Politics Foreign MiddleEast Others - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Foreign:MiddleEast:Others:
Results 1 - 150 of 185   < 1 2 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2022/05/27 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2006/12/21-28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:45485 Activity:high
12/21   Would you support selling Israel down the river if that helped solve
        the Iran and Iraq problems?
        \_ there are no problem in Iran.  It's like trying to prevent your
           teenage daughter from having sex.  You just have to accept the
        \_ In this fantasy world, would I get a pony too?
        \_ No, I don't think I'd trade a low-intensity conflict for a full
           scale middle-east war + attempted re-enactment of the holocaust.
           How about you?
           \- just out of curiosity, who would go to "full scale war"
              against a nuclear israel? --psb
              \_ nuclear "wipe Israel off the map" Iran?
                 \- dont be silly. pak and india arent going to exchange
                    nukes, neither are iran and israel. what you should be
                    much more concerned about is the pakistani state falling
                    apart. i think taiwan may have more to fear from china
                    than israel does from iran.
                    \_ But when Iran does do what it's been promising to
                       do, I'm sure I'll hear a lot of, "There's no way
                       we could have seen THAT coming..."
                       \- yeah and communism still hasnt been discredited ...
                          it'll happen some day.
                    \_ you have no idea what are you talking about.  If
                       Israel/Iran relationship is like mainland China and
                       and Taiwan, the world will be a much better place.
                       \- i am not comparing the relationship between,
                          i am comparing "threat probabilities". the dynamics
                          between who will win the rose bowl has nothing
                          to do with will it rain tomorrow, but you certainly
                          can say "it is more likely it will rain tomorrow
                          than UMich will win the rosebowl".
                          \_ that is exactly what I am saying.  The "threat
                             probabilities" between mainland China and Taiwan
                             is next to zero unless Taiwan do something really
        \_ Appeasement of enemies only emboldens them. And how quickly
           you forget who originally supplied them with arms (hint : Not the
           \_ Who?
           \_ The world is a lot more complicated than your little throw away
              one liner. Who are our "enemies" and who determines that? Do you
              have an "enemies" list and how can I get on it? Or off of it,
              for that matter, since it appears from your statement that
              there is no way.
        \_ [Discussion of Israel censored and restored.]
2006/11/2-4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:45106 Activity:nil
11/02   November surprise?
        http://csua.org/u/hcz (SFGate.com article)
        link:csua.org/u/hd0 (Picture, jpg, Work Safe)
        \_ Iran fires Shahab-3 with 1250 mile range.  No surprise.  They've
           been working on this for a long time.  You think Iran's missile
           test has something to do with the silly American mid-term elections?
           Tell us your theory.
           \_ /shrug. No theory, just asking.
              \_ Seriously, I doubt the Iranians are trying to change our
                 elections with a missile test.  If they nuked something or
                 sent 200k soliders into Iraq or something that like it would
                 have an effect but I don't think it would be predictable
                 exactly *what* effect.  Sometimes a missile test is just a
                 missile test.  Once they conduct a successful nuke test then
                 there'll be something to worry about.
2006/10/26-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:44987 Activity:nil 97%like:44975
10/25   In Syria, Iraq's Fate Silences Democracy Activists
        http://tinyurl.com/yc37tc (washingtonpost.com)
        \_ I can't seem to find this URL...?
           \_ seems to work for me.
2006/10/25-26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:44975 Activity:kinda low 97%like:44987
10/25   In Syria, Iraq's Fate Silences Democracy Activists
        \_ I can't seem to find this URL...?
2006/9/18-20 [Politics/Foreign/Canada, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:44431 Activity:nil
9/18    http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/news-security-canada-arar.html
        32-year-old Canadian wireless technology consultant rendered by U.S.
        to Syria for torture by military intelligence (the kind that doesn't
        leave marks after a few weeks) and solitary confinement.  Canadian
        commission reports no evidence he committed any offense.
2006/9/15-19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:44400 Activity:nil
9/15    http://csua.org/u/gwl (Krauthammer, Wash Post)
        I hope the dunderheads in the White House aren't taking military advice
        from this wacko, and are taking it instead from veteran analysts in the
        Pentagon/CIA.  There are overriding holes in Krauthammer's column.
        \_ Of course you don't mention any of those holes.  Besides--overriding
           holes?  I've never heard that phrase.
           \_ I thought it was a weird phrase too, but I stuck with it. -op
        \_ I usually find Krauthammer to be just this side of nuts. It's nice
           to see that even the nuts think this is a bad idea.
2006/9/14-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:44379 Activity:moderate
9/14    Harvard's guest to speak on toloerance defends execution as a
        punishment for homosexuality.  Link is from http://hotair.com (yes, I know
        that's Malkin's site -- just ignore the commentary and read the quote)
        \_ Please post a link to the quote apart from the Malkin site, so's
           I can continue to not support that lunatic's advertizing.
           \_ Never mind. Found the following:
              To wit: Iran's former President gave a speech in which he
              defended some pretty crazy stuff. Scary because he was supposed
              to be the liberal side of Iranian politics.
              \_ He *is* the liberal side of Iranian politics.
                 \_ He's probably extremely liberal when we compare him to our
                    Saudi allies.
                    \_ The ruling family is SA is about as Western as it gets
                       outside Western nations.
                       \_ that is a completely false statement.  While Saudi's
                          royal family themselves embrace many of the Western
                          "sins,"  their policy prohibits most of the things
                          which themselves find enjoyable.  Saudi Arabia is
                          one of the most conservative, fundamental islamic
                          nation in the middle east.
                          \_ It is a completely true statement.  You even
                             restated it, "While Saudi's royal family
                             themselves embrace many of the Western
                             'sins,'..." followed by how their policy for the
                             people is different.  But, as stated, the ruling
                             family in SA is about as Western as it gets
                             outside the West.  SA itself is really no
                             different from the bulk of the rest of the Middle
                             East.  Please name all the fun loving Western ME
                             nations.  Which ones don't keep their women as
                             third class non-citizens?  Which ones have
                             anything resemebling a non-dictatorship?  Which
                             ones teach their kids from science texts instead
                             of the Koran?  They're all pretty much the same
                             in that sense.  Oh wait, Israel is different but
                             that's about it.
                                \_ It's a completely moronic statement unless
                                   there are only two kinds of countries in
                                   the world: Western nations and Middle
                                   Eastern nations.  There are lots of
                                   countries in the world that aren't part of
                                   the West but manage not to stone adulterers
                                   or behead thieves.
                                   \_ Name the countries in the middle east
                                      that aren't like SA.  If there are lots
                                      of them you should have no problem
                                      listing several and in what ways they're
                                      different.  We'll talk about moronic
                                      after you come up with a list.
                                        \_ I didn't see the words "Middle East"
                                           in that sentence.
                                           \_ Still don't see a list.  Yawn.
                          \_ Khatami says there is "room for debate" about
                             executing homosexuals.  There is no room for
                             debate in Saudi Arabia.
2006/9/6-12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:44297 Activity:nil
9/6     Dem nominee says 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy orchestrated by Dick
        Cheney.  Video:   http://csua.org/u/guj (littlegreenfootballs.com)
        Iran agrees with this, BTW
        \_ What's wacky is that this just might play in the South.
2006/9/1-5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:44246 Activity:kinda low
9/1     The UN finds the perfect force to prevent Hezbollah from rearming!
        Syria (not kidding)
        http://tinyurl.com/gskah (cnn.com)
        \_ Israel has made one stragetic mistake after another.  One of the
           biggest mistake is impose air and see embargo against Lebanon
           even cease fire has taken effect.  By doing so, Lebanon's only
           route to the outside world is via Syria.  UN has previously express
           "concern" that weapons will flow to the Hezbollah and some even
           propose having an international force patrol the border.  Syria
           threatening to close off the border complely if UN decided to do so,
           which will spark humantarian crisis among Lebanonese civilians.
           UN right now have no choice but allow Syrian do whatever they want
           to keep the border open.
           \_ 1) So in order to keep weapons from flowing back in to rearm
              Hezbollah, your best answer is to completely open all the
              borders so they can be rearmed via land, air or sea instead of
              just the Syrian border?  2) The UN has never had any choice in
              just the Syrian border?
              \_ No, I am saying that a better alternative is to open air and
                 sea, but have an UN mandated patrol along with Syria border.
                 If Syria decide to seal the border, than, we can actually
                 say "go ahead."
                 \_ Exactly.  So with open sea and air, weapons can fly and
                    float right in directly from Iran or anywhere else in the
                    world.  What a brilliant idea.  That way there is no real
                    pressure on the Syrians to keep weapons from flooding in
                    via their border so they can claim they adhered to the
                    UN border mandate, we can all feel really good about a
                    diplomatic success, Hezbollah can rearm really fast, so
                    they can get back to what they do best: killing civilians
                    by firing rockets over a settled border with a nation that
                    isn't occupying any Lebanese land in order to 'resist'
                    the continuing non-occupation of Lebanese land.  Truly
                    brilliant.  There's a place in the State Department for
                    people with ideas like that.
                    \_ 1. flying air and transfer by sea is more difficult than
                       truck loads of AK47s and rockets. 2. airport and harbors
                       are in the full control of Lebanonese government, which
                       is a better party to deal with.  Would these measure
                       stop the flow of weapons?  no. would it slow it down and
                       make the logistics more expensive for Hezbollah? i
                       would say yes.  The purpose is making rearming Hezbollah
                       difficult.  If this means make Syria looked good at the
                       same time, so be it.
                       \_ No, the purpose is to prevent Hezbollah from ever
                          rearming.  I have no idea where you came up with
                          the idea that shipping by truck is somehow more
                          efficient than shipping by... ship.  And by air
                          is certainly faster if speed is important.  As
                          far as dealing with the Lebanese government being
                          a better party to deal with... better than what?
                          Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government and
                          also separate and stronger than the Lebanese
                          government in the ways that count.  You're just
                          making up random stuff and really have no idea
                          what you're talking about.  Ending the blockade
                          will not somehow magically make it harder to bring
                          in a zillion tons of weapons to Hezbollah at a
                          critical time in the region.
                          \_ I am more realistic, you want all-or-nothing
                             which won't get you anywhere.  Airport and
                             harbor are a much easier to control than a
                             complete open-border.  If you are talking about
                             smuggling, then, it's a different story.
                             You can't stop Smuggling. you can only manage it.
                             \_ That isn't realism.  That's fatalism.  "It is
                                hard so let's pretend to do something useful
                                elsewhere and ignore the elephant walking
                                across the border".  There is no benefit at all
                                to Israel to end the blockade.  There is a big
                                short term minus to the Lebanese to have a
                                strict blockade and a big long term plus if it
                                means their weak and ineffective government
                                will finally be out of excuses and be forced to
                                take control of their own territory from
                                Hezbollah which can then lead to peace, trade,
                                and normalized relations with Israel which is
                                good for everyone, except Hezbollah, Syria,
                                and Iran.
              2) The UN has never had any choice in
              anything anywhere in the world.  The UN is powerless and exists
              at the whim of the member nations.  It has an extremely poor
              track record of enforcement.  Why?  Because enFORCEment requires
              at least the implied threat of FORCE which is impossible for the
              UN as a dependent body.  The UN does not exist to make anything
              happen.  It exists as a place where the countries of the world
              can air their grievances in the _hope_ that a diplomatic
              solution can be formed.  3) It is long past time for the locals
              to kick the foreign funded Hezbollah to the curb and retake
              their country but the government of Lebanon isn't interested in
              their own people's well being.
              \_ The government of Lebanon is trying to avoid another civil
                 war which no one but Syria was able to stablize it.
                 This entire notion of having UN peace keeper is a joke.
                 In order to enforce the peace, UN need to have the capability
                 and the stomach to both take on Hezbollah *AND* Israel.
                 UN forces can't do anything.  Its presense is nothing but
                 a face-saving gesture for both side to stop fighting.
        \_ I feel bad for the Lebanese, the ones I know (these are the
           civilized, merchant ones, not the unwashedeen) hate the Syrians and
           Hezbollah almost as much as the Israelis.  Poor bastards.  -John
           \_ Hate Hezbollah?  Ack!  They must be anti-Arabists and hate
              the Lebanese people too!  Hezbollah, as we all know, is merely
              defending the good people of Lebanon from the evil Jew Zionist
           \_ those who live in Lebanon no longer hates Hezbollah.  Thanks to
              US policy :D
2006/9/1-5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran] UID:44230 Activity:kinda low
9/1     Highly enriched uranium found in peace love electricity needing Iran.
        \_ Why do you bother?  I think it's clear they want a bomb, they're
           working towards a bomb, and that likely they'll get a bomb, the
           only thing up for discussion right now is whether or not they
            have any "right" to it, and how to deal with them once they
            succeed... -John
            \_ There is no such thing as a "right" to anything.  They either
               have the tech, the resources and the will power to do it or
               they don't.  The rest of the world has the tech, the resources
               and the will power to stop them or they don't.  There is no
               such thing as international rights, international law or other
               similar fabrications.
               \_ hey, the freshmen are back in town.  -tom
                  \_ ad hominem.  non-responsive.  F.
                     \_ Responding to a red herring is pointless.  -tom
                        \_ then don't respond if you feel it is a red herring.
                           ad hominem is never the appropriate response.  also,
                           you might want to look up "red herring".
                           \_ exactly which MOTD have you been reading?  -tom
                              \_ the same one as you.  mine has tons of smart
                                 people talking about interesting stuff who
                                 often provide links to sites and info I
                                 wouldn't otherwise see, interspersed with a
                                 few non-contributors.  what is on your motd?
                                 \_ apparently, mine has self-righteous
                                    anonymous cowards who love MOTD Boob Guy.
                                    \_ mine also has a few mostly harmless
                                       people amusing themselves and a few
                                       others.  nothing wrong with that.
        \_ Of course they have a right to it.  They have a right to make a
           massive weapon that they can use to threaten their enemies with.
           And we have a right to do everything in our power to stop them
           from getting it.  It's not about rights.  It's about power.  We
           have it and we don't want them to get it.
           \_ Agreed.
           \_ Kewl, so we can forget about all that UN silliness, or the WTO
              or any sense of obligation to honor treaties we sign, might
              makes right!  W00t!  -John
              \_ Welcome to the real world.  If a long term treaty obligation
                 is against a nation's interests they *should* break the
                 treaty unless breaking it involves even worse consequences.
                 Everything is about national interest and a nation's ability
                 to enforce their will.  The UN, WTO, and every other multi-
                 national .org only exist at the whim of the member states who
                 have decided that continuing the existence of these groups and
                 sometimes following their rules is more valuable than
                 scrapping the agreements and going alone.  The UN isn't some
                 magical creature that has some inherent right and power.  Like
                 the League of Nations it is likely to be swept aside by
                 history only to be remembered by historians as an interesting
                 footnote at best.  Nations will continue on by some name.
                 Powerless orgs will come and go.
                 \_ So if there are no cops around, and I'm confident that I
                    can kick your ass and take your lunch money, than I not
                    only *can* kick your ass and take your lunch money, I have
                    the historical mandate to do so.  Could you please post how
                    much lunch money you usually carry, where you eat lunch,
                    and how you get there?  Thanks!
                        \- the lunch episode exists in a state of
                           law ["the cops are not around"]. states
                           exist in an anarchic system [anarchic =
                           no hierarchy, not "it is random and
                           chaotic"]. life for individual in the
                           (anarhcic) state of nature is "nasty,
                           brutish, and short" ... but a state can
                           potentially survive [e.g. it doesnt have
                           to sleep], but it needs to rely on itself.
                           anayway, you cannot compare the possibility
                           of cooperation under the rule of a soverign
                           [who can enforce contracts, has monopoly on
                           use of force etc], and the self-help system
                           that characterizes the system of states.
                           See: Hedley Bull: The Anarchical Society (not
                           that great, but it is The Standard for background),
                           and Waltz: Man, the State and War (excellent,
                           not too hard going), and Waltz: Theory of Interntl
                           Politics (some what involved read, but The Standard
                           on IR).
                    \_ Yes and no.  If you're willing to deal with the
                       consequences afterwards then yes you might get one
                       day's worth of lunch money and then find yourself
                       suspended from school or your knees broken the next day,
                       etc.  Cute analogy but doesn't fully apply since you
                       and I aren't nations.  The difference between personal
                       conflict and national is that nations are more
                       amorphous than people but can theoretically live on
                       forever.  Individuals are always subject to the
                       consequences of their actions by the state, their
                       neighbors, etc.  Unless you're a super villain you
                       can't get away with things a powerful nation can, or
                       even a weaker nation within it's own regional sphere
                       of influence.  I'm sure you knew all this but I thought
                       your cute reply deserved a response.
                       \_ stop digging.  -tom
                          \_ uh whatever.
                       \_ I bet you're one of these people who're surprised
                          about being treated rudely as an American when
                          abroad or when a bomb goes off in Manhattan.  There
                          are no "international cops", yes, but you know what,
                          in the absence of law & order, vigilanteism arises.
                          And guess what, if the response of the stronger is
                          to go kick the ass of the weaker, the weaker won't
                          hit back at the stronger's army, they'll hit back at
                          his soft spot, i.e. you.  -John
                          \_ All part of national interest.  Being treated
                             rudely as a tourist has to be weighed against
                             other interests.  In my book that weighs quite
                             low.  Anyway, if I get treated rudely as a tourist
                             it is much more likely because most people are
                             just rude idiots or they simply hate all tourists
                             than some grand geo-political statement and their
                             small effort to Fight The Man.  As far as soft vs.
