muslim nations chose to go to war with Israel in 1967. Egypt had positioned significant numbers of troops and tanks in Gaza so those had to be eliminated. Jordan lost the West Bank because Jordan ignored Israeli promises to leave Jordan alone if Jordan stayed out of the fighting. Jordan capitulated to Egypt's Nassar and to Syria's Assad and went to war. The consequence was they lost the West Bank. After 1967, Israel repeatedly offered to return the Sinai, Gaza, and the West Bank in exchange for secure borders and the recognition of Israel's right to exist by Egypt and Jordan. At the time, those nations refused. This went on for many years and gave time for elements of Israeli society to advance the position that if they were being forced to administer these captured territories then Israel should benefit therefrom to offset the expense. If you want to point a finger at someone responsible for the continued occupation of the west bank and gaza you should look at Cairo and Amman, not Tel Aviv. I know this is a fact because I lived then and these offers were on the nightly news and in the newpapers, so if you deny they were made then you will be evidenced as one who misrepresents things.Further, I find it intriguing that recently from Palestinian sources have come admissions that much of the Palestinian diaspora was caused not by Israeli's forcing them out but by Arab countries urging them to get out of the way of the advancing Arab armies that would supposedly drive the Jews into the sea. The Arab armies failed to do so and the displaced Palestinians did not go home. This is from their own journals and records.I would address the ancestry of the "Jews" but it appears Satirical has done that.

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

Jafs: "And, finally, we need to look at our ties to Israel, and how that affects the Arab perception of the US. Israel:" jafsI understand that most nations in the Middle East don't want to destroy Israel only because they took land from the Palestinians (who took it from the Israelites), a significant reason they want to destroy Israel because of religious differences. I think the U.S. should protect its ally and the only (true) democracy (until Iraq) in the Middle East. I don't care what the Middle East thinks of the U.S. protecting Israel, because I believe it is the right thing to do, and I don't believe the U.S. should sacrifice Israel and bow to pressure from the Middle East simple because it MIGHT make some Middle Eastern countries not hate us so much.

jafs 6 years, 5 months ago

All actions which begin in violence are going to have continuing violent repurcussions.Our actions as a nation have been extremely violent, and aggressive.If we want real change (and the chance to create fewer enemies), we need to look at this problem.

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

Speakout:"The Jews are descendants from Judah who was ONE of Jacob's sons and his family were the ones who scattered. The remaining parts of the family are untraceable. Prove to me they are one in the same." speakoutThe Jews are from all of the sons of Jacob. 10 of the tribes were brought into captivity with only the tribe of Judah and Benjamin remaining. The Jews in Israel are literal descendants from these two tribes, perhaps you could prove otherwise.

igby 6 years, 5 months ago

It will be impossible to liberate Europe from the Muslims.

Speakout 6 years, 5 months ago

Well, Screedposter, I am neither, and if I leveled a charge like that against you (and since I am an ethical person, which obviously you only can aspire to be) I would state the reasons, give evidence and welcome debate.

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

logicsound04...I don't think Brent is necessarily advocating for an attack on Iran, he is stating the he understands the logic if one occurred. After all, if we had a chance to take out the Taliban before 9/11 we would have. Iran has declared numerous times it wants to wipe Israel off the map and now has long-range missiles capable of doing so. It is only natural for Israel to consider the possibility of taking out these missile sites, rather than waiting for Iran to do in a few hours what it took Hitler to do in 6 years. However, I believe (and hope) cooler heads will prevail and military conflict will be avoided. Although Iran is a theocracy, it still understands the importance of self preservation, and realizes America will retaliate if Iran gets stupid. I think they just wanted bargaining chips and leverage. After all, we just gave North Korea a ton of money to dismantle its nuclear weapons programs, so it seems to be in Iran's interest to at least pretend it is a threat.

jafs 6 years, 5 months ago

Another better way to prevent 9/11 would have been to prevent the terrorists from gaining access to our country.Improving our problems with illegal immigration might be a good idea.Also, we should use the same ideas that reasonable people use to defend themselves - lock your windows and doors (borders), don't go out of your way to make enemies (reasonable discussion with other nations), and be ready to defend yourself if necessary.

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

Logicsound04:"A great point, considering that Iran's nuclear program was originally launched with substantial assistance from the United States." LS04What a ridiculous statement, that the U.S. gave Iran its nuclear capability so it could start a war. You must think the U.S. is really evil. Who was it that gave Iran and North Korea this technology anyway? Or perhaps Bill Clinton and George Bush are in collusion to start a war.The U.S. can go to war whenever it sees fit. Saddam Hussein didn't have nuclear capabilities and we started one with him. So even by logical construct this statement is fallacious."By I would like to again reiterate that the president of Iran is not the power wielder. He is an elected figurehead." LS04He is an elected figurehead like President Bush, who has the authority to order military attacks.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 5 months ago

"It is inevitable that Israel will act before the November elections."We'll check back with you on this after the election.

Trobs 6 years, 5 months ago

Just a reminder, Iran is having an election in the near future. Also, Ahmadinejad is not the true leader of Iran. The Supreme Leader is a religious leader named Ali Khamenei. The country is much in the same way as it was back in the 70s when they took Americans hostage. The differences are they want to be much more like the west. Amazingly enough, the rest of the world enjoys our tvs, movies, etc as much as we do. Even repressed countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

Logicsound04:Others may, but I do not believe you are a terrorist sympathizer, you are one of the few that can make and respond to rational arguments, even though I disagree with you."A razor-thin distinction" LS04One can make an argument for or against a position without believe in the position. As an example you have made the argument that Al Qaeda could have seen 9/11 as a pre-emptive strike. This does not mean you were advocating for the pre-emptive strike. I agree that is Al Qaeda probably viewed the attack."Correction, Ahmenineniajad (sp?) has bloviated that they want to wipe Israel off the map." LS04Yes, but he is the one with the capability of authorizing the attack and is the one we should care about. Also, my guess is that many Iranians will agree with his statement.I think a preemptive strike would be premature at this point with Iran, of course I am not the one with missiles pointed at me being threatened with annihilation. However, I do think they are sometimes necessary and justified. JFK was willing to go to war with the Soviets to get the missiles removed from Cuba. This was a pre-emptive move by his part since Cuba never fired the missiles at us, but it would be illogical to always require the enemy to wipe out several major cities before you can take any stops to prevent them.

Quigly 6 years, 5 months ago

Death solves all problems. No man no problem.

cato_the_elder 6 years, 5 months ago

I see that a few of the Blame America Firsters are up already - unusual for them.

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

Monkeyspunk:"First of all, the Taliban did not attack us. Al Qaeda did." Yes, but the Taliban was harboring Al Qaeda, and wouldn't have been able to grow so large in Afghanistan without the Taliban. However, I neglected to state the U.S. would take out the Taliban and Al Qaeda if they knew then what we know now."Second, we had numerous chances to take out major elements of terrorist leadership before Bush was elected and we didn't."Obviously. I was referring to Brent's logic of pre-empting an attack that is extremely likely to occur. I was making the point that if we knew about the 9/11 attack before it occurred we would have used pre-emptive measures, and therefore pre-emptive measures are sometimes necessary. This counters logicsound's argument. This was entirely clear from my sentence preceding the one you critize, "I don't think Brent is necessarily advocating for an attack on Iran, he is stating the he understands the logic if one occurred." Please try reading rather than taking my comments out of context, and ignoring the post I was responding to or my actual arguments.

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

Jafs:"It is simply because the formation of Israel was unjust to the Palestinians, and the continuing actions of Israel are fraught with error. As I said, our continuing blind support of Israel is not in our nation's best interests as well." - jafsI agree there were problems with the formation of Israel, but history has shown the land has gone back and forth between the Palestinians and the Israelites (jews) for thousands of years. Who is to say which groups really deserves the land? Israel is not perfect and the U.S. does not believe it is perfect, our support is not blind. But is in our nation's best interest to support a democracy in the Middle East and an ally.

jafs 6 years, 5 months ago

The reason to question our support of Israel is not because of "pressure" from anyone.It is simply because the formation of Israel was unjust to the Palestinians, and the continuing actions of Israel are fraught with error.As I said, our continuing blind support of Israel is not in our nation's best interests as well.

Trobs 6 years, 5 months ago

I love how people take snippets out of my text and use them, but not the entire quote. Yes, Iran is much like they were, but they want change. That's why Ahmadinejad is in real trouble when the election comes. The people of Iran do not like him making enemies all over the place. We can't break their Theocracy, but the people no longer want to be viewed as "enemies".

temperance 6 years, 5 months ago

It's a mistake to think that the interests of American neocons or Israeli Likuds match the interests of either the US or Israel. Some right-wing Jews have pushed for strikes against Iran for the last few years, but those views represent only a small minority of Jews in the US (or Israel for that matter). Most Jews in the US oppose taking military action against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. Most Jews in the US favor the creation of a Palestinian state. And, relatedly, the majority of Jews in Israel favor direct talks with Hamas. To say that supporting an attack on Iran is pro-Israel or pro-Jewish is to state the opposite of reality. Bombing Iran will not "support" our ally Israel it will swiftly endanger it.http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.3642855/http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.3642857/http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/958473.html

temperance 6 years, 5 months ago

The author seems really excited about the prospect of more conflict in the Middle East. Is he 12 years old? A military swipe at Iran, be it by the Israelis or the US, will cause the price of oil to soar, resulting in severe financial and political repercussions. How does that help the Republicans?