                             hard spots goes, that is another thing to be
                             weighed.  I'm sure the US would be safe from
                             Muslim terrorists if we all converted to Islam,
                             \_ If you really believe this, then you're an
                                \_ If you really believe this, then you're an
                             but I'm ok being a soft spot rather than join an
                             ugly 8th century cult of death.  I certainly
                             agree that we're taking the wrong approach to
                             the middle east's Islamic states.  We should
                             either just go home, leave a power gap and let
                             it sort itself out or stomp them down for real
                             instead of this namby pamby stuff.  I'll bet the
                             secular states in the region would much more
                             quickly crush the extremist Islamic movements in
                             their areas than us if their to their own devices.
2006/9/1-5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran] UID:44229 Activity:nil
9/1     No, Iran and N.Korea, You can't do this, only -benign- power like USA
        is allow to test its nukes:
        May be USA should sign Nuclear Test Ban Treaty...  May be we should
        impose economic sanction on those who violates NPT... which is...
        err... ourselves.
        \_ Well, we are neither importing from nor exporting to ourselves.
        \_ We should do whatever is in our national interest.  Iran should do
           whatever is in their national interest.  Any nation that does not
           do whatever is in their national interest will cease to be a nation
           and will be replaced by one or more entities that do whatever is in
           their own interest.
           \_ but they are axis of evil and we are doing everything defend
              democracy and human rights.
              \_ thanks for trolling the thread today.  the rest of us will
                 be having a discussion elsewhere that you're welcome to
                 contribute to.
           \_ Acting in our interest does not necessarily translate into
              acting against the interests of other nations; the overlap of
              these interests is the basis of diplomacy.
              \_ I didn't specify what "interest" meant.  For example, a tiny
                 weak country may find it is in their interest to do whatever
                 their larger neighbor wants a la "Findlandization" during the
                 Soviet era.  The Fins didn't like this policy but it was in
                 their interests to knuckle under to avoid invasion and out-
                 right take over.  Had Finland told the Soviets to piss off
                 that would have not been in their national interest because
                 shortly after there wouldn't be a Finland.
                 \- in general, the two behaviours are called
                    "bandwagoning" vs. "balancing" [as in
                    "balance of power"]. BTW, if you are
                    interested in IR theory it is pretty
                    amazing how much you can learn from
                    Thucydides: History of the Peloponnesian War ...
                    given that it is a 2400 yr old story and "only"
                    involved a few greek city-states.
                    \_ Read it.  Great stuff.
        \_ Five countries are permitted under the NPT to possess nuclear
           weapons, by virtue of their having nukes at the time they signed the
           treaty.  Notable countries w/nuke tech but w/o nuke weapons who have
           signed:  Japan, Iran.  Notable countries which produced nukes at
           signed:  Japan, Iran.  Notable countries which developed nukes at
           a time when they were not NPT signatories:  India, Pakistan, Israel.
           Now guess which countries had nukes at the time they signed the NPT?
           Iran.  Now guess which countries had nukes at the time they signed
           the NPT?
2006/8/31-9/5 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran] UID:44219 Activity:low
8/31    "There's simply no explanation for the range of Iranian behavior which
        we've seen over the years other than that they're pursuing a weapons
        capability" -UN Ambassador John Bolton
        \_ Stunning analysis!
        \_ If the Bush administration plans to bomb Iran regardless of what
           Iran does, what motivation does Iran have to listen to them?
           Where's the carrot?  Does anyone think they're *not* going to
           attack Iran eventually, assuming that they can maintain control
           of the government, and that there is no impeachment?
           \_ I think it's extremely unlikely Dubya will bomb Iran.
              This is strategically not the best move for the U.S.
        \_ I haven't heard anyone (other than Iran) actually say they believe
           Iran _isn't_ going for nukes.  I mean, it's the right thing to do,
           \_ It's one thing to say they're gunning for nukes, it's another
              thing to say they they want to conduct activity legal under the
              NPT which also puts them closer to breaking out to a nuke
              capability if they have to.
           \_ Plus the Iranians basically all but running around in their
              nuke-patterned underoos and "I'm with the other nuke powers"
              t-shirts, doing the "we've got nukes" dance while yelling LA LA
              LA WE HAVE NUKES AND YOU CAN'T STOP US.  -John
              \_ hmm... Israel has the bomb, India has the bomb, Pakistan has
                 the bomb.  AND US/UK/Israel have the track record of
                 overthrown Iranian government at their whim. And now 80% of
                 US' deployable force is right across the border.
                 Having a bomb is actually a sound, defensive policy!
                 Further, our policy toward NPT is like a football game.
                 Once you reach the goal line, you actually get rewarded.
                 \_ Erm, Israel has overthrown the Iranian government when?
                    \_ ok ok ok, Israel didn't overthrow Iranian government
                       in 1953, but Israel worked closely with Shah.  This
                       pisses Iranian off even today.
                       \_ Um, is it that or that they're all Jews.
           \_ Iran does best strategically not to go nukes now, but to go
              nuclear energy, and use the possibility of breakout as a
              \_ Right, and this is where Bolton's statement falls apart.
                 There _is_ another explanation for the range of Iranian
                 behavior, and that is that this path is the same you'd need
                 to follow to get utterly legal nuclear power.
                 \_ Not quite utterly legal.  I think the most recent UN
                    resolution is legally binding, although I think it's quite
                    explicit in having further discussions on punishment and
                    not being an automatic sanction/war pass for member
                    states. -breakout guy
                    resolution is legally binding, although I think there are
                    definitive clauses which say further discussions on
                    punishment are needed, and not being an automatic
                    sanction/war pass for member states. -breakout guy
                    \_ A good point. Let me back up and say that this is a
                       path to nuclear power that works within the NPT.
              \_ Not really.. they're best off to prove they already have them
                 ASAP, like Pakistan.
                 \_ I should say "best strategically and also best practically"
                 \_ I should say "best strategically & also best practically"
2006/8/30-9/3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:44210 Activity:nil
8/30    Jewish columnist responds to excuse that Hezbollah hid among civilians
        http://csua.org/u/gt6 (Wash Post)
        \_ Looky there, a self-hating Jew...
           \_ self-hating Jews := don't agree with everything IDF do
2006/8/27-31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:44168 Activity:moderate
8/27    The UN provided real-time information about IDF troop movements during
        the Israeli-Hizbullah conflict:
        \_ So they're comparing tanks rolling into a neighborhood vs. rockets
           were fired from all over..  Large tank movements are:
           a) not secret
           b) much bigger news than individual of hundreds (thousands?) of
              rockets fired in a day
           \_ You didn't read the link.  Try again.
              \_ I did.  Let's see:
                 "Yesterday and during last night, the IDF moved significant
                 reinforcements, including a number of tanks, armored personnel
                 carriers, bulldozers and infantry, to the area of Marun Al Ras
                 inside Lebanese territory. The IDF advanced from that area
                 north toward Bint Jubayl, and south towards Yarun."
                 vs. (note they didn't give _actual_ quotes, just "to the
                 effect of" ones for Hezbollah reports, but nonetheless:)
                 Hezbollah "fired rockets in large numbers from various
                 locations"   What are they supposed to say for Hezbollah?  They
                 aren't acting as a regular military.
                 \_ Maybe they shouldn't have been revealing IDF positions?
                    \_ Maybe IDF should have pressed the U.S. to force the
                       UN not to post the info, unless the IDF thought they
                       would steamroller Hezbollah in any case.
                       \_ Way to go.  Nice way to blame the victim.  While
                          we're on the topic, let's talk about UN neutrality,
                          like watching Hazbollah kidnap Israelis over the
                          border and stalling for nine months before turning
                          over a simple video tape of the incident.  Obviously
                          it is the Israeli's fault for not asking the US to
                          pressure the UN to turn over the tapes.  Israel later
                          traded hundreds of known killers for the 3 bodies.
                          \_ victim?  hmm... let me see, over 1000 lebanonese
                             civilian dead, 10,000 wounded, one million out of
                             four million plus were displaced.  Jesus, why
                             UN is not on Israeli's side?  Why don't UN
                             set up some sort of final solution?
                             \_ Here's a good case of "context" being the
                                victim.  Anyway, I was going to give a real
                                reply until you went all trollish looking for
                                a "final solution".  You're not interested in
                                a real discussion.
                                \_ I think any notion of having a "real
                                   discussion" is out of windows when you
                                   decided that Lebanonese got what they
                                   \_ Sorry, you already tripped the troll
                                      meter earlier.  Maybe next time.
                                   \_ No one said anything like that about
                                      the Lebanese.
                             \_ How precisely can you tell which people were
                                "innocent" civilians and which were Hizbullah?
                                \_ How precisely can you tell which people were
                                   "terrorist" Hizbullah and which were
                                \_ The ones not wearing uniforms are
                                   \_ you do know hezbollah doesn't wear
                                      \_ Yes but they wave goofy green flags,
                                         don't shave, and carry AK-47s.  And
                                         they're usually yelling about
                                         something or other.  -John
                          \_ IDF was the victim of the UN?
                             \_ You read the link?
                                \_ Yes.  IDF was the victim of the UN?
                                   \_ It wasn't?
        \_ Who cares.  If I read this right, the entire Israeli
           military strategy is doomed.  Hezbollah has spent the last 6 years
           building tank traps, kill zones, and entrenched bunkers in
           civilian zones.  There is no fucking way moving tanks in
           there is going to help.  Hezbollah has figured out how
           to kill Israel's overblown invulnerable tank.  Israel needs
                                      \_ Um, yes, by using Syrian anti-tank
                                         \_ Russian/Iranian/cheap made-in-China
                                            \_ The Russian stuff certainly
                                               isn't crap.  The Iranian stuff
                                               is a home-built version of the
                                               Russian weapon.  I don't know
                                               what the Chinese are making but
                                               I doubt it's crap either.
                                            \_ They were 2-stage explosives to
                                               defeat the reactive armor.  They
                                               weren't crap.
           to figure out how to combat guerilla warfare or just flatten
           the place and quit fooling with tanks.
           \_ They know how to fight house to house, they've been doing it for
              years.  Fighting kills civilians.  Or in this case "civilians".
              "Killing civilians" is bad PR for a press that loathes the
              Israelis and hates their own culture while praising a bunch of
              "never left the 8th century" lunatics and painting them as
              \_ You're talking about American and European press, not Israeli
                 press, right?
                 \_ Like any free society, there are some self haters in the
                    Israeli press too.
              \_ Hezbollah fights in a very typical gurilla fashion.  Gurilla
                 units can not operate without local population's support.
                 Prior to Israeli's massive, disportionate attack, the
                 local population was actually gotten sick and tire of
                 Hezbollah and call for disarm was in the air.  It's kind of
                 ironic that Israels has rallied the population behind
                 Hezbollah.  And for the first time, Saudi is considering
                 providing aids to this otherwise Shiite organization.
                 WAY TO GO!
                 \_ Oh really?  That's why Hezbollah was getting elected to
                    office?  How about a link backing your unfounded assertion
                    that there was a meaningful disarm-hezbollah movement in
                    Lebanon with the power to do it.
                    \_ there weren't "movement." but there were calls to
                       disarm Hezbollah within Lebanon, arguing that Hezbollah
                       has served its purpose and should be either disbanded
                       or absorbed into Lebanonese government.
                       \_ back pedal, no links, no references, no names, no
                          dates.  thanks for participating today.
                \_ How is Saudi going to give AIDS to Hezbollah, via sex or
                   a blood transfusion?
                   \_ Transfusion.
                     \_ Damn.  I was hoping it would be through sex and
                        that we could all watch.  I wonder who would be on
                        \_ That would not be an acceptable method of aids
                           transmission as per the Koran.  Your suggestion is
                           humiliating and in violation of Sharia.  You shall
                           now be stoned to death.
                           \_ Not on that, your female family members shall now
                              be legally gang-raped by men including those
                              carrying AIDS.
                \_ It's not ironic at all.  If a "call for disarm" was actually
                   in the air, then that's _why_ Hezbollah attacked now.
                   \_ Except there wasn't a "call for disarm".  Hezbollah was
                      caught off guard by the Israeli attack.  They expected
                      the standard "swap dead Israelis for live Hezbollah
                      terrorists" deal they've got in the past.
                      \_ Hezbollah was caught off guard, but it end up winning
                         the war in the sense that it is politically stronger
                         after the attack and any voice to call for disband
                         or disarm within Lebanon is completely silenced.
                         \_ there were no voices of any note to disarm
                            hezbollah in Lebanon.  they have been funded and
                            armed by Syria and Iran for years.  their
                            overwhelming military resources make them immune
                            to any bogus 'calls to disarm' from anyone with
                            fewer soldiers or less will power.  this entire
                            line about "hezbollah would've disarmed if only
                            those bad jews hadn't disproportionately defended
                            themselves" is a complete fabrication.
        \_ my quick take.  UNFIL is supposed to report on Israeli troop
           movements out of Lebanon.  That's what they were there for.  Did
           anyone ask them to stop?  Also, first random publication I tried
           on the UNFIL website:
           "It was reported that Hezbollah fired mortar rounds from the
           vicinity of three UNFIL positions in the area of Tibnin, Hariss, and
           At Tiri."
           \_ aka: Don't blow us up while shooting at those guys we were
              supposed to make sure disarmed 6 years ago instead of using us
              as willing human shields.
              \_ maybe israelis should hang out near UNFIL since they seem to
                 have a bunch of hezbollah around.  And this shows that doesn't
                 mesh with the claim that it was never more precise than
                 'Hezbollah's rockets "were fired in significantly larger
                 numbers from various locations" are as precise as its
                 coverage of the other side ever got.'
                 Also, UNFIL was never chartered to disarm Hezbollah.
                 \_ http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/mandate.html
                    How does point 3 and a well armed Hezbollah fit together?
                    Anyway, go read the background page at
                    http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/background.html and
                    you'll see the same phrase over and over through out the
                    document stating that the UN has asked the Lebanese
                    government to take control in the south and they refused
                    to do so.  What kind of real government refuses to take
                    control of their own country?  What are governments for if
                    they're not in charge of the territory they're supposed to
                    be *governing*?  The government was complicit in the build
                    up of Hezbollah, the UN watched it happen and did nothing,
                    the Israelis suffered.  Here's a choice line:  "On several
                    occasions, Hizbollah personnel restricted the freedom of
                    movement of UNIFIL and interfered with its redeployment."
                    Keep in mind this is a UN report about itself.  This is as
                    sugar coated as it can get.
                    sugar coated as it can get.  Oh here's another good one,
                    "The Secretary-General also remained concerned about the
                    restriction of movement on UNIFIL personnel, who must be
                    able to carry out their mandate. In the most serious
                    incident, on 4 April, about 15 Hezbollah personnel forced
                    an Observer Group Lebanon patrol south-west of Kafr Shuba
                    to stop at gunpoint and assaulted the observers with rifle
                    butts, injuring three, one seriously."  So why did the UN
                    continue to allow this sort of thing and do nothing about
                    it?  This is not only directly contrary to the UNIFIL
                    mandate in the region, it is a death sentence waiting to
                    happen.  Did they think Hezbollah was going to peacefully
                    disarm at some point as these sorts of events escalated?
                    What did the UN do to Hezbollah to deserve this?  As we
                    know, all victims of Middle Eastern thugs have done
                    something to earn their abuse and deaths.
                    \_ I still see nothing that authorizes UNFIL to do any
                       such disarmament.  Yes, the UN has failed to provide
                       sufficient strength if they were going to undertake
                       such a mission.  Yes, the UN has failed to provide
                       enough pressure on Lebanon.  However, it is has not
                       been in the mandate to disarm Hezbollah.  The
                       resolutions involved clearly state that this is the
                       Lebanese government's responsibility.  The 2000 or so
                       troops authorized for this prior to this latest
                       flare-up was hardly sufficient to attempt to do so.
                       \_ You're nitpicking a diplomatic document.  Mandate #3
                          is impossible without disarming Hezbollah.
2006/8/21-23 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:44081 Activity:nil
8/21    Why is Iran shelling northern Iraq?
        \_ Link?
           \_ http://csua.org/u/gq9
           \_ http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/world/middleeast/20iraq.html
              \_ Thank you both. --pp
        \_ Turkey, Iran, the U.S, and the UK all agree that the PKK is a
           terrorist organization
        \_ The establishment of an independent Kurdistan following the first
           Gulf War presents a fascinating counterfactual.
2006/8/19-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:44071 Activity:low
8/18    The press asks, wasn't there supposed to be a ceasefire?
        \_ Wasn't France supposed to supply 15000 soldiers?
           \_ Lebanon committed 15k soldiers to the reason.  I haven't heard
           \_ Lebanon committed 15k soldiers to the region.  I haven't heard
              about a commitment from France yet.  Looking..  Looks like
              France's commitment was 200 troops.
        \_ The press is packed with fools.  They have no clue what is going
           on and don't care.  A cease fire doesn't mean fighting stops.  It
           is an agreement that fighting will stop so long as both sides
           abide by agreements.  One of them in this case is that Hezbollah
           had to disarm (again).  They aren't disarming, they are re-arming
           for another round of attacks.  They're already in violation of
           multiple cease fire agreements.  There is not and never was a
           cease fire.  400 French troops aren't even a symbolic force.  The
           whole thing is a sick joke which is only delaying the next fight.
           \_ ^press^White House
              \_ The failures of the WH are well known because the press
                 harps on them.  Not enough people harp on the failures of
                 the press.
                 \_ really?  not enough people harp about the liberal media
                    and conservative news shows?
                    \_ no, not enough of the right people.  it's all inside
                       the echo chamber.  there is no national reporting or
                       discussion on the failures of the press because we
                       only have the press/media itself in a role to create
                       that sort of awareness.  the typical vaguely informed
                       citizen has no clue because major media will never
                       admit to their own flaws.  they don't even see them.