jayhawklawrence 6 years, 5 months ago

One thing is sure. While we extend our resources to try to gain "influence" in all the problem areas of the world, our standard of living and our image has been in serious decline over the last 7 years.We have to find a new way to win our arguments because war is simply too expensive and leads to a host of other problems.If we had not been so eager to act in a uni-lateral fashion after 9/11, we would not be in this situation and the dialogue on these issues could have included assistance from other countries, instead of the US carrying the load as usual.Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. US mistakes contributed to these problems. When are we going to learn how to avoid war?If only George Bush had not acted so hastily and with such a stubborn mind. This kind of person has to go.You cannot solve problems with war. You just create new problems.

beatrice 6 years, 5 months ago

screed, if your are playing hall moniter, I hope you will remind your Republicans to keep it classy next time they tell me to go **** myself. snap: "tehran, Iran (CNN) - Iran's new president has repeated a remark from a former ayatollah that Israel should be "wiped out from the map," insisting that a new series of attacks will destroy the Jewish state, and lashing out at Muslim countries and leaders that acknowledge Israel."While in our neck of the woods, we have John McCain reconfirming on July 8, 2008, his desire to kill Iranians: (From the Washington Post) "Responding to a question about a survey that shows increased exports to Iran, mainly from cigarettes, McCain said, 'Maybe that's a way of killing them.'" Only when proded by his wife did he say it was a "joke." Funny, in a not funny at all sort of way. Yep, John McCain, if made President, will continue George Bush's war in Iraq (for 100 years if necessary) and will likely further Bush's Middle East plan by also attacking Iran, a country whose people he wants to see die. Obama for President! (unless you like unneccessary wars, that is)

jayhawklawrence 6 years, 5 months ago

"Korea? You need to bone up on your history. The communist north attacked and invaded the south. The only mistake we made was when Truman fired McArthur. That was the real beginning of fighting a p.c. war 'not to lose' rather than fighting it to win."This mess got under way during the Yalta Conference when FDR and Churchill decided to give half of the world to Stalin for no logical reason that I am aware of other than they were outfoxed by a clever Communist Dictator.What version of history are you referring to?And by the way, the US did not own Korea or any of the other countries we handed over.

TopJayhawk 6 years, 5 months ago

No Daytrader, no one is as smart or sophisticated as you as you hide in Europe. Remember, that continent will be the first to capitualate. Mairon has it excactly right. I say we bring back WW ll tactics and just bomb the he!! out of one city after another. It worked in Germany, and Japan. Two of the most war like cultures on this earth until 1944. Now, two of the most peaceful cultures on this earth. There is a lesson there should anyone have the intelligence to see it.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 5 months ago

Worth repeating:"15 July 2008 at 9:09 a.m.spiderman (Anonymous) says:...i am withdrawing from the forum and have sent an email to LJW regarding the same kind of complaints about certan forum members often referred to as 'wingnuts' or the 'witches haven' or other names."Guess we know how long that lasted. ;)

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

Max1..Allow me to clarify: Arbitrary attacks on someone else's religion is wrong.(1) I never stated I support all of Brent's positions(2) Brent's comment stating that "Islam is hardly of religion of peace" is a deduction based on empirical evidence that they many Muslims have attacked people in the name of their religion (yes it is obvious that historically so have some Christians, but the majority of Christians today aren't shouting death to this country or that country). Whereas your attacks on Mormons based on what you think of their beliefs. I also think you are guilty of stereotyping (and Brent is also arguably guilty of the same). One can disagree that a religion is true and not persecute their believers.(3) You still have not learned to make arguments, you simply cut and paste. Do you have a reason why you can't make an argument? Maybe that question was oxymoronic.

TopJayhawk 6 years, 5 months ago

Spiderman. You must be too young to remember the worst President of the latter part of the twentieth century. Whatever he says, just do the opposite, and it will be okay. Jeez

jafs 6 years, 5 months ago

There are certainly many in the Arab world who hate America.The interesting question, which few seem to ask, is why?I maintain that our support of Israel (which was an unjust occupier), and our continued meddling and occupation of Arab lands, are major contributing reasons.Would stopping these eliminate all potential conflicts? Of course not, but it would reduce them.According to Charlie Wilson's account (he was the one responsible for arming and supporting the Afghans against the Soviets), once the war was over, there was virtually no interest in Congress in helping the Afghan people.Why is it that we're so interested in fighting wars, and not interested in creating the conditions for peace and stability?As Ron Paul points out, the founding fathers believed in non-interventionist foreign policy. I'm not sure we could completely eliminate intervention, but we could certainly bring it down to a more reasonable level.And, by the way, we didn't get involved in WWII for altruistic reasons - we got involved after we were attacked by Japan.

beatrice 6 years, 5 months ago

Satirical: From a story in today's NY Times: "PARIS - The Bush administration's decision to send a senior American official to participate in international talks with Iran this weekend..."I thought talking with Iran was bad? Now it is good? darn flop-flippers. Obama on Iran: "Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress." - from Obama website.Why should there be preconditions for the talks if we know what we will say and how we will reward/punish as a result? To take a "no talk / no diplomacy" stance is wrong. McCain is wrong on Iran, just as McCain and the Bush administration have been wrong, wrong, and wrong again on Iraq. Obama for President!