                       \_ How do 8 million blogs not count as "national
                          reporting"?  -tom
                          \_ You're kidding right?  8 million blogs have
                             reported the Reuters/NYT/APNews fake photo
                             stories?  When the fake photo story gets
                             investigated and reported as front page news,
                             is the top story on CNN and 60 minutes and 20/20
                             doing investigative reports lemme know.  The
                             average citizen has absolutely no idea about that
                             or a zillion other failures of the press that have
                             happened and gone uninvestigated or even reported
                             by the media.  Blogs?  Really?  Sheesh.
                             \_ The fake photo story simply isn't that big
                                a story.  The stringer was deceptive,
                                Reuters wasn't paying attention, they
                                retracted it, big frickin' deal.
                                The average U.S. citizen has no interest in
                                understanding reality, anyway.  If they did,
                                there are plenty of sources for them.  -tom
                                \_ Make up your mind.  First you say it is
                                   so important that 8 million bloggers
                                   covered it, now you say there was no story
                                   at all, even though the LAT did cover it
                                   and then say it is not the responsibility
                                   of the media to get news out anyway but
                                   up to the citizens to sort through your
                                   8 million blogs and decide on their own
                                   which are factual or not which implies we
                                   don't need a traditional media at all.
                                   Just give it up, you're all over the map.
                                   \_ Way to put words into my mouth.  Let me
                                      try using small words for you:
                                      \_ Ah yes, the personal attack.  Good
                                         show!  I got totally schooled here!
                                      1) The picture story is minor.  Not
                                         nothing, but minor.
                                      \_ This is *your* opinion.  The LAT
                                         disagree.  So do your 8 million
                                         bloggers.  You're ducking.
                                      2) For any major stories involving
                                         problems with the press, people
                                         who care have plenty of sources
                                         of information.  -tom
                                      \_ And here you weave and bob but still
                                         add nothing to your non-points while
                                         continuing to ignore what I said.
        \_ a description of the operation
        \_ get a clue, no one is going to disarm Hezbollah.  This entire
           notion of disarming Hezbollah is nothing but wishful thinking from
           US side.  Remember, Hezbollah is a gurilla organization.  Such
           organization can *NOT* survive without population support.
           Hezbollah is aware of this.  This is why Hezbollah is distributing
           aids and start recontruction of people's homes as soon as bombs
           stop to fall. If one *REALLY* want to disarm Hezbollah, one would
           *STRENGTHEN* the Lebanon central government instead of weaken it
           by destroying all its infrastructures built in past 10+ years.
2022/05/27 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2006/8/17-19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:44053 Activity:nil 97%like:44039
8/17    Sad but true.  NYPost oped on Hezbollah/Israel.
        http://tinyurl.com/zsgod (nypost.com)
2006/8/17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:44039 Activity:nil 97%like:44053
8/16    Sad but true.  NYPost oped on Hezbollah/Israel.
2006/8/16-18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:44026 Activity:nil
8/16    http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/16/D8JHHOUO0.html
        Who knew public opinion could turn so quickly on the PM in Israel?
        \_ I knew.  -average American male
        \_ It's kind of like Bush in microcosm.  I guess Americans are much
           slower to get the message that their leadership blows.
        \_ They've already released two suspects without charges being
           filed.  Looks like it's unraveling.  Wonder how much the mainstream
           media will cover that.
2006/8/15-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:44017 Activity:nil
8/15    Iran to offer through Hezbollah an unlimited budget for reconstruction
        of houses and businesses destroyed during Israeli assault.
                                ^_ and missiles
        \_ With longer ranged missiles for the next round of unprovoked
           strikes into Israel.
        \_ Reading that hurts my brain.
           \_ Unprovoked?  You mean the capture of 2 soldiers and killing
              6 more by Hezbollah, then the Israeli fighters bombing
              targets all over Lebanon, then the rockets lobbed by Hezbollah
              at Israeli cities?
                \_ Damn you are a moron
                   \_ damn, you are a moron
                      \_ No, you are just an idiot.  -moron
              \_ Please to be rereading and comprehending the implied subject
                 of the previous fragment.
                 \_ Please to be thinking critically
              \_ sigh... with friends like these....
        \_ Support our troops.  -average American male
2006/8/15-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:44014 Activity:low
8/15    See, you had nothing to worry about.  The outcome of the
        Israel-Lebanon conflict was entirely predictable.  That is, all
        powerbrokers were unanimous in not wanting to draw Syria/Iran into it,
        risking a regional war, although there was plenty of propagandizing /
        throwing mud in people's faces along with the dead civilians:
  7/13    Regardless of who's right or wrong (good luck on that), predictions
          on the outcome of the Israelis hitting Lebanon?  -John
          [\_ ...]
             \_ There are three objectives:
                (1) Occupy a Israel-dictated buffer zone (again),
                (2) Indicate that future kidnappings will be met with a
                    disproportione use of force (you'll hurt more than me), and
                (3) Getting the soldiers back.
          \_ The most likely outcome is a temporary ceasefire, with Israel
             holdingonto a buffer zone in south Lebanon and airstrikes whenever
             Hezbollah fires another rocket into Israel while the press writes
             "wasn't there supposed to be a ceasefire?"
        \_ No.  I don't think anyone predicted that Israel's government would
           chicken out and leave themselves looking like weak and inept
           idiots.  Now Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, and every other
           psychotic crackpot with weapons in the Middle East is talking
           tough and spoiling for another round.  The weakness and dithering
           on the part of Olmert's government only guaranteed that there will
           be another war, it will be sooner than later and it will make this
           Lebanon thing look like the minor skirmish it was.  That's my
           prediction. And oh yeah, *when* Iran gets nukes they will hit
           Israel who will respond by destroying as much of the Middle East
           as possible from Iran to Libya.
           \_ you sure that Iran will nuke Israel *when* it gets nukes?
              the moment Israel is nuked is the moment other govts lose their
              favorite scapegoat.  I also think the U.S. will finish any job
              that Israel does not as far as nuking the aggressor.
              that Israel does not as far as taking out the nuclear capability
              of the aggressor, whatever it takes.
              \_ Scapegoat?  They want Israel destroyed much more than they
                 want a scapegoat.  Whoever manages that will be the hero of
                 the muslim world for all time up there with Saladin and maybe
                 even Mohammad himself.  I make no predictions about what the
                 US will do if nukes go off in the ME.
                 \_ The Iranian leadership wants Israel destroyed much more
                    than it wants a scapegoat?  I disagree with that.  Random
                    terrorist group and their supporters want that?  Okay.
                    Who controls future nukes?  The former.
                    I predict Iranian nukes, if Iran ever gets them, will be
                    used as a "if you fuck with us, we'll really fuck you over"
                    deterrent, and securing of those nukes will be at or better
                    than Pakistan.
                    \_ So you hear all the crap the Iranians are spewing from
                       the highest levels of their government about destroying
                       Israel and think they're bluffing?  Iran doesn't need
                       nukes to hold Israel off.  Israel isn't doing anything
                       to the Iranians.  Iran is not at risk from Israeli
                       attack.  I have no idea how you came to that conclusion
                       but time will tell.
                       \_ When you have mutually assured destruction, what
                          other conclusion can you come to?
                          \_ You have a religious regime that doesn't care if
                             they die.  They welcome it.  They preach it.  You
                             do not have mutually assued destruction's cold
                             war era effect going on with Iran.  Without MAD
                             the only conclusion you can come to is they mean
                             what they say when they say they're going to
                             destroy Israel.  They don't mean at the next
                             Olympics.  They mean they're going to destroy
                             Israel.  Why don't you believe what they say?
                             Why would they say what they've said on a regular
                             basis if they didn't mean it?  *When* Iran gets
                             nukes Israel will be nuked.  Whatever is left of
                             the military is going to nuke everything in the
                             entire Middle East without regard for the niceties
                             of "oh gosh it was an unknown terrorist with a
                             bomb on a truck, we'll do an ivnestigation and
                             get back to you on it".
                             \_ I will grant you that the theocracy in Iran
                                wants and continues to advocate the destruction
                                of Israel. However, they also want the
                                continuation of their precious Iranian way of
                                life. The mullahs, imams, and ayatollahs know
                                they have a very sweet thing going now in their
                                locked down theocracy, and they have no
                                intention of messing it up. Their first goal is
                                the preservation of their own rule, followed by
                                the destruction of Israel and restoration of
                                Palestinian rule; it is due to their fear of
                                unilateral destruction that they continue to
                                move through proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah, Sadr)
                                rather than act directly (i.e., deployment of
                                the Iranian army). When Iran gets nukes, expect
                                a period of retrenchment followed by a
                                resurgence in their support of their proxies.
                                Oh, and a hell of a lot more rhetoric.
                                \_ Really it all comes down to just how crazy
                                   do you think the Iranians really are.  I
                                   look at how they run their internal affairs
                                   as well as foreign and they're either insane
                                   or incompetent to an insane degree.  Either
                                   way I think we can agree that a nuclear
                                   armed Iran is just about the worst thing
                                   possible for the world as a whole, not just
                                   the region even if it doesn't come down to
                                   a nuclear fire storm.
                                   \_ Right. I think it comes down to whether
                                      you think they're suicidal-crazy or just
                                      crazy-crazy. Cf. Kim Jong Il: crazy, but
                                      also very much attached to his life and
                                      the preservation thereof.
              \_ doubt it'll be Iran, but rather some other nameless terrorist
                 group that 'got them from somewhere' that remains unnamed,
                 to leave israel with nobody specific to retaliate against.

              of the aggressor, whatever it takes.
                 \_ for that matter, nameless terrorist group might as well
                    get the nuke from pakistan / n korea / russia
  7/13    Regardless of who's right or wrong (good luck on that), predictions
          on the outcome of the Israelis hitting Lebanon?  -John
          [\_ ...]
             \_ There are three objectives:
                (1) Occupy a Israel-dictated buffer zone (again),
                (2) Indicate that future kidnappings will be met with a
                    disproportione use of force (you'll hurt more than me), and
                (3) Getting the soldiers back.
          \_ The most likely outcome is a temporary ceasefire, with Israel
           holding onto a buffer zone in south Lebanon and airstrikes whenever
             holdingonto a buffer zone in south Lebanon and airstrikes whenever
             Hezbollah fires another rocket into Israel while the press writes
             "wasn't there supposed to be a ceasefire?"
                 \_ Why do you think Israel invaded Lebanon? It's to show
                    that they are not above taking revenge on governments
                    supporting 'nameless terrorist groups'. I think Israel
                    would use it as a chance to nuke every fucking enemy
                    they ever had, involved or not.
                    \_ I don't think there will be an 'Israel' left post-nuke
                       so much as a few subs with MERVS and whatever nukes
                       survive buried out in the sand where the soliders
                       have orders to fire if Telaviv is ever blown up.  But
                       my call is that every arab capitol plus Mecca, Medina,
                       and the key oil fields and refinery/shipping cities are
                       all dust.
                       \_ It's a really small step from that to the end of
                          human civilization as we currently understand it.
                          All of the scenarios for "limited" nuclear war are
                          pretty dicey.  Can you imagine what would happen to
                          the world if a nuclear war leveled the middle east?
                          You thought gas was expensive before...
                          Or are you just looking forward to being Mad Max?
                          \_ Yes, I can imagine all that.  I didn't say I'm
                             looking forward to any of it.  I don't base my
                             predictions on what I'd like to happen.  I base
                             them on what I believe will happen given my
                             understanding of the situation and the people
                             involved.  What is the point of making a bogus
                             prediction based on what I'd like to happen?
                             That isn't a prediction, it is just sticking
                             one's head in the ground. I don't have to like
                             it to believe it.
2006/8/10-14 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43959 Activity:nil
8/10    \_ I'm not Hezbollah supporter.  I think Israel has the right to
           defend itself.  I think Israel fucked up majorly by not
           making a fuss when Iran/Hezbollah moved all those rockets
           into Lebanon.  I think they fucked up again when they
           wildly overreacted to the kidnapping of the 2 soldiers,
           and showing the world that their amazing military is not
           quite as unbeatable as they have led the world to believe.
           \_ Um, you mean when Hizbullah invaded their country, killed 8
              soldiers and kidnapped 2?  And the fact that Hizbullah has been
              shooting rockets at Israel for years?  For your convenience, I've
              created a new thread for your unrelated rant.
              \_ Also, the Israeli military is operating with restraint.
                 They really aren't 'at war' with Lebanon. It's like
                 saying that the US military is weak because we cannot
                 defeat insurgents in Iraq. Of course we could, if we
                 didn't care about the consequences.
                 \_ Amusing letter to the editor in the cron today, mentioning
                    how israel uses bomb shelters to protect their civilians,
                    while hezbolla uses its civilians to protect their rocket
                    launchers.  I find it disturbing that they ("hezbollah")
                    consider this a 'reasonable' tactic to use,
                    and more so that it is proving effective at all. This
                    only speaks for even more pain to the 'civilians' in
                    future wars.
        \_ I find it amusing that "defend yourself" now includes invading
           other countries, bombing their civilians, capturing their heads
           of state, and holding captives without trial or charges for
           years.  AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!!!  -T.E.A.M. America World Police
        \_ This is so fucked up beyond comprehension.  The Japanese
           excuse for invading China to look for 2 missing soldiers
           pales in comparison. I am just utterly appalled by the "one
           Israeli is more important than 100 Lebanon" attitude.
           Basically, "We will kill ten thousand Lebanons if necessary
           to get our 2 soldiers back!" All while using weapons we
           supply that are coming out of my tax dollar! And you people
           wonder why 911 happens. With the way the Bush Regime is
           solving "problems" around the world, you can be sure that
           an attack like 911 is GUARANTEED to happen again. More
           people in the world hate the US now than ever before. I
           hope this is the "safety" you Bush supports wanted. You can
           quote me, on this day, in the Berkeley MOTD, that an attack
           like 911 will likely happen within 5 years, and almost 100%
           certain will happen within 10 years.
           \_ Haha. The point is the Lebanese gov't isn't providing
              security. It's not really about the 2 soldiers themselves.
              By the way , residents of Lebanon aren't called "Lebanons".
           \_ So what was the reason for all the other terrorist acts going
              back before Bush?  What did Clinton to that forced them to
              attack the WTC the first time?  What did Israel do that forced
              the cross-border killing of 6? soldiers and the capture of 2
              others?  Israel has been at peace with Lebanon for 6 years.
              Anyway, you're missing the big picture.  These people aren't
              pissed off about some land or historical event.  They want all
              the land from the west bank of the Jordan River to the sea
              (hint: that's where Israel is) and they want all the land that
              was ever Muslim controlled, such as most of Spain.  And then
              they want the rest of the planet as well.  They make no bones
              about the fact that their ultimate goal is sharia law across
              the entire globe.  You can't compromise with people who want you
              dead and use their own civilians as PR shields.  Israel's real
              mistake was using air power trying to take out missiles in some
              sort of limited war instead of using the army and cleaning out
              the whole country in a dirtier but more complete war.  Cease
              fire just means Hezbollah will have time to rearm and do it
              again in 3-5 years with better weapons.  At what point is it
              morally acceptable to drain the swamp and kill Hezbollah?  For
              you, I suspect never.   Tell me I'm wrong.
              \_ "These people" used to number in the single digit thousands.
                 Due to your stupidity, you have made millions of them.
                 Tell me I'm wrong.
                 \_ If you actually responded to anything I said I'd reply.
2006/8/6-10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43919 Activity:nil
8/6     Duh.  Just as I thought.  France and the U.S. slog out a UN resolution
        they both can agree to, but oops, someone forgot to ask Lebanon!
        \_ So what.  Since when do we ever ask anyone's permission before
           doing anything?  -proud American
2006/8/4-6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43906 Activity:nil
8/4     http://csua.org/u/gm4 (news.yahoo.com)
        'Gillerman warned against a threat by Nasrallah to launch rockets on
        Israel's commercial center, Tel Aviv.  "We are ready for it, and I am
        sure that he (Nasrallah), as well as his sponsors, realize the
        consequences of doing something as unimaginable and crazy as that,"
        the Israeli ambassador told CNN.'
        So, like, what consequences?  Israel will bomb Lebanon... some more?
        What possible reason can Hezbollah have to NOT launch this sucker if
        they've got it?
        \_ PR.  Timing.
           \_ Puerto Rico is beautiful this time of year. -proud American
2006/8/4-6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43904 Activity:nil
8/4     "Nasrallah, in a dramatic televised statement, declared that
        Hezbollah's missile attacks on Israel are calibrated in response to
        Israeli air attacks on Lebanon. ... if Israeli airstrikes cease, so
        will the rocket launchings such as those that killed eight more Israeli
        civilians Thursday. [however] would not accept a cease-fire as long as
        Israeli forces remain on Lebanese territory"
        http://csua.org/u/gm6 (Wash Post)
        \_ So basically it comes down to: Hezbollah wants a truce that they're
           free to break once the Israelis are out by saying "nope, there's
           still a soldier... over there!"  <rocket>  Also, they want it before
           the rest of Lebanon says "uh, we're ok w/ the Hezbollah disarming
           clause if it keeps this from happening again"  Israel wants to smack
           down Hezbollah's supply chain until they either acquiese or run out
           of support.
           \_ nah, it's about winning international and local credibility.
              he's saying "we were provoked!"
                \_ Bitches ain't sh*t but tricks and hos. -proud American
2006/7/31-8/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43851 Activity:low
7/31    Can IRA/N. Ireland/UK parallels reasonably be drawn to Hizbullah/
        Lebannon/Israel, i.e. can disarmament and inclusion in democratic
        process be a possible solution?  Does the influence of US/Iran
        make such comparison invalid?  Or is it invalid because Israel != UK?
        \_ Unfortunately no.  It is invalid not because Israel != UK but
           because the terrorists have very different goals.  The IRA's primary
           goal was freedom from the UK government (super simplified, sorry).