Brent Garner 6 years, 5 months ago

Max1:Regarding my statements concerning Speakout.1. I asked Speakout to identify by what authority he claimed to speak for all Muslims. That is a legitmate question and one that has roots in Islam. You should read a bit about how one qualifies to be an imam or cleric in Islam. It involves substantial study and learning. I wanted to know which of the 5 schools of Islamic thought he had studied under. Had he been able to identify or claim training in one or more of those schools, his arguments would have carried much greater weight. 2. Speakout is certainly entitled to his opinion and personal interpretation of Islam. But, it is also blatantly obvious that his interpretation is at odds with the public pronouncements everywhere of prominent clerics and imams. Please see my point #1 as to why their opinions hold greater impact than Speakout's.3. This is not a Mormon versus anybody issue. This is an issue of whether or not we, as a freedom loving people are going to tolerate the impostion of a belief system that calls for the obliteration of our freedom, among which is the freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and so forth. 4. As for the Fred Phelps comment, if that is valid as relates to me, could I refer to you as our Neville Chamberlain?

Brent Garner 6 years, 5 months ago

Max1:Oh, in case your education is so limited as to not know who Neville Chamberlain was, he was the British Prime Minister who flew to Munich to negotiate with Hitler over the Sudetenland and returned to London proclaiming, "Peace in our time". That was September 1938. In September 1939, just one year later, Germany invaded Poland and World War II formally began in Europe. Chamberlain's name is now synonymous with appeasement.

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

Spiderman:"There are certainly many in the Arab world who hate America. The interesting question, which few seem to ask, is why?"I maintain it is mainly because we are the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world and they are jealous, just like so many liberals who want to tax the rich because they feel they are entitled to more of their money (even though the wealthiest 10% of Americans already pay 80% of the income taxes). The Arab world also hates us because we are a democratic republic and not an Islamic theocracy or monarchy like many of their governments. Our support of Israel, who returned to their land, is only a small reason they hate us. Vote for the naÃive Obama who first said he would negotiate with Iran with no preconditions, and then changed his stance after talking to a Jewish coalition.

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

Beatrice.."Apparently, your amoral obligation is to bring freedom to the Iraqi people, even if you have to kill every last one of them to do so." - beatriceAre we going out of our way to kill them, or are they attacking each other and we are trying referee while killing the terrorists that remain in the country?"Yes, we are obligated to help Iraq rebuild their country that we destroyed, but we need to also listen to their government, which is saying they want us to leave." beatriceYou are wrong, they don't want us to leave any time soon, they have repeatedly stated they need more training (and they don't mind the billions of dollars we are spending to build up their infrastructure). Obviously they want us to leave eventually and so do we, in fact the sooner the better. I don't like the fact we are spending money over there or that Americans are sacrificing their lives but it is necessary until the government can support itself and protect its people from genocide. The good news is that the surge worked, despite Obama's and the Dems claims it wouldn't (and recent removal from his website stating he opposed the troop surge). The only minor issue is do we set an arbitrary date and leave no matter the situation, or to we leave as soon as it is reasonable to leave? That is the only distinction between the Iraqi government and Bush.

Brent Garner 6 years, 5 months ago

Max1:For starters I am going to try to ignore the blatantly ignorant and uninformed attacks on my religion. Now, you accuse me of being an Islamphobe. Interesting term. Technically, that would mean I have an irrational fear of Islam. If you would like, I can produce 2 local psychologists who can assure you that I do not suffer from any sort of phobia as you assert. The only "phobias" I may be guilty of is 1) I don't like needles as in when you have to get an injection or the doctor has to draw blood, and 2) I am not particularly fond of snakes. Those would hardly qualify as irrational fears.Now, I ask you, if you see thousands of Muslims marching in the street and callling for the extermination of the Jews and the extermination of the US, and you find that alarming, how is that irrational? When you view video of them training to conduct terrorist and commando misisons against you and you are alarmed, why is that irrational? When every one of their self-appointed clerics seems to call for the blood of non-believers and you are alarmed by this language, why would that alarm be considered inrrational? When the Muslims of Beirut celebrate the return of a man who killed a four-year old girl by bashing her skull open against a rock after killing her father in front of her and you find that behavior revolting and repulsive and alarming, why would you consider that alarm to be irrational?Max1, I don't know quite what to make of you. It is possible you are simply an uninformed, undereducated, bigot. It is possible that you have a leftist, yeah, even communist style agenda which calls for the destruction of the US as presently constituted so that your socialist utopia can arise. It is possible that you are the one who suffers from a phobia, that phobia being the facts plainly evident before your eyes but which facts shatter you worldview and pre-set philosophy and therefore must be denied and rejected regardless. I believe the psychological term for that is denial. Denial does not change the facts. It simply means you are unwilling to confront them and deal with them. Sadly, the world has seen just such a mass denial in the past. Relatively few wanted to believe that Adolph Hitler really was preparing for war. Why? The thought was just too horrendous to consider so it was more comfortable to block it out. Sadly, very sadly, that denial did not prevent the coming of World War II. Max1, if you and your ilk should dominate, then when the hour becomes too late to prepare, the cost will be high just as it was for all those who denied what Hitler was really up to. Take off the rose colored glasses. I know the scenes are repulsive, frightening, and unsettling. But hiding ones head in the sand will not solve the problem either.

TopJayhawk 6 years, 5 months ago

Logicsound says: "some people lack the capacity to learn." Dude, You resemble that remark.

Brent Garner 6 years, 5 months ago

Max1: Now, to address elections in Iran. I hope you are not attempting to portray Iranian elections as open and fair elections. If you are, then you should understand that each candidate for office must be approved by the clerics. In the most recent election, hundreds of would be "reformist" candidates were not permitted to run. The result was a ballot filled with those who support the current regime. That is hardly what I would call an open and democratic election. Frankly, it bears a closer resemblence to what passed for elections in the former Soviet Union where only 1 party was allowed and only the approved candidtates' names appeared on the ballot. Yes, it has the form but it lacks the substance.Now, If the Iranian President resurrects a quote from the long dead Khomeini and uses it in a speech today why can't that quoted threat not be taken as a current threat? I fail to see how the separation in time somehow reduces the threat content if the threat is repeated today using the quote.You cited some religion stats for Iran. I see you mention the Bahai. Perhaps you should read up on how the Bahai faith was all but exterminated by Khomeini and his thugs before you start citing those stats as evidence of how "peaceful" Iran is.Yes, there is the token Jew in the Iranian parliment. One voice in 290. Just what do you expect the man to say when everything he does is watched by the Iranian government and he could easily disappear if he doesn't recite the proper lines. Sorry, that is not evidence. Perhaps you can find a better example.However, remember that Iran is also the place where the thought police run rampant. Iran closely monitors internet, cell phones, and all forms of communication for what they call illegal content and what we might call dissent. The thought police are active on the streets of Tehran arresting young people for non-Islamic attire. Iranian courts routinely have condemned people to death for changing from Islam to Christianity. What a fine example of religous tolerance that is. Yes, Iran must be an absolute paridise according to all of this. And this is what the Iranian government would have imposed on the rest of the world. Max1, if they succeed do you honestly think you will survive? This very online conversation would get us both arrested and at least tortured and imprisoned if not shot. Wake up, sir. Wake up before it is too late.

TopJayhawk 6 years, 5 months ago

Hey monkeyjuice. Are you implying that the elections in Iran are fair? What a doofus. It may be "fair" after the Government hand picks who can run in the first place. Let's see.... will it be this yes man, or maybe this yes man. But then again, I kinda like the yes man sitting in the corener. Jeez. Just more proof you guys really don't have a clue.

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

Max1: "Obviously, you have me confused with somebody who gives a flyin' **** what you think." max1Obviously I have confused you with someone capable of making a rational coherent and logical argument. I realize now you are only capable of making personal attacks, labeling arguments without countering them, and cutting and pasting (what is often off topic) to imply an argument since you don't have the deliberative faculty to actually form one.

jd 6 years, 5 months ago

Korea? You need to bone up on your history. The communist north attacked and invaded the south. The only mistake we made was when Truman fired McArthur. That was the real beginning of fighting a p.c. war 'not to lose' rather than fighting it to win.

TopJayhawk 6 years, 5 months ago

Sorry BK. I wrote those previous post's before reading your post saying much the same thing.. Maybe we should negotiate, that gives us a change to tell them we might fry them soon if they don't shape up. And to who ever. Our interventions in the area are a nice excuse to all of the liberals out there for Iran to prusue nukes. of course they have been doing so since before all of this started. NO I won't provide proof of that. That is not possible when all is covert.