           Hezbollah's goal is to destroy Israel.  There's nothing Hezbollah
           can be given short of that goal which will get them to voluntarily
           put down arms.  Another difference is who the terrorists actually
           are.  The IRA were locals who got some support from sympathetic
           Americans and other places.  Hezbollah is a proxy army for Syria
           and Iran, not an independence movement.
           \_ Are you aware of the distinctions of IRA vs. Sinn Fein?  I
              presume Hizbullah has similar branches.  As they hold seats
              in Parliament (democratically so), they clearly have enough
              popular support to be a player in the political process.  Is
              it really that much of a stretch to say they could be convinced
              to disarm (At which point "only the outlaws would have guns")?
              \_ Insofar as much (if not all) of their power is supported by
                 their armed, er, arm, the answer is no. Also, I found the
                 following article factual and interesting:
           \_ Re: last sentence: it's not remotely that simple.  Hezbollah
              provided social services for much of southern lebanon...  That's
              beyond the scope of a "proxy army"  It's a beast w/ multiple
              faces that most certainly got funding and weapons from Iran
              (through Syria)
2006/7/31-8/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43846 Activity:nil
7/31    Another PR victory for Hezbollah:
        \_ nut
2006/7/31-8/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43840 Activity:nil
7/30    This is why US supports Israeli's action, DRAWING IRAN INTO THE
        CONFLICT.   USA is desperately want to attack Iran but couldn't find
        a legit excuse.  This will do:   http://tinyurl.com/mu6lu
        \_ The US doesn't need excuses to exert power.  Super powers by their
           very nature answer to no one.
2006/7/28-8/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43832 Activity:nil
7/28    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2290713,00.html
        Security Council agrees on UN resolution that gives Iran until end of
        next month to halt enrichment, and if they don't, they'll get another
        chance to comply, and if they don't, there may be sanctions ... or not
        (which, if actually implemented, will probably hurt the U.S and help
        China and Russia anyway).  Morons.  We need a new, robust NPT that
        restricts peaceful enrichment to select sites and makes guarantees on
        availability to those who aren't enriching.  At least we're not
        bombing - our troops will be the first to pay in case that happens.
        \_ A new, robust NPT that will exempt the U.S., you mean.
           \_ what part of "makes guarantees on availability to those who
              aren't enriching" is hard to understand?
        \_ err... US is a violator of NPT, right?  and you know Iran can
                        \_ since when?
           easily withdraw from NPT and everything will be legal, right?
                        \_ true.
           do you know US already have an economic sanction in place against
                        \_ true.
           Iran so any UN sanction is not going to hurt US, while UN sanction
                        \_ true.
           is going to hurt Russia/China and rest of the world who has huge
           bilateral ecnomic tie to Iran, right?
                        \_ true but how smart is it to let a country like
                           iran have nukes?  Russia and China both have serious
                           problems with Muslim terrorists.  Maybe next time
                           it won't be a Russian movie theatre but the whole
                           city.  Not now.  Not in five years.  But ten?  What
                           about 20 years from now?  30?
           \_ do you know what "sloppy sanctions" are?  China and Russia
              won't give in to real sanctions.  Trust me, any sanctions
              Iranian oil will get out in one way or the other.
           \_ Trust me, with "sanctions" applied, Iranian oil will get out
              in one way or the other.  Let's say the oil isn't available
              to Western markets.  Let's say China and Iran are getting all
              to Western markets.  Let's say China and Russia are getting all
              the oil then.  Then who is hurt MORE by UN sanctions on Iran?
2006/7/28-8/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43826 Activity:kinda low
 7/27    I don't know if you guys are aware of this.  Traditionally, there
         is an ideological war waged within the Islamic Middle East: Shiite
         preaching backed by Iran, and Sunni by Saudi Arabia.  Traditionally,
         Saudi is very wary of Iran's intention and don't support activities
         of Hezbollah.  But thanks to Israel's dispropotionate response and
         US' silence on this matter, we have effectively rallied Sunnis behind
         Hezbollah:  http://tinyurl.com/ljmkr --hussein@soda
         \_ The Sunnis and Shiites have always been able to get together on
            the subject of destroying Isreal.
            \_ Israel should just evacuate for 5 years, then come back and
               move back into the (decimated but) depopulated wasteland that
               would remain.
               \_ They did that.  It allowed Hezbollah to build up stronger
                  than ever before and made them bold enough to attack over
                  the boarder, kill a bunch of Israeli soldiers and kidnap
                  a few others.
                  \_ Hehe.  You misunderstand.  I mean evauate Israel.  Imagine
                     the battle over that one.
                     \_ Yes, I misread.  Cute.
            \_ They've never "been able to get together", even for this goal.
               They've independently pursued the same aim.  -John
         \_ I love the phrase "disproportionate response".  Which is just a
            way of saying, "Israel shouldn't defend her people or attack her
            enemies.  Israel should put up with attacks that no other nation
            in the world would even consider putting up with.  Israel should
            die.  I hate Jews."
            \_ Your dictionary needs revising. Disproportionate response implies
               the existence of a proportionate response, i.e., targeting
               Hezbollah missile crews or even the possibility of creating a
               a DMZ in southern Lebanon. Bombing Beirut into dust, OTOH, is
               overkill. Btw, I wholeheartedly support Israel's right to defend
               itself, so drop the accusation of anti-Semitism. It's not
               relevant to this conversation.
               \_ Ok, the last part was a cheap shot.  I take that back.  As to
                  the rest: Beirut is not being carpet bombed.  Hezbollah is
                  mixed in with the general population.  How do you propose
                  they kill Hezbollah thugs without harming the civilians they
                  hide among?  And you want the DMZ back?  No one including
                  Israel wanted the DMZ in the first place.  The DMZ was
                  Hezbollah's (and other's) excuse for six years to attack
                  Israel.  They called it 'occupation' which was an accurate
                  description.  And with missile ranges getting longer and
                  longer DMZs no longer make sense in such tiny places.  Soon
                  all of Lebananon will have to be a DMZ which is just silly.
                  Why did the UN broker a fake peace in 2000 which was supposed
                  to have Israel leave southern Lebanon *AND* disarm Hezbollah
                  and then do nothing to make sure Hezbollah was disarmed?
                  Quite the opposite, the UN betrayed Israel and stood by
                  'observing' while Hezbollah spent the last 6 years becoming
                  stronger than ever while doing and saying nothing about it
                  and now Khofi whines when his unarmed and missionless
                  observers get killed because they allow themselves to be used
                  as human shields.  At least finally today they pulled those
                  guys out and sent them to hang out with "lightly armed UN
                  peace keeping forces" elsewhere in the region.  So here's the
                  theoretical: you're King of Israel for the day/week/month/etc,
                  and you can have the country do anything you'd like for that
                  time period.  What's your plan?
                  \_ Step one: Stop bombing Beirut.
                     Step two: Mumble mumble.
                     Step three: Profit?
                     The point has been made, the punishment has been inflicted,
                     the international community is now ready to step in and
                     act. Let them. Then reevaluate.
                     \_ Where do you see the international community being
                        willing to do anything?  Link?
                       willing to do anything?  What do you expect
                       them to do? Link?
                       \_ I expect them to put UN Peacekeeping Troops on the
                          ground with explicit orders to shoot Israels or
                          Hezbollah or anyone who brandishes a weapon or fires
                          a missile. Sure, I'm optimistic, but I think they
                          deserve a chance.
                          \_ Ok, I don't exactly disagree, but I'm pretty
                             sure Hezbollah could still fire rockets
                             whenever they wanted under those conditions.
                        \_ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5225358.stm
                           \_ Who is going to donate troops?
                  \_ are you blind or something.  Ever since Israel pull out
                     of Southern Lebanon, Lebanon has made tremedous progress.
                     It got a centeral government for the first time, each
                     of ethnic fractions has stopped killing each other. Roads,
                     hospitals, schools, power plants were being build, economy
                     were humming at 3-5%.  Politically, Lebanon slow gaining
                     is autonomy and finally kicked out Syrian troops;
                     Hezbollah is finally being integrated into Lebanon's
                     political progress.  Rocket attacks and border incursion
                     has dropped to virtually zero.  Hezbollah was under
                     tremedous pressure to either be incorporated into
                     Lebanonese Army or completely disarmed...  now, 15 years
                     of work, completely went down to the drain.  Do you think
                     Lebanonese is going to disarm Hezbollah now?  No.  In
                     fact, I bet many of them is going to either join Hezbollah
                     or going to fight along with them.
                     \_ Nice way to completely ignore why Israel is currently
                        attacking.  If their kidnapped soliders were returned
                        they would stop attacking and leave Lebanon.  How about
                        you blame the victims?  Oh wait, you already are.
                        Hezbollah isn't under any pressure to do anything.
                        They run the country and there is zero pressure to
                        disarm them.  Your evaluation of the situation is a
                        complete fabrication.
                        \_ you really think this bombing of Lebanonese
                           infrastructure is about these two captured
                           \_ yes.  you really think that israel attacked just
                              because they wanted to destroy lebanese
                              infrastructure?  no.  there had been peace for
                              6 long years which is a near miracle in that area
                              until the cross border attack by hezbollah.
                     \_ So they would show their true stripes, I say.
                        \_ i don't know.  do you blame them for it?  at the
                           time their population was 2+ million, over 18000
                           civilians were killed by Israelis.  Israeli-backed
                           Christian group were killing every Muslim they can
                           find.  Fastfoward to today, close to 10% of the
                           population is now being displaced by Israelis. IDF's
                           tactic is almost constitute as a terror campaign
                           as fleeting convoys, IFRC relief trucks are bombed
                           on daily basis.  If your family and 4 of your
                           child brother sister died of IDF bombing as they
                           were trying to flee, what would you do?  say
                           "ohh well, shit happens?" and blaming Hezebollah
                           for it?
                           \_ Again, you ignore history, write your own
                              version and blame the victim.  The IDF invaded
                              in 1982 because... Jews are mean?  They invaded
                              again in 2006 because... Jews are mean?  You
                              make it sound like there is no reason for
                              Israeli actions, as if they operate in a
                              vaccuum.  If you'd like to post something that
                              makes sense, please do, but enough of the
                              bizarre historical reconstructions.  There has
                              been peace on the border since the Israeli
                              pull out in 2000 which was supposed to include
                              a UN mandated disarming of Hezbollah.  In 2006
                              after 6 years of build up and no response from
                              the UN but to 'observe' the build up, Israel
                              was attacked over the border, soliders killed
                              and others kidnapped.  Come back when you'd like
                              to have a reality based discussion.
                              \_ There is a differences between Hezbollah's
                                 attack of soldiers versus IDF's indiscriminate
                                 attack of Lebanonese civilians and civilian
                                 infrastructures.  Israel knows Lebanon can't
                                 control Hezbollah, yet holding entire
                                 4 million Lebanon civilians accountable for
                                 \_ I love how you try to reframe the debate
                                    by choosing inflamatory words but you
                                    avoid facts, context and history.  It's
                                    such a cheap rhetorical tactic but I'll
                                    briefly correct you once again even though
                                    I know you're just trolling now.  I'm
                                    posting because I think the truth is
                                    important, not because your troll comment
                                    deserves a reply:  Hezbollah shouldn't
                                    even exist today.  Their very existence is
                                    a violation of the 2000 UN brokered peace
                                    agreement.  They attacked a sovereign
                                    state across a peaceful border, killed
                                    some soldiers, kidnapped others who they
                                    won't return and now fire hundreds of
                                    rockets every day into civilian areas in
                                    Israel with the intent of killing and
                                    terrorising civilians.  Hezbollah *is* the
                                    Lebanese government and have the support
                                    of the Lebanese people, directly or
                                    indirectly.  The cross border attack is an
                                    act of war of one nation against another.
                                    Unfortunately for the civilians in
                                    Lebanon, their government uses them as
                                    shields, storing weapons and firing
                                    weapons from within apartment buildings
                                    and other normally purely civilian areas.
                                    If the Lebanese people can't or won't
                                    change their government to something civil
                                    and can't or won't clean Hezbollah out
                                    then Israel is going to do it for them and
                                    some of them are going to die.  Civilians
                                    always get the most hurt in war.  What
                                    would you have Israel do to defend itself?
                                    Nothing.  You would have Israel cease to
                                    exist or the Israeli population fall under
                                    daily rocket attack with no response.
                                    Stop supporting terrorist states so the
                                    people in those states can have normal
                                    lives.  Why are you so opposed to the
                                    Lebanese having a real life without
                                    Hezbollah?  I'd like to see everyone in
                                    the region have a long happy prosperous
                                    life.  That can't happen when terrorists
                                    are running around armed to the teeth
                                    functioning as proxy armies for Syria and
                                    \_ With implicit UN support, no less.
               \_ Bombing and killing Muslims is always a good idea...Faster,
                  \_ Then the Orthodox Jews, then the Fundies, hurray!
                     \_ Will all religious fanatics worldwide please report
                        to the martyrdom booths?  Paradise is waiting!
                               \_ and/or rapture
2006/7/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43818 Activity:low
7/27    Freepers in disunity on whether Condi's doing a good job on Iran
        and Lebanon
        \_ Why do you care what freepers think?  No one posts dailykos junk
           here.  Why are you posting freeper junk?
           \_ Mostly because it's fun watching freepers tear themselves apart.
              \_ Could say the same about dailykos or any other random site.
                 Why post freeper junk here?  Anyone reading it is already
                 reading it.
                 \_ Actually, no, freepers are a special breed, and when they
                    turn on each other, it's like watching shark week on the
                    Discovery Channel. Also, a link is not the same as posting
                    the spew. The link is opt-in; if you don't wanna, don't.
                    \_ freepers are exactly like the dailykos idiots.  the
                       *only* difference between the two groups is... nothing.
                    \_ Still, making fun of the mentally handicapped is a
                       little crass.
                       little crass.  Although I will admit to posting
                       that DU link where the guy proves the 9/11 planes
                       couldn't have taken down the WTC with chicken wire
                       and a cup of kerosene.  THAT was hilarious.
2006/7/27-28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43814 Activity:low
7/26    How come there are no voice arguing Lebanon's right to defend itself?
        \_ blindly lobbing missiles into civilian areas and killing a few
           innocent people is actually WORSE than responding to this with
           a strategic goal, avoiding killing innocent people, and still
           ending up killing five to ten times as many innocent people.
           ending up killing 10 to 20 times as many innocent people.
           ending up killing 25 to 35 times as many innocent people.
        \_ Because Hezbollah is the aggressor, not the defender.
        \_ Because the Lebanese military is in no position to take on the
           Israeli military. Also, Hezbollah is already fighting in the
           invaded areas, and Lebanese military have no desire to be confused
           with Hezbollah.
        \_ They do.  They failed to do so by ejecting Hezbollah.  Now Israel
           has to do the job.
           \_ >.< History: Lebanon's been a satellite state of Syria for a
              long while. Syria (and Iran) supported Hezbollah; the pro-Syrian
              government turned a blind eye to Hezbollah's militia build-up.
              The recent non-pro-Syrian government has not been pro-Hezbollah
              but has had less than six months to do anything about them.
              Now that Israel has reduced Lebanon to Stone Age economics (ugh),
              the govt. has even less ability to deal with (or expel) Hezb.
              \_ Away with your facts and logic!
              \_ Unfortunate timing for the new government, assuming they were
                 actually interested in ejected Hezbollah, but given that the
                 new government has several Hezbollah ministers this bit of
                 'history' is just propaganda.  What are you quoting from?
                 \_ You do know that the Bush Administration signed off on
                    the attempt to "domesticate" Hezbollah by bringing it into
                    the Lebanese government officially...right?
                    \_ Which only proves the administration is foolish and
                       directly contradicts the statement that the new six
                       month old government is not pro-Hezbollah and would
                       in theory do something about Hezbollah if given time.
                       \_ so... a few ministers means pro-hezbollah?  what
                          about the more-than-a-few anti-hezbollah-ites?
                          \_ Because they'll get murdered, duh.  This isn't
                             a Disneyland Democracy.  Hezbollah runs the
                             country, not the not-a-member-of-Hezbollah parts
                             of the government.
                    \_ We should sell Lebanon WMD to protect itself. Then we
                       should invade Lebanon to eliminate the WMD threat.
              \_ If Israel shows uncertainty or weakness in this decade,
                 the world will drift toward tragedy.
                 \_ Words like that will destabilize the Middle East for
                    years to come.
                    \_ Condi says the recent destabilization offers an
                       \_ I never understood why "stability at all costs" is
                          considered a good thing.  If the current situation
                          (in any place/time) is bad but stable, is that better
                          than bad, unstable, but a potentially better future?
                          What is so great about stable in and of itself?  A
                          lot of really horrible places are "stable".
                          \_ No one said "stability at all costs" is good,
                             except maybe China.
                             \_ That's the way they behave and speak.  Every
                                event always come down to "dont do that or
                                you'll destabilise the middle east! ack!"
2006/7/26-28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43806 Activity:nil
7/26    http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/26/mideast.observers/index.html
        "The timeline provided CNN by a U.N. officer in Lebanon showed the
        first bomb exploded about 200 yards from the U.N. outpost at 1:20 p.m.
        Tuesday, prompting the first call ... with the Israeli military.
        The officer said they were assured by the Israeli liaison that he would
        stop the attacks. A series of about nine more bombs hit within 100 to
        400 yards from the observers over the next several hours, with a call
        to the Israeli military following each explosion.
        The U.N. base at Noqoura lost contact with the outpost at 7:40 p.m.,
        apparently the time of the direct hit, the officer said."
        http://tinyurl.com/r8zww (Wash Post)
        Senior Irish officer in UN observation force (not in the destroyed
        bunker) said to have made six phone calls in hours before.  Ireland
        files official protest with Israel.
        "He warned the Israelis that they were shelling in very close proximity
        to the post, and his warnings were very specific, explicit, detailed
        and stark. Obviously those warnings went unheeded."
        UN official says no Hezbollah firing was taking place in the area
        around the observation post in the six hours of phone calls and
        air/artillery strikes.
        \_ why are UN soldiers within 100 yrds of hezbolla targets?
           \_ it's my understanding Israel told the UN it wouldn't touch the
              UN observation posts
           \_ good try.  UN Observation post has been there forever.
              \_ shielding hezbollah targets 100 yards away forever?
                 \_ i am just saying that observation post has been there
                    for a long long time and Israel is fully aware of its
                    position. the fact that this post was destroyed by an
                    coordinated artiley shelling and ariel bombing, it is
                    quite obvious that this incident is anything but
                    \_ Israel didn't say it was an accident.  They said "we're
                       sorry we killed the UN guys".  If the UN stopped
                       shielding terrorists, UN guys would stop dying.
                       You're aware that the pullout agreement 6 years ago
                       said the UN was supposed to disarm Hezbollah, not
                       watch them build up a bigger military stock pile
                       than ever before.  Where was the UN report on the
                       last six years' of buildup?  These guys are obsevers,
                       so what were the observing and what'd they do about
                       what they observed?  This is the fault of the UN for
                       putting those guys there to die.  It was inevitable
                       given the situation the UN created.
        \_ Sounds like an excerpt from the "Demons and Angels" Red Dwarf:
           "The poor wretch. He has a faulty gun. He has accidentally shot
            me five times. Oh, how I love him!"
        \_ I've been saying that Israeli has a history of attacking
           UN facilities in the past.  All of them supposely "accidental."
           Does make you wonders...
           \_ Got a list of dates and events?
        \_ This is how IDF "do their best they can" to avoid civilian/UN
           casualties.  The reality is, they just do whatever they want and
           they know US will back them.
           \_ No, it is a message to the UN: Stop shielding terrorists and
              your people won't get killed.  Not that Khofi gives a damn
              about a few random guys on the ground.
        \_ One of the UN observer is a Chinese.  Chinese embassy has send
           a very strong protest to Israel.  Such protest is probably going to
           be ignored completely and IDF is probably going to be 'business as
           \_ As if.  The Chinese want Israeli weapons and couldn't care less
              about one dead guy.
              \_ much of Israel/Chinese weapon program has been suspended by
                 USA. secondly, remember the Hezbollah missile that hit
                 Israeli warship?  that is a Chinese design.  Chinese has
                 a significant weapon market share in the Middle East and
                 they can REALLY stir up the pot if they choose to.
        \_ That's funny, the UNIFIL says Hezbollah was firing from that
           http://tinyurl.com/s6bdr (Herald Sun)
           \_ Israel has no right to shell and bomb UN site for any reason,
              even if Hezbollah was firing *FROM* that position.  Then again,
              Israel is no friend of UN for the past 50+ years.
              \_ Wow, that's really nutty.  So why would the UN allow Hezbollah
                 to fire at Israel from a UN site?  And Israel is supposed to
                 just let it happen?  That would have been a much better troll
                 if you were less black'n'white nutty about it.
                 \_ 1. these observers are unarmed. 2. it's not at UN's
                    interest for Hezbollah to fire from UN observation post
                    3. UN observation post is by no mean a safe heavan for
                    Hezbollah.  4.  Israel has been repeatly warned UN in the
                    past that UN observer tend to be more sympathic to
                    Palistanian and Lebonese... so you figures.
                    \_ 1) so what?  2) sure it is 3) it isnt *now*, it was
                       4) uh... what?  Yes we know the UN is biased against
                       Israel.  And?
2006/7/25-28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43800 Activity:nil
7/25    "At least 391 people have been killed and 1,596 wounded in Lebanon,
        according to Lebanese security officials. Among them are 20 Lebanese
        soldiers and at least 11 Hezbollah guerrillas."
        Hmmm.  An 11/391 ratio isn't so hot.  Something tells me the IDF
        needs to work on its target selection.
        \_ According to who?  You're aware Hezbollah holds official positions
           in the Lebanese government.  You expect the truth from Hezbollah?
           \_ According to the AP article linked below.  But by all means,
              continue to jerk those knees.
              \_ There are 25 urls on the motd right now.  If you have
                 something worth saying, by all means, go right ahead.  The
                 rest of the world understands that Hezbollah is a terrorist
                 organisation that hides among civilians using them as shields.
                 Even the upper muckity mucks at the UN 'get it'.  But hey, if
                 you're happy going along with the Hezbollah = innocent
                 victims of Israeli "excessive response", go for it.  I support
                 your right to say or write those things.
                 \_ Uh, I don't think anyone has said that Hezbollah isn't an
                    organization that commits terrorist acts and is an innocent
                    victim, far from it.  This is called "a strawman".
                    Your point to pp about the URL being hard to find is
                    valid, though.
                    \_ From reading the motd one would think Hezbollah is an
                       innocent and peaceful humanitarian group who spends
                       their time feeding the homeless, not a vicious terrorist
                       organisation who attacked a sovereign nation without
                       cause, kidnapping their citizens from across the
                       internationally recognised border and lobbing hundreds
                       of rockets every day into civilian areas.
                 \_ Sigh...
                    \- anybody agree with:
                       \_ More like yugoslavi:kurds-in-Iraq::lebanon:darfur
2006/7/25-28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43797 Activity:nil
7/25    http://csua.org/u/gj1 (yahoo.com)
        UN spokesman says Israeli airstrike made a direct hit on observation
        post manned by Indian soldiers, with unspecified casualties.  Also
        noted were 14 other incidents of "firing" close to this position,
        even during the rescue op (probably a "fog of war" incident - unlike
        the previous rocketing of vehicles in South Lebabon, where RoE ended
        up being "does the car have military age males in it and is it coming
        from a Hezbolla town?  yes?  then blow that fucker up!").
        \_ judging from Israel's past behavior, it's more like an warning to
           UN than "fog of war:"  "you better shut up and stop reporting the
           killing Lebanonese civilians, or these kind of 'accident' will keep
           happening to any of your observation post."
           \_ What past behavior is that?  War isn't a video game where every
              one on the field is marked red or blue.  By your reasoning all
              "friendly fire" incidents are intentional acts of murder.
              \_ no, only the incidents where the target contacted the
                 person firing multiple times before they got blown up.
                 \_ they weren't the target.  the hezbollah in the area
                    using them as a shield were.  and again, war isn't a
                    video game.  the orders to stop shelling could have come
                    down the line but not made it to the guys firing the
                    shells.  but it really doesnt matter and theres no reason
                    to find out the truth; anything israel does is
                    automatically intentional and a warcrime, video game, etc.
                    do you still believe the beach explosion in gaza a number
                    of weeks ago was israeli artillery?
2006/7/25-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43794 Activity:nil
7/25    http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/25/D8J32DM80.html
        Condi is for an immediate ceasefire ... whenever she's in in the target
        area!  "Nearly daily pounding halted during Secretary of State
        Condoleezza Rice's visit to Beirut on Monday. The afternoon strikes
        were the first in the city since Sunday evening."
        \_ Yes, let's try to kill the U.S. Sec. of State and piss off the
           Americans. We are Hezzbollah - if we can blow up heavily
           defended pizza parlors  we can surely take out a supercarrier.
           \_ Hezbollah is not "pounding" Beirut.
           \_ Uhhhh, huh ahh.  What are you talking about, Beavis?
2006/7/24-28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43771 Activity:low
7/24    I got a problem and I need you guys' advice on how to help without
        myself being locked up in Cuba somewhere. Hezbollah runs a lot of
        hospitals, bomb shelterss and other Humanitarian organization.
        Right now, there are about 600,000 accused terrorist being displaced
        by Israeli forces.  200,000 of them are already fled to Syria, which
        is not a wealthy nation at first place and its subject to US economic
        embargo since 2003.  If I want to help those what I call refugees
        (jews [ed. Israelis]  probably would disagree), where can I send money to without
        being accused of providing material support to Terrorist / Terrorist
        Organization?  I don't think International Redcross has a strong
        presence there.   Thanks
        \_ You were sounding reasonable up to the anti-Jewish remark. Now
           I'm going to log your entry and report you to DHS.
        \_ Medecins Sans Frontieres is my suggestion--they're generally
           politically neutral and do good work.  http://www.msf.org  -John
           \- i believe the RedCross/Crescent is interested in going to
              south lebanon, but israel has refused to "guarantee" safe
              passage, but they have been willing to notify hizbolla
              if the RC wants to head down. in this case i dunno if there
              is really a difference between "guarantee safe passage"
              and a cease fire. i dont believe israel is saying "we will
              physicallyt block you from going in" but saying "you take
              physically block you from going in" but saying "you take
              your chances".
              \_ A lot of people take issue with the RC for its perceived
                 "hands-off" approach.  -John
                 \_ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/07/25/MNGJCK4N0A1.DTL
                 \_ http://csua.org/u/gj5 (sfgate.com)
                    How hands-off should they be?
                    \_ Don't ask me, I don't know.  However, the RC does not,
                       as a matter of policy, publicize its findings from
                       prisoner camps, that sort of thing.  They do
                       provide ambulance and emergency care services, which
                       is a Good Thing, I wasn't thinking of that.  -John
                    \- wow. has israel claimed that was a mistake
                       or "we're not going to make exceptions for
                       trucks that say Red *"? i can see they may
                       believe some civilians are helping Hizbolla
                       on the sly by playing a covert military role
                       but surely they arent saying the RC is helping
                       \_ If it was a mistake, it was a pretty deliberate one.
                          According to the red cross personel, they made a
                          second pass to take out the second ambulance.  Did
                          you see the pic in the article?  Dead center on the
                          cross.  That's pulitzer material...
                       \_ Why not?  They helped the PLO last time.
                          \_ Dude, that's a serious charge. Please provide a
                             URL. TIA.
                             \_ It isn't a "charge".  It is historical fact.
                                The RC showed up in ships to take the PLO to
                                Tunis.  It wasn't a secret.  It was broadcast
                                around the world.  I still recall seeing the
                                PLO thugs firing guns in the air in
                                celebration of the RC rescuing them from the
                                Israeli army.  I believe that's why the first
                                thing the Israelis did this time was establish
                                a navy blockade and bomb the bridges and roads
                                to Syria.  It wasn't about keeping their
                                soldiers from being taken out of Lebanon, but
                                to prevent escape for Hezbollah thugs the way
                                they made a mistake with the PLO.
                                \_ An "historical" "fact" that no one here has
                                   ever heard.  Provide. A. Link.
                                   \_ Sorry you can't remember but that doesn't
                                      make me a liar.  It just means that you
                                      can't remember. From the Washington Post
                                      And here's one for the gun fire I said
                                      I remembered:
                                      \_ First, thank you for posting the links
                                         as I requested. However, apart from
                                         these two articles in the Washington
                                         Post, I can't seem to find any other
                                         context for this. Why did the RC
                                         evacuate the PLO guerillas? Can you
                                         provide a link with historical
                                         context? This is fascinating, but in
                                         and of itself demonstrates nothing.
                                         \_ Oh, come on.  You have any idea how
                                            long it took to find an obscure
                                            reference to a pre-web story?  All
                                            the content from that time is
                                            behind for-pay links, but along
                                            the way I was wading through
                                            literally hundreds of pages that
                                            described the entire war in
                                            tedious detail from all
                                            perspectives using such uncommon
                                            search terms as "beirut", "plo",
                                            "red cross", and "1982".  The
                                            wikipedia entry posted below has a
                                            very limited but not entirely
                                            untrue version of events since
                                            you're incapable of performing the
                                            most basic search, I suggest you
                                            start there, but in no way does
                                            the story end there.  That's the
                                            super cliff notes version of
                                            events.  If you really care you'll
                                            go do your own reading.
                                            \_ Thanks for the bile. I already
                                               answered myself in the post
                                               \_ Bile?  Sensitive much?
                                                  \_ After all that, you're
                                                     asking me?
                                                     \_ After all what?  Its
                                                        not my fault you're a
                                                        lazy ass and I called
                                                        you on it.  That isnt
                                                        bile, that's truth. Get
                                                        a thicker skin.  The
                                                        truth shouldnt hurt
                                                        so much.
                                                        you on it while also
                                                        suggesting you do some
                                                        real research if you
                                                        actually want to know
                                                        what happened in Beirut
                                                        in 1982.
                                                        \_ Niggah, please. I
                                                           googled the terms in
                                                           your archived WP
                                                           story and got bupkis
                                                           so I politely asked
                                                           for more info. Then
                                                           I found and posted
                                                           the info below. Then
                                                           you accused me of
                                                           not doing research.
                                                           So I informed you
                                                           that I had. So now,
                                                           you know that I know
                                                           that your statement
                                                           implying that the RC
                                                           was aiding PLO was
                                                           grossly overstated.
                                         \_ And now, the rest of the story:
                                            Although not specified here, it
                                            appears that the the Red Cross
                                            transported the PLO to Tunis at the
                                            request of Americans, the French,
                                            and the Italians, not simply as a
                                            favor to the PLO.
2006/7/24-25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43767 Activity:nil
7/24    Israeli Apache helicopter blows up family van fleeing south Lebanon
        \_ Don't you get it?  Israel *NEVER target any civilians, NEVER
           NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER.  *ALL* civilian casualties in Lebanon,
           including 18,000 back in the 1980s, were regretable accident or
           collateral damage.  Israeli forces are doing EVERYTHING they can
           to avoid civilian casualties, such as firing anti-peronnel shell
           at UN refugee camp after UAV drone confirmed that it's an UN
           If you doubt any of Israel's claim, then, you are a symphathiser
           of Hamas / Hezbollah...  wait... that means entire UN staff should
           be treated as terrorist organization.
           \_ Yes! There are no accidents!  Ever trigger pull is
           \_ Yes! There are no accidents!  Every trigger pull is
              personally commanded by the elders of Zion!
        \_ New York times, you are going to be so dead
           \_ Wow, since 2001 Fox has only been wrong 8 times!  This is
              certainly a Fair and Balanced[tm] site.
2006/7/21-25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43761 Activity:low
7/21    This is the best article I've found describing the recent Lebanon
        escalation and its repercussions
        http://csua.org/u/ghv (Wash Post, a mouthpiece for liberals, opinion)
        \_ Faster, please.
           \_ Faster and faster fast it goes
              Hutalahey Hutalahey
           \_ Faster, faster, fast it goes
              Playing the sitar with my toes
              Hutalahey, oh
              Hutalahey Hutalahey
              Hutalahey, oh-oh-ey-oh
        \_ I can understand Israel's right to defend itself, but this
           whole thing is just stupid. It's one thing to act tough
           when you are being attacked, but their response is
           disproportionate. This bullying attitude toward their
           neighbors will create more hatred toward Israel (and
           therefore the United States) throughout the world.
           Personally I think the only way they can make peace with
           their neighbors is by helping them out, one way or the
           other, instead of bomb the shit out of them at every
           \_ They're doing a good job with their Pre-emptive Warfare,
              because fighting evil is a good thing. God Bless.
              because fighting evil is a good thing.
              \_ you are funny.
           \_ ie "Can't we all just get along"
           \_ Um, you do know that Israel was one of the biggest donors to
              pre-Hamas Palestine, right?  They repeatedly tried to help the
              bits of the country that _weren't_ attacking them.  And
              regardless, the sworn policy of Hamas and Hezbollah calls for
              the destruction of Israel.  Not "calls for that because Israel's
              been mean lately", but "has called for that since Israel's
              creation"  There's not a lot of room for diplomacy with those
              groups, and when those groups are in power, officially or
              otherwise... what do you do?
              \_ I don't know, but you can't seriously support what Isreal
                 is about to do - it is a collosal strategic mistake, no
                 matter what your politics. !pp
                 \_ What exactly is Israel about to and and why in your
                    is it a collosal mistake?
                 \_ Of course it is.  The previous post was contesting
                    "...help neighbors out instead of bombing them at every
                     opportunity..."  They've done both.
           \_ the stragetic mistake Israel made, IMHO, is Israel's deliberate
              act of punishing / weakening Lebanonese government.  More stable
              and wealthy Lebanon government it is, less justification for
              Hezbolla to keep their arm.  In fact, one would argue the reason
              Hezbolla kidnapped Israeli soldier WAS to create incident to
              justify their status quo.  By destroying the basic infrastrue
              Lebanon has build in the past 20 years, Israel is in effect
              strengthening Hezbolla.
              MAY BE, that is what Israel want, a strong, out of control
              Hezbollah that Israel can justify their attack.  I simply don't
              \_ Hezbollah doesn't help their cause with rocket attacks. It
                 rather proves Israel's point. Can you imagine rockets
                 bombarding Mexico from Texas and the US not stopping it?
                 Hezbollah should not fight back and show Israel to be
                 the aggressors.
                 \_ Hezbollah helps their 'cause' a great deal by lobbing
                    rockets into Israel.  Their *only* cause is the complete
                    destruction of Israel.  They don't hide that fact.  They
                    are not in any way ashamed of that.  They announced it
                    proudly to the world.  What do you think their cause is?
                    \_ Lobbing rockets into Israel will only set them back.
                       It's not like that is going to destroy Israel. However,
                       it turns international opinion against them and proves
                       that Lebanon can't or won't control their activities.
                       Open war with Israel is not going to help Hezbollah at
                       the moment.
                 \_ Then why are they focusing their attacks on Lebanese
                    infrastructure?  Bombing the rocket facilities seems
                    perfectly justified.  Bombing highways does not.