Brent Garner 6 years, 5 months ago

To Max1:You said:"Despite Bush's boneheads who denounce all negotiations with radical Muslim groups, recently there have been some remarkable developments in the negotiations Israel has been holding with Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria.And now even lame-brained Bush realizes negotiations are the best option"The part of this that relates to Iran I have already addressed so now lets address Israel and its negotiations.Please tell me what concrete benefit Israel has derived from its negotiations with any of the 3 entities you have cited? Have the Qassam and mortar and machine gun attacks from Gaza stopped? No, they have not. The number of attacks per day has dropped but they have not stopped altogether which, by the way, was supposed to be a condition of the "truce" or "lull" that was negotiated. Yet, Hamas is demanding that Israel fulfill its side of the agreement even though Hamas controlled Gaza is not keeping their side. As for Hezbollah. Israel got back two corpses, mutilated according to reports. I would not doubt that if we had full access to what the status and condition of those corpses is that we would find that both captured soldiers were tortured to death. Israel returned 5 more than guilty terrorist-murderers, one of whom was so brave that he bashed out a 4 year old girls brains by beating her head against a rock. No, this was not a good negotiation either.As for Syria, even Assad denies anything concrete is going on. Sorry, Max1, I don't see where these have been "remarkable developments" except in that it appears that Israel's enemies have been able to humiliate Israel and inflict harm on Israeli citizens. But, perhaps, that is ok with you. After all, they are only Jews!

Daytrader23 6 years, 5 months ago

TopJayhawk (Anonymous) says:Hey monkeyjuice. Are you implying that the elections in Iran are fair? What a doofus. It may be "fair" after the Government hand picks who can run in the first place. Let's see:. will it be this yes man, or maybe this yes man. But then again, I kinda like the yes man sitting in the corener. Jeez. Just more proof you guys really don't have a clue.I say,Hey, isn't that the same exact thing that our gov't does as well? Bye golly it is.

Brent Garner 6 years, 5 months ago

Max1:I do not understand why you want to make my religion an issue here. It is not masses of Mormons chanting "Death to America!" It is not Mormons flying airplanes into buildings in New York and Washington, D.C. It is not Mormons beheading people and posting those videos online. It is not Mormons calling for the "wiping out" of a political regime. It is not Mormons burning churches. It is not Mormons rioting in the streets when someone insults them. It is not Mormons who call on the UN to make it a crime to insult or say anything derogatory or critical of Mormonism--to use a common term. No, it is not Mormons doing any of this. Those doing these things are the practictioners of Islam. So, if you want to use the term "crackpot" perhaps you should re-direct it toward those who are doing those kinds of things.

Daytrader23 6 years, 5 months ago

screedposter (Anonymous) says:"Iran, a country whose people he wants to see die."Do Iranians want you to die, bea? They chant "death to America" every Friday afternoon, and have for close to 30 years. That doesn't concern you?I say,This is one of THE most idiotic statements I have ever read. Even before I went to Iran I knew this bone head statement to be untrue. The Iranian people are a very open, friendly and educated society . Yes it's true that their gov't is out of touch with the people but then again so is ours. I was very impressed with how educated the average Iranian is. I would have to say more educated then the average American, and until you have been there to see it with your own eyes and not what you saw on fake, opps I mean Fox news, then stop judging the people of the middle east. As they say, it's better to keep your mouth shut then to show your ignorance.

Brent Garner 6 years, 5 months ago

To Max1:Further, where in any of my posts have I said that trying to work out our problems with the Iranians over their nuclear program was a bad idea? I have never said that. In fact, if you will take off those colored glasses you are wearing you will see that I have stated that a non-violent solution would be preferred. However, to date, Iran has spurned each and every proposal put forth regardless of "sweetners" added. Therefore, I am doubtful that negotiations will solve this problem. In fact, I am somewhat fearful that the Iranians are using negotiations as a ploy to put political pressure on mainly the US and by extension Israel to prevent a decisive military strike that would hurt their nuclear weapons program. It is not an uncommon tactic. The North Koreans used it. The North Vietnamese used it. So have others. It is a standard tactic. Get the democracies talking and it will delay action. Always has and always will. Why? Because, as a rule, democracies do not like going to war. Even if you cite the 2003 invasion of Iraq you should note that the invasion occurred after 17 different UN resolutions over far too many years and after endless "negotiating" trying to get the government of Saddam Hussein to live up to previous agreements. Once again, talk the western powers to death while you do what you want. The proof that these negotiations are efficacious will be when the Iranians agree to some kind of system that lets them develop peaceful nuclear power while at the same time making it ironclad or at least strongly unlikely that they will simultaneously and secretly develop nuclear weapons. Until then, negotiations are just so much hot air and energy spent while Iran proceeds with whatever it is up to.