                    \- I'm ceritainly not a knee-jerk israel supporter,
                       nor have i been following this "accidental war"
                       very closely, but hizbollah is not a group of nutjobs
                       at arms length from the lebanese state ... they hold
                       cabinet-level posts as well as being an appreciable
                       part of the legislature [10-20%?]. i recognize a weak
                       govt in a place like lebanon doesnt have complete
                       control over all parts of the country, but they also
                       cannot totally take refuge in "what can we do" ... i.e.
                       to israel's war not just with an outfit of fanatics
                       israel's war not just with an outfit of fanatics
                       but to some extent with the state. it's not as clean a
                       case of nobody expecting the US to distinguish between
                       the taliban [then the afgan state, more or less] and
                       al queda, but there is an element of that.
                       the mexico-texas thing is a strawman. i havent thought
                       about this deeply but consider the crossboarder
                       interventions in SE Asia in the 70s ... that might
                       be a better scenario to mine for what is a comparable
                       scenario ... china in vietnam, vietnam in cambodia,
                       khemer rouge, incursions into laos etc. do not taunt
                       LON NOL.
                    \_ Bombing the highways and runways prevents Syria from
                       moving more arms into southern Lebanon.
                       \- maybe this is a silly question but if israel
                          has clear evidence that syria and iran are
                          aiding and abetting HIZBOLLA, how come they
                          dont do a CPOWELL-style UN presentation with
                          the smoking gun. i'm not suggesting i or anybody
                          else doubts the connection, but it seems like
                          that sort of forces "the world" to confront the
                          issue ... especially the issue of state involvement
                          rather than state vs "group of crazies". then israel
                          can paint this as a proxy war against them by
                          two states.
                          \_ It isn't silly but it is naive.  Let's say they
                             have this evidence in a way that is easily
                             presented to the UN and make the best presentation
                             the UN has ever seen and now the whole world is
                             convinced of it.  So what?  The whole world
                             already knows and believes Syria and Iran are
                             supporting terrorist organizations like Hamas
                             and Hezbollah.  Why would the world 'confront'
                             them over it?  Nations exist only for one
                             reason: to advance their own interests.  It is
                             not in the interests of most of the world to
                             support Israel or oppose Iran (where their oil
                             comes from).
                             \_ I think your extended comments are a bit
                                naive. There are significant implication of
                                this being state vs state vs sort of a
                                "police action" type setting. It can put
                                Lebanon in the position of taking a postion
                                on Syrian/Iranian involement. I was looking
                                for a reply by somebody more knowledgable
                                about sunni-shiite interest, for example
                                [like which states are actually kind of
                                happy to see Hizbolla take a pounding] ...
                                the it's trivial to say people will act
                                in their own interest. What is meaningful is
                                to discuss what those interests are in this
2006/7/21-25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43758 Activity:nil
7/21    U.S. television and print media seem to place less importance on deaths
        of Lebanese civilians
        http://csua.org/u/ghs (Wash Post blog)
        \_ I agree with many of the reader comments posted on this
           page.  I just wish my writing skill is better so I can
           troll the motd with more credible opinions.
2006/7/21-25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43755 Activity:nil
7/21    People were asking on MOTD why Syria hates USA?  well, it turned
        out that we had an economic embargo and a policy of regime change
        against Syria since 2003:
        hmm... what are any incentive for Syria to stablize Iraq and
        stop Hezbolla again? so we can take them out on our list?
        \_ Hello, Syria is run by the fascist Ba'athist party. They haven't
           had a real democratic election in two decades.
           \_ Syria is about as democratic as Putin's Russia, *MORE* democratic
              than Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and any member of UAE.
              \_ Syria is a traditional lineal descendent dictatorship.  It is
                 not possible to be less democratic than that, silly person.
                 \- Brunei is "less democratic". --psb
                    \_ Yes but they're cuddly and don't kill people.  -John
                       \- what about the white slavery? i dunno if "cuddly"
                          is the right word.
                          \_ John is white and white is always right.
                          \_ Semi-cuddly.  -John
        \_ And the economic embargo and anti-Syria policy came out of thin air
           and had nothing to do with Syria being a state sponsor of terrorists
           or anything like that.  Yup, yessirreeBob!  They're just these
           happy froods and along came Big Bad United States to pick on them
           for no reason.  Uh huh.  Troll harder, silly person.
           \_ They're evil. George Bush said so, and he always tells the truth.
        \_ Shannon Elizabeth is half-Syrian.  She is one hot piece of ass.
           We need more Syrians in the USA.
2006/7/20-22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43742 Activity:nil
7/20    Check out the May 2 warning about traveling to Lebanon:
        "U.S. citizens who travel to Lebanon despite this Travel Warning should
        exercise heightened caution when traveling in parts of the southern
        suburbs of Beirut, portions of the Bekaa Valley and South Lebanon, and
        the cities of Sidon and Tripoli. Hizballah has not been disarmed, it
        maintains a strong presence in many of these areas, and there is the
        potential for action by other extremist groups in Tripoli."
2006/7/20-22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43739 Activity:nil
7/20    Military analysts question Israeli bombing
        "This is a classic strategic bombing campaign," said Stephen Biddle, a
        former head of military studies at the U.S. Army War College now at the
        Council on Foreign Relations. "What the Israelis are trying to do is
        pressure others into solving their problem for them, hence the
        targeting of civilian infrastructure."
        \_ Dunno if you're talking about the gaza strip or lebanon.
           In Lebanon, Hezbollah quite deliberately has all of their
           offices in the 1st floor of dense apartment buildings
           populated by civilians.  Whatcha gonna do?
           \_ Blow up the rocket installations and camps along the southern
              Lebanon border, establish a DMZ with a range approx. equal to
              the range of the rockets Hizbullah is chucking at your cities,
              and call it a day. I have no issue with punishing Hizbullah;
              I do have an issue when you start bombing civilians and calling
              them collateral damage.
              \_ So you think it's a good idea for Israel to grab an 80 mile
                 DMZ into Lebanon?  You're just trolling, right?  Please tell
                 us you're just trolling.  No one sane can want that no matter
                 what 'side' they take in this.
                 \_ I'm trolling. Well, what I'm trying to say is that, no,
                    it wouldn't be a good idea for Israel to make an 80 mile
                    DMZ in Lebanon, but if they did, it would at least be more
                    reasonable and vaguely justifiable than the continued
                    bombing of Beirut.
                 \_ That looks like what Israel is planning on doing right now.
2006/7/18-20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43706 Activity:nil
7/18    When did Hezbullah suddenly become Hizbullah?
        \_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizbollah#_note-0
           "Hezbollah is predominantly used by American media, such as CNN,
            Fox News and The New York Times, as well as by the BBC and The
            Times in the UK, but the organization itself alternatively
            transliterates its name as Hizbollah or Hizbullah."
        \_ I thought it's called "Party of (true) God."
           Just as sometimes I call al Qaeda "Foundation."
2006/7/18-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43704 Activity:nil
7/18    No free evacuations for Americans from Lebanon, alive or dead
        \_ People should be SELF-RELIANT and be responsible for their own
           fate.                                -SELF-RELIANT Conservative.
        \_ So, uh, apart from like actual government employees, why is it the
           US taxpayer's responsibility to pay for other private citizens'
           \_ Because we don't utterly suck ass? yet?
              \_ Too late for that.
              \_ tOO LATE for that.
           \_ Because we're a nation of _citizens_, not just taxpayers.
              We're a community.
              \_ I thought we were all "consumers"
                 \_ That's all we will be if we continue to let
                    corporations and conservatives run everything.
              \_ That sounds warm and fuzzy, but why don't the individual
                 states that the people are residents of pay?  Too small?
                 Why don't we pay to evacuate everyone (including
                 non-US-citizens)?  There's an infinite number of things that
                 the government isn't really responsible for that it _could_
                 spend money on; I don't see why this is arbitrarily one of
                 them that people feel we should.
                 \_ It's under the umbrella of foreign policy and national
                    security.  Those Americans are to be protected in the
                    same way as if they were being attacked on US soil.
         \_ Well by going to the middle east they knew they were putting
            themselves in harm's way.  It's not like the government is telling
            people without airfare "too bad, you're stuck", just that they have
            to agree to cover the cost of their evacuation. I fail to see how
            this is much different than billing people evacuated from outdoor
            sporting mishaps.
            \_ That's how I felt..  It's sort of how if it's a little disaster,
               you're boned if you don't have insurance, but if it's a big
               enough deal, FEMA will send you a check.
               \_ You're quite often boned if you _have_ insurance.
            \_ Great point.  We should also start charging people for police
               time when they get shot in a bad neighborhood, since it's
               totally their own fault.
               \_ The police time isn't for their benefit, if they've already
                  been shot.  The medical time is, and guess what, we don't
                  pay for that.
                  \_ "The police time isn't for their benefit"?  WTF?  Just
                     admit that your argument is BS.
        \_ Most of the responses to this post are both predictable and
           depressing.  We've gone from putting men on the moon to this in
           only 40 years?
           \_ What does landing on the moon have anything to do with
              this entire discussion?
           \_ Was the MOTD thread 40 years ago about putting men on the moon
              more inspiring?
              \_ I propose we put the men of MOTD on the moon, or at least
                 host SODA on the moon.
                 \_ People would complain about the latency.
              \_ MOTD 40 years ago was a cork message board, which made it
                 much easier to put up drawings of penises.
                 \_ 8===========>
2006/7/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43694 Activity:nil
7/17    My google fu is getting weak in my old age.  Someone tell me where
        I can hear GWB's comments on hesbolah that were caught on mic.
        \_ http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/17/bush.tape
        \_ Where he said "shit"?
        \_ I don't know. But what's the url of that one liberal bloggish
           site that is always posting video clips?
           \_ http://www.crooksandliars.com
              \_ yeah that was it, and sure enough they have videos of this
        \_ Front page of cnn
2006/7/17-19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43693 Activity:nil
7/17    Get Syria to get Hizbollah to stop doing this shit
        \_ don't worry, the tape has the full blessing of the White House
        \_ Ummm... which is worse, that the President used a naughty word
           in a private conversation, or that the press likes recording
           private conversations?
           \_ Bush = evil.  Anti-Bush = good.
              \_ Newspapers listening in on private conversations of
                 politicians == evil.
                 Bush listening in on private conversations of
                 citizens == good.
                 \_ 1) true. 2) when did that happen?
                    \_ http://www.csua.org/u/ggq
                       \_ Yeah horrible.  At the time everyone said we
                          shouldn't bomb, we should use intel.  So we use
                          intel and now that's wrong too.  Let's just
                          surrender now.  Which way is Mecca from here?
           \_ Neither. What's worse is that Bush and Blair appear to believe
              that all of this can be stopped if Syria tells Hezbola to knock
              it off; this betrays a very simplistic view of the situation.
              \_ I kind of believe you, but why can't Syria just tell
                 Hezbollah to stop?
                 \_ Syria funds Hezbollah, but they don't control them. Also,
                    while Hezbollah relied heavily on Syria for funding in the
                    past, it no longer does so; Iran contributes a lot, and
                    Hezbollah has its own economy running now. The best Syria
                    could do is put pressure on Hezbollah to stop the rockets
                    and turn over the hostages, but it's unlikely Hezbollah
                    would listen since an aggressive Israel makes Hezbollah
                    look as much like victims as Lebanon, especially to the
                    \_ Still too simplistic.  Iran funds them, but the goods
                       have to pass through Syria, so Syria has influence, even
                       if they're not funding them.
                       \_ Agreed, actually, still too simplistic. -pp
                       \_ things are not that hard, though.  If you are Syria,
                          why would it even want to put pressure on the only
                          Arab organization that even put up with a fight
                          with Israel?
                    \_ If they fund them, they control them.  Also, how do
                       you think all those Iranian missiles and techs got into
                       the country?  And while we're here, how do you think
                       a small arms terrorist .org managed to target a ship
                       miles out at sea?  They weren't fluke hits on the 2
                       ships.  And were you aware that not only Syria but
                       Lebanon is still in an official state of war with
                       Israel?  Jordan signed and Egypt signed a treaty and
                       both have non-hostile relations with Israel since.
                       What is wrong with Lebanon and Syria that they can't
                       do the same?
                       \_ Read above where Syria is no longer sole funder of
                          Hezbollah. Also, Lebanon does not have the military
                          might to stop Hezbollah; parts of Beirut are de facto
                          state of Hezbollah. As for treaties, well, stop the
                          bombing, and let's talk.
                          \_ If Syria stopped funding Hezbollah they'd either
                             collapse or be much less than they are.  If Syria
                             didn't arm them and allow the Iranians to arm
                             them they'd not have thousands of rockets and some
                             mid-ranged missiles.  If Syria didn't host the
                             Hezbollah leader, they'd be less belligerant.  If
                             Syria didn't keep Lebanon as a client state as a
                             proxy to attack Israel then maybe Lebanon might
                             have been a real country with a real government
                             and a military that could be held responsible for
                             Hezbollah (a terrorist organisation) having it's
                             own economy(!!!!!!!).  Israel has always been
                             ready to sign treaties with her neighbors.  To
                             say "stop the bombing and let's talk" is so off
                             base I'm thinking you're either trolling or really
                             don't either know or care what's going on in the
                             region for the last 50+ years.
                       \_ China ships food and fuel to N.Korea every week.
                          And guess what, China is not really controlling
                          \_ Guess what?  China has a ready grip on NK.  The
                             last time the NKs got testy, China had a week
                             delay in shipments and NK suddenly had a change
                             of heart & policy.  The 6 nation talks are not
                             about the 5 countries talking to NK.  They are
                             about the 4 countries talking to China which is
                             why the US won't talk directly to NK.  There's
                             no point.
                          \_ What do you think will happen when/if China
                             cuts them off? Why do you think China sends
                             these? It's all about control.
             \_ How about this. Syria should sign a peace agreement with Israel.
                Israel made that as the only condition for giving back to
                Golan Heights. Then, Hesbollah will have to stop blaming
                Israel for occupying supposedly Lebanese Sheba farms..
2006/7/14-19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:43673 Activity:nil
7/14    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060714/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel_62
        "The level of damage inflicted by Israel appeared finely
        calibrated. For example, a missile punched a hole in a major
        suspension bridge on the Beirut-Damascus road but did not destroy it,
        unlike less expensive bridges on the road that were brought down. An
        Israeli strike hit fuel depots at one of Beirut's two power stations
        sending massive fireballs and smoke into the sky but avoided the
        station itself."
        \_ Israel's attack is always "pinpointed."  But the past record showed
           pinpointed attack often result in death of, let say, 7 month old
           terrorist, or entire terrorist's family age from 9-17.  Some
           would argue that "unjustified death" from those Israel attack
           validates sucide bombing tactics in the middle of crowded buses.
           You know, those Arab has such twisted sense of what is justifiable
           what is not... those 7 month old, future terrorist, and those 1
           year old future terrorist *DESERVED* to be bombed or shelled;
           ANY reasonable person from the Western world would agree with that.
           \_ the goal of a terrorist bomber is to kill as many civilians
              as possible.  this speaks for itself.
              \_ the goal of terrorist bomber is to make the cost of
                 occupation as high as possible.
              \_ The goal of a terrorist bomber is not something for a
                 modern democracy to measure its actions by.  There is a very
                 big line between civilian casualties incurred from
                 hitting a military or paramilitary target, and
                 indiscriminately killed women or children.  The former is
                 tragic and to be avoided whenever possible, but before
                 judging, what would _you_ do?  -John
                 \_ remember, more Iraqi civilians died of US bombing
                    during the invasion than those killed by suicide bombers.
                    are you saying that as long as we kill civilians via
                    arial bombing, that will be ok?
                 \_ What would I do?  Get the fuck out.  I'd move to America
                    or Europe and not look back, if I were either Israeli or
                    Arab.  -!pp
                    \_ To them it's home.  By this logic, I don't think
                       anyone would stay where they're from (because no
                       matter where you are, it's get-the-fuck-outtable in
                       someone else's view... -John
                       \_ this is great.  Those Arabs who live there for
                          1800 years doesn't belong there.  those who
                          migrate to there in 1948 consider that "home" and
                          have the right to defend itself...
                          \_ Israel has no problems with allowing Arabs
                             in the country and holding government posts. Arabs
                             seem to have a problem with Israelis being there.
                             \_ Why won't they let the 1948 refugees back in
                                then? Isreal only allows a very few Arabs
                                in their country and the ones that they do
                                allow are 2nd class citizens, ala apartheid.
                                \_ They left.  Why should they be allowed back
                                   in?  Can the Jews who got kicked out of the
                                   Arab countries in the Middle East return
                                   home and get their stuff back, too?  No.
                                   There are Arabs in the Israeli government.
                                   They were elected to office just like in
                                   any democracy.  If you have a specific
                                   example of second classness, please share.
                                   \_  http://www.csua.org/u/gg7
                                       45% of Isreali Arabs live in poverty,
                                       compared to 15% of Isreali Jews.
                                       Okay, I step back from my apartheid
                                       statement though, that is going too
                                       far. But they are second class citizens.
                                       Unlike the Palestinians stuck in the
                                       occupied territory, who are not even
                                       citizens at all.
                                       \_ So there is evidence that Israeli
                                          Arabs are being oppressed by the
                                          government and lack the full rights
                                          of Israeli Jews and this explains
                                          the higher poverty rates?
                       \_ how about this kind of turkey shoot?  these guys
                          are 1. civilian and 2. trying to get out:
                          according to your logic, bus bombing from the air
                          or artillery shell is perfectly ok?  I am sorry,
                          I ain't no Hezbollah or Hamas, but I don't find this
                          \_ No, according to my logic its okay if you're not
                          \_ No, according to my logic its tragic, but maybe
                             very regrettably unavoidable, if you're not
                             blatantly trying to whack civilians (and trying
                             to avoid doing so whenever possible.)  Which, as
                             far as I'm aware, is usually the case.  And as
                             for who's lived there longer, let's see, I think
                             most Arabs (and most Israelis) were probably born
                             there after 1948?  They're both there now, and
                             bitching about whose grandparents were where first
                             won't solve it.  -Johnj
                             won't solve it.  -John
                             \_ bombing a civilian bus call it "tragic?"
                                The differences is that I don't believe every
                                thing Israeli says, you do.  I sincerely
                                don't think Israeli care too much about
                                civilian casualties, or collateral damage
                                involves MASSIVE number of women and children.
                                Number talk, John.  Arabic civilian casualties
                                is at least one order of magnitude than
                                Israeli civilian in the past conflict.
                                You really think the 18,000 casualties in
                                Lebanon back in 1982 were all Hezbollah
                                fighters?   How about Israeli-backed Christian
                                groups who slaughter every Sunni and Shiite
                                in sight?  The truth is, Israeli doesn't care.
                                They felt they need to defend itself.  If it
                                means 20 civilians or 9 family members going to
                                die along with that one terrorist, they will
                                drop the bomb, fire the missile.  There is no
                                differences between Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and
                                IDF.  While American media covers virtually
                                every sucide bombers attack, there is virtually
                                no photographs, video footage or any kind of
                                media coverage of Arabic civilian fleeing
                                Southern Lebanon and being mow down by IDF
                                machine guns.   IDF reminds me a lot of
                                the behavior of Imperial Japanese Army in
                                China backed in the WW2 days.
2006/7/13-18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43654 Activity:nil
7/13    Regardless of who's right or wrong (good luck on that), predictions
        on the outcome of the Israelis hitting Lebanon?  -John
        \_ I think it will depend upon what Syria wants to do.  There is a
           part of me want Israel go after Syria.  Adding ecnomic sanction
           against Iran to the mix... let the hell break loose in that region.
        \_ I dunno, but this doesn't sound good:
           'Earlier, Israel's chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, told
           Israel's Channel 10, "If the soldiers are not returned, we
           will turn Lebanon's clock back 20 years."'
        \_ It is clear that Iran is the provacoteur here and has
           been planning this for some time.
           \_ Israel has been very very stupid lately.  They need to learn
              that having a strong, functional government in Lebanon is
              actually better for Israel as a nation.  Instead, Israel is
              doing everything they can to weaken Lebanon's government,
              embolden those fractions who is already out of control as
              first place.  Again.  Lebanon is not a big deal, just like
              having massive famine in Gaza Strip is not a big deal neither.
              The trick is how much can Hezbollah in Lebanon drag Syria
              and Iran into this.  And right now, US policy is not
              encouraging neither nations to co-operate with them.
              By the way, such attack on Lebanon are the reason why
              Arab nations want to get nuclear weapons :p
              \_ I know what you mean, but from Israel's perspective
                 the part of Lebanon they invaded was completely under
                 terrorist control, not the Lebanese government.
                 \_ the war has escalated way beyond those ex-occupation
                    \_ yer both right.  the war is extending way beyond
                       contested lands, but Israel is primarily assaulting
                       Hezbollah areas.
        \_ What does Israel hope to accomplish by attacking Lebanon? I am
           guessing they want to hurt Lebanon's economy, but I don't see
           that these tactics are going to help return the soldiers or
           force Lebanon to take a stand against Hezbollah. Does Israel
           intend to occupy Lebanon? That's really the only way that these
           attacks might change anything, but I doubt Israel will go so far.
           \_ There are three objectives:
              (1) Occupy a Israel-dictated buffer zone (again),
              (2) Indicate that future kidnappings will be met with a
                  disproportione use of force (you'll hurt more than me), and
                \_ Terrorists only do kidnappings if there IS a
                   disproportionate response ... The only way they can keep
                   their movements going, by constantly radicalizing their
                   populace and making moderation untenable.
                   \_ I'd be inclined to say that there's TONS of evidence
                      that would seem to contradict this claim.
                        \_ And yet there was the leader of Hezbollah on TV
                           right after some of the early attacks calling on all
                           the world's Muslims to join him and attack Israel,
                           when is the last time you saw him on TV?
              (3) Getting the soldiers back.

        \_ The most likely outcome is a temporary ceasefire, with Israel
           holding onto a buffer zone in south Lebanon and airstrikes whenever
           Hezbollah fires another rocket into Israel while the press writes
           "wasn't there supposed to be a ceasefire?"
2006/7/12-18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43649 Activity:nil
7/12    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/world/12cnd-diplo.html
        "Russia and China Support Sanctions Threat for Iran"
        What I call "sloppy sanctions", as predicted six weeks ago, in an
        eventual deal that would benefit everyone but the U.S.
        \_ They support "sanctions threat" or actual sanctions?
           \_ threat.  all i'm saying is, with all of their playing hard to
              get on sanctions, when we actually "get" them to apply sanctions,
              the terms of the sanctions will be so sloppy that they'll get
              everything they want.
           \_ remember, US has economic embargo against Iran already, so
              UN sanction is not going to hurt US any more.  China and Russia,
              OTOH, has huge trade relationship with Iran and literally
              hundreds of millions at stake.  Further, Iran supplies
              something like 15-18% of oil to China.  China is not going to
              do anything against its oil supplier, just like US is not going
              to wage War on Terror against Saudi's.
2006/6/13-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43369 Activity:nil
6/12    Surprise!  Canadians torture terrorism suspects!
        \_ Redacting suspects to Canada is a lot more convenient
           than Poland, Romania, Egypt and Syria.
           \_ Why do you think Canada is any more convenient?  Because the
              plane trip is shorter?  Most of them are closer to Syria than
              the US.
           \_ I think you mean "Rendering" as the verb form of "Rendition"
              "Redacting" means to "putting into writing"
              \_ actually, "redacting" means "editing," not writing, and he's
                 probably looking for "remanding."  -tom
                 \- i think the OP does mean "Rendering" as the PP suggests,
                    as used in the expression "extreme rendition". in my
                    experience "redacting" refers to the practice of "blacking
                    out stuff" that somebody desires to hide before publishing
                    it in a wider context (i am not claiming that is the only
                    meaning, just the only usage i have come across ... i have
                    not seen it used in the general sense of edit, proofread).
                    remand in this case would probably have a diff meaning than
                    what the above poster intended ... i assume he means the
                    USA practice of outsourcing tourture, rather than returning
                    somebody to somebody elses custoody or jusrisdictionw when
                    you are "finished" with him. remand also often is used
                    by a higher court to send something back to a lower court
                    to reevaluate a case possibly with newly announced
        \_ YES I meant when US ships a guy to Egypt to bind his testicles
           to a satellite dish running Al-Jazeera because it's still illegal
           to do that on US soil.  We ship people to Syria don't we?
           I thought they were our opponents in the terror war.
2006/6/1-4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43250 Activity:low
6/1     EU3, U.S., Russia, and China reportedly agree on incentives, penalties
        package for Iran, what I call "sloppy sanctions".  My prediction:
        (1) Iran will continue enrichment research.
        (2) Penalties will be imposed, but not necessarily by a vote from the
            Security Council.
        (3) The penalties are limited in scope:  Blocking of financial
            transactions by Iranian govt officials by U.S. and most European
            banks, partial blocking of refined oil sold to Iran, visa blocks
            for govt officials for U.S. and most European countries.
        (4) China and anyone else who wants to get on board will cash in on:
            Financial transactions through unblocked instruments (through other
            banks, and partially by screens through private entities),
            continued favorable crude and refined oil contracts for China and
            Russia, limited arms sales from China and Russia, closer ties.
        (5) Iran will suffer only limited short-term effects economically.
        (6) In other words, everyone gets what they want except Dubya+Condi.
        (7) A new U.S. administration will come on board and try to figure out
            how to fix the Iran deal that benefits everyone but the U.S.
        \_ and the sanctions worked oh-so-well with IRAQ?
           \_ In a way, they did.  They didn't _have_ WMDs...
             \_ Just because US occupation forces haven't found any doesn't
                mean they never had any.
                \_ they're either in Syria, Iran, or buried in the desert!
                   \_ We know exactly where they are!

                \_ You don't sound like a desperate, pro-war republican
                   at all ... nah, no way.
                      \_ Somewhere to the north, east, and west...
        \_ Just FYI, Iran is not doing anything illegal right now.  They have
           the right to enrich Uranium for peaceful purposes under NPT.
           And... FYI,  USA is actively HINDERS international investigation
           on Mr. Khan of Pakistan and his nuclear black market for some
           \_ Correction: Iran has not yet been caught doing anything overtly
              illegal as far as the public knows.  URL for your Khan statement
              \_ the differences between civilian-grade and weapon-grade
                 uranium is only in concentration.  This is the problem
                 of enforcing NPT, as one can claim refining to civilian-grade
                 uranium and there is nothing we can do about.  *FURTHER*
                 1. think IRAQ.  This is dajavu all over again
                 2. USA is also a huge violation of NPT.
                 3. how about India? Pakistan?  Israel?
                 4. Iran can ALWAYS withdraw from NPT.
              \_ !op, no idea what article s/he was referencing, but Google
                 Newsing Abdul Qadeer Khan got this PDQ:
                 \_ Ok, I read the whole thing.  Let's assume Albright is
                    correct, these guys are CIA assets.  Why would we help
                    prosecute them?
                    \_ how about selling nuclear technologies and some of the
                       material to N.Korea, Iran, and Libya?
2006/5/19-22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43105 Activity:nil
5/18    Iran working on the Final Solution
        \_ ...speechless. And yet, perhaps not:
           \_ That link basically just says, "No Way!"  "Way!"
              \_ This one's much less ambiguous: http://csua.org/u/fx8
        \_ eh, from the totality of reports I'm seeing, it was definitely
           a motion, it's uncertain whether it was passed into law, and it's
           uncertain whether it was approved by the Supreme Leader
        \_ "This article is no longer available".  Retraction?  -John
2006/5/5-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:42953 Activity:nil
5/5     Blair fires Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who said that a preemptive
        nuclear strike on Iran was "completely nuts", and also said he was as
        "certain as he could be" that the U.S. would not engage in a
        (conventional) preemptive strike, and neither would the UK.
        As recently as April 18 this year, Dubya said "all options" were on
        the table ... I believe Blair hasn't publically backed up Straw,
        and instead let Dubya do the talking.
        \_ Jack Straw from Witchita cut his buddy down
2006/3/31-4/1 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:42592 Activity:moderate
3/31    "Iran Test-Fires Missile Able to Duck Radar"
        'Iran's existing ballistic rocket is called Shahab-3, which means
        "shooting star." It is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead."
        \_ We care why?
           \_ A hostile anti-American oil rich nation in control of long
              ranged evasive nuclear weapons sitting on top of a straight
              through which even more oil flows and we don't care.  I'm
              totally with you, bro!  Screw em!  Think locally, act locally!
              Back to caves and fire pits for everyone!  Woot!
              \_ why they are anti-American again?  hmmm... let see
                 how about not overthrowing their government for oil
                 for once?  how about stop labeling them "axis of evil?"
                 how about not shooting down their jet liner and give metal
                 to those who fired the missile?
              \_ I get that, it's just that I can read Yahoo news or a
                 newspaper, same as you.  Why does the motd care?
                 \_ Because the motd can't read the newspaper. :(
                    \_ No it can't it's not sentient.  But it's readers can.
                       Don't be dense.
              \_ Are you the OP?  Why didn't you write this in the first place
                 when you posted the link?
                 \_ No, I wasn't the OP. -ppp
        \_ I would say "elude" radar rather than "duck".
           It's probably a combination of radar-transparent materials
           and MIRV.  Ducking radar is more consistent with cruise missiles.
2006/3/9-11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:42167 Activity:nil
3/9     Poll on Iran. We will:
        attack iran:
        talk tough: ....
        send tom and dans to mediate the conflict: ..
        \_ Dude, are you trying to start a civil war? -dans
2006/3/8-10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran] UID:42134 Activity:nil
3/8     Murtha doesn't like Cheney's recent statements on Iran and why
        \_ He can try but he is not able to convince average American
           not to attack Iran.  Most American think we can go in, surgically
           bomb couple places and leaves, and suffers no consequences
           afterward.  Just like most people don't think much of our
           relationship with Iran has nothing to do with the fact that we
           overthrow their government for oil in the past.
2006/2/16-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:41889 Activity:nil
2/16    In Iran, Danish pastries now called "Roses of the Prophet Muhammad".
        \_ Congrats to Iran, they've proven their leaders are just as juvenile
           as ours.
           \_ What was it that clued you in, the pastry thing, the last 25
              years of "must destroy Israel", the head slapping, what?  -John
2006/2/6-7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:41722 Activity:nil
2/6     Iran asks the IAEA to cease "all voluntarily suspended non-legally
        binding measures", which includes:
        - Removal of all surveillance cameras and seals, by the end of next
        - Sharp reduction in number of inspectors and types of inspections
          (including surprise inspections), effective immediately
        - Formal date for resumption of full-scale enrichment, with some
          ("voluntary"?) IAEA inspector oversight
        \_ We should send in DELTA FORCE in inspector outfits and take out their
           nuke labs.
           \_ We should send in LANDSHARK.  -John
              \_ Candygram!
        - Sharp reduction in number of inspectors and types of inspections
          (including surprise inspections), effective immediately
        - Formal date for resumption of full-scale enrichment, with some
          ("voluntary"?) IAEA inspector oversight
2006/2/3-5 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:41692 Activity:moderate
2/3     http://tinyurl.com/a2gsf (nytimes.com)
        IAEA ready to vote to send Iran to Security Council, but U.S. lone
        holdout on new Egypt-introduced / UK-modified language which says
        Middle East should eventually be WMD-free (meaning Iran may be able
        to complain about "why does Israel get to have nukes").
        Western official:  "This resolution is about Iran"
        European official:  "It's five against one"
        Current text:  "a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue would
        contribute to the goal of a Middle East free of all WMDs, and their
        means of delivery."
        My prediction:  The U.S. will cave, and perhaps throw some bullshit
        language in there that everyone knows won't mean anything other than
        being a face-saving gesture.
        \_ Maybe... maybe not.  We've taken a hard line on Iran and I don't
           think we're going to trade away Israel's existence in exchange for
           sending Iran to the UNSC, a toothless organization which lacks will
           or even sufficient self interest to care.
           \_ The thing is, UK's language != "trade away Israel's existence".
              I predict the U.S. will realize that they're actually not giving
              much away using this language.
              Also, the Sec Council, as with all neutral and states which are
              traditionally opposed to the U.S., has its uses.  George H.W.
              Bush understood this, and was able to forge a truly international
              coalition (including Arab states) to kick Saddam out of Kuwait in
              Gulf War I, while saving enormous amounts of U.S. dollars and
              preserving the lives of our soldiers.
                \_ Yeah but he was a pussy
           \_ I probably should not respond to such a blatant troll, but how
              does agreeing to a nuclear free Middle East equate to agreeing
              to trade away Israel's existence?
              \_ It isn't a troll.  Let's see, tiny country of a few million
                 surrounded by hostile enemies numbering in the hundreds of
                 millions who have already launched several wars with the
                 intent of wiping them off the face of the map and "driving
                 them into the sea".  Several/most of those countries are
                 still officially in a state of war with Israel.  You think
                 something other than the threat of being nuked has kept
                 them at bay?  Either you're woefully ignorant or you're the
                 one trolling here.
                 \_ Well, there is the part where they keep losing...
                    \_ Israel only needs to lose once and it's over forever.
                       They barely made it the first time with heavy losses
                       and again later they only won due to sheer incompetence
                       on the part of the attackers.  Tell me again how a
                       nuke free Israel can survive when (not if) they get
                       attacked again?  Seriously, all of this is very public
                       \_ there's this thing called the United States.
                       knowledge.  The details are historic facts of these wars
                       are agreed upon by all sides and out sider observers.
                       Blowing up kids in discos and pizza parlors is what
                       the enemy does when a land invasion would result in
                       getting nuked.  It isn't due to the heart warming and
                       cheery good nature of their Arab neighbors that they
                       haven't been attacked since 73 which corresponds very
                       closely with the time Israel is assumed to have
                       acquired the nuke.  I'm sure it's just a coinkydink....
                       \_ there's this thing called the United States.
                          \_ So what?  It is sheer insanity for one country to
                             make its very existence dependant on the direct
                             military action of another country thousands of
                             miles away.  At best the little country becomes
                             a vassal/colony state, at worst they get crushed
                             and genocided anyway while their Lords debate over
                             sending American Boys(tm) to fight someone else's
                             war.  I can't believe I'm still bothering with
                             this.  Go read some very basic history of the
                             world.  I'm done being trolled.
                             \_ Israel has traditionally been a vassal colony
                                of more powerful nations throughout its
                                history. In fact, the period referred to
                                within the Bible when Israel was an independent
                                nation lasted for a relatively short period
                                of time (and obvious dissension caused the
                                early state to rift in two, resulting in
                                easy pickings for the neighboring mideast
                                countries). Anyone with a basic knowledge
                                of world history would've known that.
                                \_ "We did a stupid thing thousands of years
                                   ago, so let's repeat it today!"  What does
                                   all of what you're saying about history
                                   have anything to do with Israel today?  I
                                   would take it as a lesson to *learn* from
                                   the past, not attempt to mirror the horrors
                                   of it.  I don't see what point you're
                                   trying to make that regarding Israel today.
                                   You get an "A+" for Ancient History Of The
                                   Middle East if that makes you feel any
                                   better.  An "F" for being on topic.