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

Spiderman:"the entire Islamic world does not 'hate us'"When did I say the entire Islamic world hates us? I was responding to your post stating "There are certainly many in the Arab world who hate America" It seems like you can't counter my argument so you attempt to twist my words, when they are really your words you are twisting.

jafs 6 years, 5 months ago

The problem with pre-emptive strikes is the unreliability of intelliigence and the politicization of it.We were told by this president that Iraq had WMD's, and posed an imminent threat to the US.It seems now that that was false on both counts.If we could really depend on our intelligence agencies, I'd be less against "pre-emptive" self defense, although I still prefer (in theory) to defend ourselves from actual attack.We have the best military in the world, according to some. Why can't we develop the capacity to defend ourselves without attacking first?

beatrice 6 years, 5 months ago

Screed, I believe you placed a space in your typing when you didn't really mean it. I'm pretty sure, given your support of the attack, that you meant "amoral obligation." Apparently, your amoral obligation is to bring freedom to the Iraqi people, even if you have to kill every last one of them to do so. Seriously, with the hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed in Iraq since the invasion, please don't attempt to talk to me about morals. Not for a day, not for two, not ever. Yes, we are obligated to help Iraq rebuild their country that we destroyed, but we need to also listen to their government, which is saying they want us to leave. We went for WMDs. There were none, so we switched gears and claimed to be there to "liberate the people" from Suddam. Suddam is now dead, and the Iraqi government is asking us to set a short timetable to leave. If we do not follow suit, then clearly the goal isn't to liberate, but to colonize. Where is your moral indignation at colonization by the U.S.?

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

Max1:Thanks for proving my point that the Iraqi government and many Iraqis want us to stay.":but there is a moral obligation on the Americans at this point.""Even as some Iraqis disagreed about Mr. Obama's stance on withdrawal:"Also, I think it is always good policy to poll the world to decide which President we should elect. In fact we should outsource more of our democracy. (sarcasm intended)

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

I was not planning on posting at all today since I have so much work to do, but I took a small break and read some of the posts from max1 I could not ignore.Max1...You are clearly a bigot who for some reason has a fear or hatred of Mormons. You can continue to persecute Mormons or any other religion you want, but all it does is reveal the narrow-minded bigot you are, and discredits anything you say (which is very little since you still can't make an actual agument and your posts consist almost entirely of copying and pasting, in a fallacious attempt to counter an argument no one ever made, or fallaciously attacking someone personally. Whether or not I am a Mormon is irrelevant to the fact that your attacks on someone else's religion is wrong, and I think most people agree with me.

Daytrader23 6 years, 5 months ago

Yeah, just like in Iraq. We all saw how well that went. If we drop a bomb here......... or drop a bomb there..........This is the problem in America. Too many people with a 4th grade mentality who think the world is a board game.

Daytrader23 6 years, 5 months ago

Marion LynnMarion (Marion Lynn) says:Daytrader23:The world IS a board game on a grand scale and he who plays best not only wins but survives.-------------------------------------My point exactly.

beatrice 6 years, 5 months ago

marion: "The US and its allies need not "invade" Iran in the traditional sense of moving in large land armies and in fact NOT doing that would be far more devastating!"So why, then, did you and do you support Bush and the war in Iraq? Wouldn't the same have held true there?

TopJayhawk 6 years, 5 months ago

OH, and BK Garner, you are exactly right too. If we can't learn the lessons of twentyieth century history, we are doomed to repeat it. And ignoring history, is the ultimate in stupidity. And not the little "Microlessons" Dayhider, the big "macrolessons." Like the one about appeasment

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

http://www.eudoranews.com/news/2008/jul/17/class_1978_reunion/"The Eudora High School class of 1978 will celebrate its 30th reunion with a social with refreshments at 5 p.m. July 26 at Coffee Talk in downtown Eudora. The class will then ride a float in the CPA parade before meeting once from 7 to 9 p.m. at Coffee Talk. The gathering will move at 9 p.m. to Cecil Monday's."http://supertart.com/priceofteainchina/index.php"The current price of tea in China is: ¥ 51185with a max bid of ... 51254.27 disclaimer: not to be confused with a butterfly's wings flapping in China. This price is scientifically derived from numbers only tangentially related to the actual price of tea in China, which we have found is profoundly more accurate than actual prices paid for tea in China. How this affects you, your child, or an acquaintance is derived, again, scientifically, by a patent-pending method we'd love to discuss, but can't, at this time. It has little to nothing to do with the technology behind the magic eight ball. A brief overview of the connections between the price of tea in China and these results (both the price and actual bearing on events) is illustrated here."

jonas 6 years, 5 months ago

The price of Tea in China is one thing, but the butterfly wings is clearly a Japanese phenomenon. They would both be highly insulted to be confused with each other.

jafs 6 years, 5 months ago

And, the deeper problem is the apparent need for people to demonize others.The radical Muslims do it to us, and we do it to them.

uncleandyt 6 years, 5 months ago

I told Iran, and they are cool with the notion. They apologized for attacking Panama and Afghanistan.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 5 months ago

spiderham, stop emailing meWorth repeating:"15 July 2008 at 9:09 a.m.spiderman (Anonymous) says::i am withdrawing from the forum and have sent an email to LJW regarding the same kind of complaints about certan forum members often referred to as 'wingnuts' or the 'witches haven' or other names."Guess we know how long that lasted. ;)

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

How does this. "U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have abandoned efforts to conclude a comprehensive agreement governing the long-term status of U.S troops in Iraq before the end of the Bush presidency, according to senior U.S. officials, effectively leaving talks over an extended U.S. military presence there to the next administration." counter my argument : "the Iraqi government and many Iraqis want us to stay." It clearly does not.And how is your nytimes copy and paste relevant to the discussion? You continue to copy arguments, then find an article that doesn't contradict the argument, and fail to realize your fallacy. It is clearly pointless in attempting to have a dialogue with you, so I will discontinue.

uncleandyt 6 years, 5 months ago

"from Israel's point of view" - Where does one go to find that?I'm eager to give credit to Bush for negotiating. He's gonna have to negotiate first."The logic of attack"? - help me"Iran has declared numerous times that it wants to wipe Israel off the map." Really? I hear American media make that claim weekly. I don't believe it.Unfortunately, war is Not necessary, and I'm still waiting for "justification" of our pre-emption.

jafs 6 years, 5 months ago

The problem with the belief that they (whoever they are) hate us because we're rich and successful is that it misses the point that America has engaged in many detestable actions around the world.Unless we look at these honestly and change some of our foreign policies, we will continue to create enemies.

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

http://www.slickdeals.net/"Toys R Us offers a Printable Coupon for $5 off $25 or more which may be used in stores today July 18 till Saturday July 19. [Store Locator]. Certain exclusions apply, see coupon for details. If you prefer to shop online, they also offer $5 off $25 with coupon code 923256."http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-9994170-94.html"AT&T iPhone users will not be getting free Wi-Fi access after all. For the second time in less than six months, AT&T mistakenly published a notice on its Web site indicating that Apple iPhone users would get free access to the wireless operator's more than 17,000 Wi-Fi hot spots around the country."

jafs 6 years, 5 months ago

The Koran and Islam are not all that different from the Bible and Christianity.Both the Koran and the Bible have passages urging peace and charity, and both have passages that seem to support hate and violence.There are a wide variety of practicing Muslims and Christians, from conservative to liberal. Some Christians believe and preach that any non-Christians are certainly going to hell. Anybody remember the Inquisition and the Crusades?I've seen ministers claim there is Biblical justification for "just war" - sounds pretty similar to "jihad" to me. It is strange that folks who claim to believe in the Bible have forgotten the Ten Commandments - what part of "Thou shalt not kill" don't they understand?The problem with both the Bible and the Koran is that they are open to interpretation and selectivity. Depending on which parts you choose and how you choose to interpret them you can arrive at very different conclusions.

jafs 6 years, 5 months ago

Thomas Jefferson's foreign policy advice (may not be an exact quote):Friendship with any who desire it.Free trade with all other nations.Entangling alliances with none.

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

There is no point screedposter, I already pointed out essentially the same thing earlier. It will not dissuade max1 from copying and pasting irrelevant information to waste space on this blog. Maybe every time he copies and pastes a non-relevant article I will do the same. It will be like a contest of who can get the most off-topic and pretend like they are contributing (or countering) the discussion.

Brent Garner 6 years, 5 months ago

Max1:Could you explain how my statement relates to the articles or rather excerpts of articles you cut and pasted? There seems to be a 100% disconnect between what I said and what you posted.

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

bkgarner..."There seems to be a 100% disconnect between what I said and what you posted"And that surprises you when attempting to have a conversation with max1?

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

screedposter...I think your evidence, especially the report about the soap box derby car, along with mine is irrefutable that they want us there.

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

screedposter...Thank you, I appreciate the comment. I do have to admit I was really proud to be able to google that information jewel which unambiguously makes everything more clear. To state otherwise is blatantly ignorant.

jaywalker 6 years, 5 months ago

"You're too modest. Your Chocolate-Filled Holiday Balls recipe ties the whole argument together, and explains the significance of our presence in the region as a whole."Satirical and Screed:Thank you, I'm still laughing.

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3494576The Utah Jazz doled out big-money contracts to land free agents Carlos Boozer and Mehmet Okur in the summer of 2004. Four years later, the Jazz are ready to give star point guard Deron Williams his big payday, too.http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/sara-moulton/chocolate-filled-holiday-balls-recipe/index.htmlChocolate-Filled Holiday Balls 1 cup walnut pieces, divided 2/3 cup confectioners' sugar, divided 1 3/4 cups all-purpose flour 1 cup (2 sticks) salted butter or margarine, at room temperature 1 teaspoon vanilla extract Chocolate Filling: 1/2 cup (3 ounces) semisweet chocolate morsels 2 tablespoons salted butter or margarine 2 tablespoons heavy (whipping) cream 1/2 teaspoon vanilla extract 1 cup confectioners' sugar

uncleandyt 6 years, 5 months ago

Starting wars is wrong. It's that simple.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.