2006/1/30-2/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:41604 Activity:low
1/31    New Iran development, see bottom:
        - Iran breaks seals, announces resumption of enrichment research
                                             \_ You continue to fail to
                                                understand my point.  I did
                                                not say it was a "good" ruling.
        - West condemns Iran, support move to Security Council
        - Iran condemns West, threatens full-scale enrichment upon referral
        - Russia/China upset, but don't support move to Security Council
        - Russia highlights enrichment in Russia
        - ... Days tick away to IAEA board meeting ...
        - Iran says Russian enrichment plan "positive"
        Last Thu-Fri:
        - West (including U.S.) fully endorses Russian enrichment plan
        - Iran says of Russian plan "capacity of the program not sufficient ...
          can be revised to be more complete"
        - Iran allows IAEA visits to Lavizan military site
        - China and Russia sign on to statement with EU3 + U.S. saying
          they support reporting Iran to UN Security Council in a IAEA vote
          Thursday.  Sec Council will consider issue in March after formal
          IAEA report is delivered.
        \_ Your timeline would be useful except you drop key points.  Like
           you say Iran allows IAEA visits to Lavizan, but you leave out
           the part that it was a limited visit and they weren't allowed to
           see everything they wanted to see which is why they got referred
           to the Security Council.  If you're going to bother, do it right.
           \_ OP might have an agenda.
              \_ op does not have an agenda.  BTW, Iran is not getting sent
                 to the Sec Council because of Lavisan restrictions, even
                 if they were in place, which is why I didn't mention them
                 and also the fact that Lavisan has been "cleaned" ahead of
                 time.  If you want to jump to conclusions at least get it
                 right. -op
           \_ Restrictions on Lavizan (which had already been "cleaned") is
              not why Iran is getting referred to the Sec Council.  If you
              say someone is wrong, please try to get it right. -op
              \_ op does not have an agenda. -op
              \_ Convenient that you forget to mention it.  If I'm wrong, go
                 ahead and prove it.  It's your timeline.  Post a real time
                 line with all the facts or dont bother.  Anything less and
                 you might as well just keep it to a few lines of whatever
                 your agenda is and save us the false appearance of historical
                 honesty spread across 20+ lines.
                 \_ Let's keep this discussion very focused.
                    You said restrictions on Lavizan is why Iran is getting
                    referred to the Sec Council.  Do you still stand by this?
                    \_ Stop being clever.  Post your link.  I said what I
                       said.  Either way, your 'timeline' stated that Iran
                       allowed the IAEA to 'visit' which is only technically
                       correct.  They were not allowed to look at everything
                       they needed to look at which is not in your timeline
                       which makes your version of history make the Iranians
                       look accomodating when they're not.  Focus, indeed.
                       \_ All you needed to say was, "Yes."
                          I mentioned that Russia and China were going to
                          support a move to the Sec Council, and I kind of
                          assumed the reader would realize, "Oh, if China and
                          Russia are on-board (even with the fact that China
                          gets 14% of its oil from Iran), maybe Lavizan was
                          just a dishonest attempt to divide the other side"?
                          You know, I think I just should have written, "Yes,
                          you're absolutely right that Lavizan was a diversion,
                          but the reason why the case is being moved to the UN
                          is because of the resumption of enrichment research.
                          I omitted the Lavizan detail because I kind of
                          assumed the reader would recognize and even post
                          about this."  I should have written that instead of
                          getting all pissed off about a random sodan
                          attacking me.
           \_ Restrictions on Lavizan is not why Iran is getting referred
              to the Sec Council.  If you want to make a statement, make
              sure it's correct. -op
                          \_ Ok then.  I just want to see history kept straight
                             if history is being posted.  IMO, Lavizan wasn't
                             an easily dismissed detail; I think it was quite
                             important.  I'm happy to leave it at that.
                                -- random sodan
                             \_ Not really dismissed, but I kind of assumed
                                the reader would realize it was a diversion --
                                that Iran would not be giving genuinely helpful
                                info re Lavisan access, given China/Russia's
                                support for move to the UN.  I kind of just got
                                pissed off when the post came with an attack
                                on me too.
2006/1/23-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:41484 Activity:nil
1/23    http://csua.org/u/eqr
        Iran's "president" Ahmadinejad in front of an interesting painting.
2006/1/22-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:41478 Activity:high
1/21    "India must not allow itself to be dragooned into joining the
         Washington-led nuclear lynch mob against Iran," The Hindu, one
         of India's most influential newspapers, cautioned Thursday.
         Iran Sanctions Could Drive Oil Past $100
         Looks like US and Bush admin addiction to oil is compromising
         our abililty to impose sanctions without hurting ourselves.
         $100 oil will tip US into recession.
         \_ Trolling at its finest.
         \_ Simple answer--India wants gas.  Iran has lots of it.  Viz.
            China and Sudan.  -John
            \_ Iran supplys something like 18% of petro to China.  and
               Iran is only major oil-producing nation which China has
               big investment in it.   To ask China to mess around with
               Iran is like asking USA to mess around with Saudi's.
               \_ Sort of my point, isn't it?  The only difference is that
                  some nations exhibit more scruples about the types of
                  government maintained by their energy suppliers (at least
                  when it suits them to do so.)  -John
                  \_ absolute monarchy which export extreme version of Islam?
                     FYI, China deals a lot of nasty government for its
                     energy needs (Sudan, for example).  But Iran is *NOT*
                     one of those 'nasty' governments.
                     \_ I'm pretty sure everyone here but you would consider
                        mainland China to be one of those 'nasty' governments.
                     \_ Uhm, wow...chicom troll doublethink at its finest.
                     \_ Chicom troll, I am sad.  After all my intensive troll
                        training, your reading comprehension still equals your
                        grammar skills and no more.  -John
                        \_ care to explain how US-Saudi relationship is morally
                           more superior than China-Iran relationship?
                           \_ Why should I?  You did catch the "when it suits
                              them" part, right?  You may also have noted a
                              mildly sarcastic tone in my post.  Back to
                              reading comp 101, grasshopper.  -John
         \_ To the person worried about Pakistan as a greater proliferation
            threat than Iran, one of the key problems with Iran getting
            nukes is they're a terrorist state and, unlike Pakistan, would
            be very likely to try directly or help their proxy terrorist
            armies smuggle a nuke into some other country's harbor.  There
            can't be any retaliation for such an act since it would be
            impossible to prove who nuked the city.  That city could be any
            coastal city with a port (all of them) in the world, or any city
            reachable easily by land due to lax boarders.  "Iran getting a
            nuke just isn't that big a deal" is a stupid concept for this and
            many other reasons.  This whole thread is troll heaven.  Have fun.
            \_ Iran is not a terrorist state.  They support certain group to
            \_ Iran is *NOT* a terrorist state.  They support certain group to
               achieve their foreign policy.  If anything, USA has outdo Iran
               in Afganstan in the 1980s, both in terms of amount of money
               involved, and the degree of extremism which the group receiving
               the aid.  Iran, though eccentric from our point of view, is
               nevertheless a rational State.  No rational state would give
               out nuclear weapon to any group just because chances of getting
               backfired is very high.  Pakistan is a problem because their
               intelligent service, one of the best in the world, has close
               tie to Pushtuns/Taliban in Afganistan.  N.Korea is a problem
               because they have an army which is one million strong but
               could barely eat two meals a day... and that they don't
               really need any delivery mechanism to do some harm across the
               38th parallel.  By comparison, Iran is a much less of a problem,
               as their youth is demanding more and more reform and open policy
               in the near future.
            \- It is extremely unlikely any state would as *a matter of policy*
               give away nukes. Schelling and Waltz [see links below] agree
               with this position and the scenario you spell out seems
               ridiculous ... iran would give one of its only nukes to a
               "terrorist army" to do whatever it wanted with it ... something
               that doesnt really advance iranian state aims in any concrete
               way but does run massive risks of getting caught and in
               which case iran faces a gret likelihood of this getting traced
               back to them. so the "policy" of xfer to terrorists scenario
               is not likely. the "loose nukes" -> terrorists scenario seems
               more likely and the more reasonable threats there are russia
               [lots of nukes], pak [state meltdown] or nkorea selling nuke
               tech. again the issue isnt "should we be happy or sad about
               iran getting nukes" but "what should he us policy be" and
               the policy formation stage depends on your beliefs about how
               this changes iran's "intentions and capabilities".
         \- What does a nuclear Iran with a small number of bombs with
            limited delivery options let Iran do that it cant do now,
            except significantly deter say bombing Tehran. This is a
            serious question and I have some ideas but I want to hear
            what other people think first. --thehindu@soda
            \_ much of US' attitude toward Iran is irrational.  We
               overthrow their democratic government in the 1950's, then
               the Shah we installed got overthrown, and we were angry at
               Iran ever since.  So, answer your question, a nuclear
               Iran is probably less problematic than Nuclear N.Korea or
               Pakistan.   By the way, India were on the side of USA last
               time UN voted on this matter.
                    \- i didnt ask "why is the us concerned about iran"
                       [which would be a foreign policy question], i asked
                       "how is the iran+nukes scenario different from
                       the iran-nonukes scenario" which is a question
                       about prediction or capabilities. anyway, one
                       scenario which i suppose is possible is that
                       the new iranian leader will feel a little more
                       emboldened to pursue low level terrorism sponsorship
                       [unlike libya or syria now] with nukes than without.
                       btw, aside from anti-western fatatics, you can hardly
                       blame reasonable iranians for being pissed off about
                       how the us handled the aftermath of the vincennes
                       shooting down the iranian airliner.
               \_ Hi pro-Iranian Troll!  No one gave a shit about the Shah.
                  Are you totally unaware of that little thing we called
                  The Hostage Crisis that went on for a few hundred days?
                  \_ no one give a shit about Shah?  The demand *WAS* about
                     1. apologize the overthrow of Mosaddeq and
                     2. hand over Shah back to Iran so USA won't try to
                        install him again.
                     This is typical... memory selectively failed on
                     all the wrong doings beforehand, then react violently
                     to the repercussion in the name of self-defense.
            \_ Threaten to hit southern Europe.  I don't understand how this
               isn't obvious.
               \_ why Iran want to bomb southern Europe again?  it's not
                  obvious at all.
                  \_ I'll rephrase it from the other point of view: if you
                     were in south europe would it concern you if the crazies
                     in Iran got nukes?  (yes, you're in reach in S.E.)  Crazy
                     people should not have nukes.  That should be obvious.
                     \_ it is *NOT* obvious that Iran is a "crazy" state.
                        Just because USA doesn't like Iran doesn't make it
                        crazy.  There are plenty of nations having plenty of
                        normal bilateral relationships with Iran.  They are
                        no less / no more diff than any other countries in the
                        region.  In fact, if anything, Iran is a much normal
                        state than, let say, Saudi Arabia.
                        \_ BUD DAY does *NOT* like your tone, son.
               \- So if Iran gets 10 nuclear bombs they may threaten
                  to nuke Athens? Rome? Nice? Can you spell out this
                  obvious scenario a little more? I would be helpful
                  if you signed your name since I want to know if I am
                  speaking to the same person in a followup. Just out of
                  curiosity, why isnt Pakistan interested in hitting
                  southern europe. Obviously it is implicit in my question
                  "what could they do and would have some interest in
                  \_ I think I'm being trolled so my answer will be brief:
                     Pakistan is a secular dictatorship who wants nukes
                     because their long term enemy next door has them.
                     Pakistan also doesn't have the range to hit most of India
                     much less Europe so that isn't an issue even if they
                     wanted to do so.
                     Iran is run by religious fundmentalist Muslims who
                     believe it is their duty to spread their form of Islam
                     over the entire world.
                     Europe is a secular super nation/state and happens to be
                     the closest interesting area to Iran.
                     Finally, what is the point of asking for my name when you
                     don't give yours?  How do I know any responses will be
                     \_ Two additions.  They are willing to spread Islam
                        by murder/conquest if necessary, and they seem to
                        think it would be a good idea to nuke Israel. -!pp
                        \_ you are mixing up Iran with Saudi Arabia.
                           Further, USA spread democracy by murder/conquest if
                           necessary too, right?
                           \_ When did you stop beating your wife?
                              \_ My eyes, they see only happy things!
                                 \_ You and chicom troll, man.  Maybe you
                                    should switch to a lower dosage....
            \_ Some possibilities that I can think of:
               1. Nuke strategic targets in Israel. I do not think that
                  Iran has sufficient conventional weapons that can be
                  delivered as far as Israel and cause serious damage.
               2. Give the nukes to Iran friendly factions currently
                  fighting in Iraq or Afganistan. Iran's conventional
                  capability, again, is probably insufficient to signif-
                  icantly affect American forces.
               3. Give the nukes to Pakistan for use against India (or
                  perhaps direct use against India).
                        \_ Seriously, each of your points are so dumb,
                           you really need to stay out of this discussion.
                           What does a faction struggling for political
                           control need a nuclear bomb for?  Given that
                           Pakistan already has nukes and Iran doesn't,
                           doesnt it seem a little odd to be talking about
                           Iran -> Pak nuke xfer.  And what does Iran get out
                           of seriously pissing off India?  Are you are troll
                           or are you an idiot?  To be ignorant of politics
                           is ok, but to be so dumb as to wade into a
                           conversation where you have no grasp of any of
                           the relevant facts, is just ...
                           the relevant fact, is just ...
                           India and Iran are on decent terms.  Khatami was
                           the guest of honor at the 2003 Republic Day
                           festivities. Later this week, this year's chief
                           guest will be the Saudi king.
               \_ Do you seriously think there would be anything left of
                  the place formerly known as "Iran" within several hours
                  of a nuclear attack on Israel?  Israel almost certainly
                  \- or france, or italy or ...
                  has the H-bomb, and presumably already has everything in
                  Iran targeted with the finger on the button, and one would
                  imagine that Iran knows this.  I would also hope, as an
                  American, that if they ever used a nuclear weapon on Israel
                  and  Israel was unable to retaliate for some reason, that
                  the U.S. would level their country.
                  \_ Do you seriously think the nutheads running Iran share
                     your belief in Mutally Assured Destruction theories or
                     your western view of the value of life?  Willing to bet
                     a few million lives on it?  Not even the Iranians are
                     willing to try to push that line.  Their entire public
                     stance is that this is about peaceful energy sources
                     for their own country which is a crock since they're
                     the fourth largest oil producer in the world and have
                     relatively tiny energy needs.
                                \- yes the public stance is a lie but the
                                   bush administration also knew that the
                                   steel tarriffs were illegal. and the us
                                   signing on to plank ii of the NPT is also
                                   a "crock". the rhetoric is not important.
                                   whether you would choose to bet on it is
                                   also not important, since preventing this
                                   is not a free choice. the question is
                                   what should the us do about it, and then
                                   three categories are accept that it will
                                   happen [not necesarily quietly], try to
                                   prevent it without military action, try
                                   to prevent it with military action.
                                   i personally think the us will not be able
                                   to prevent iran from getting nukes although
                                   it is possible some actions can make it
                                   take say 10yrs instead of 5. i also dont
                                   think the mullahs actually in power are
                                   as irrational as you seem to think they are.
                                   this isnt an especially great interview
                                   but it is from a long time commentator on
                                   nukes who isnt a liberal fruitcake on this
                                   exactly question. BTW Schelling also won the
                                   Econ nobel last year, in part for this work
                                   on nuclear deterrence theory:
                                   After stumbling on that article i searched
                                   for some other good names. see the last
                                   page of this article:
                                  Nicely put: "the us worries as much
                                  about being deterred as being attacked".
                                  Well i dunno about the "as much" but
                                  if you factor probabilities in, that is
                                  probably true. Waltz is ex-UCB and
                                  "The world's most influential International
                                  Relations scholar" and "most cited book
                                  ever written in the field of International
                                  Relations". Mearshimer is also a pretty
                                  interesting fellow. Allison is a little
                                  airy-fairy. Jervis is solid. I am not
                                  familar with the other fellow.
                                   BTW, do you think the people advocating
                                   SDI dont believe in MAD? do you think they
                                   are willing to bet millions of lives on
                                   SDI/ABM technology?
                                  Relations scholar" and author of "the most
                                  cited book ever written in the field of
                                  International Relations". Mearshimer is
                                  also a pretty interesting fellow. Allison
                                  is a little airy-fairy. Jervis is solid.
                                  I am not familar with the other fellow.
                  \- look the "iran nukes X" scenario is ridiculous.
                     one thing that is possible is they will be
                     emboldened to more aggressively pursue low level
                     terrorism and figure the US is less likely to
                     bomb tehran in retaliation [along the likes of
                     Raygun bombing Khadafi]. i actually think the pakistani
                     bomb is more dangerous than the iran bomb because
                     a meltdown of the pakistani state in the crazy direction
                     is a lot more likely and then you may have loose nukes.
                     if pakistan has a meltdown in the next 10 yrs ... say
                     their maximum leader is assassinated and different
                     military generals start a violent struggle and one
                     tries to ally with a fundamentalist faction ... it will
                     be an interesting question whether india or the united
                     states will freak out more.
                     \_ How would a "meltdown of the pakistani state in the
                        crazy direction" look any different from what Iran
                        already is?
                        \- iran is not an anarchy. i would worry more about
                           the period of anarchy than the aftermath. that's
                           what i mean by "loose nukes". nuclear weapons are
                           good for deterring threats against the homeland.
                           the big problem with the is the problem of
                           accidents and proliferation to non-state actors.
                           what effects nukes have lower of the "ladder of
                           escalation" is unclear. like would the iran-
                           iraq war have looked different if one side had
                           5-10 bombs? i dont think that is clear. if both
                           sides had 5-10 nukes do you think it would have
                           happened at all?
                           \_ Pakistan is a different issue and is not
                              currently 3 months from having nukes running
                              around loose.  And even if Pakistan was in
                              the midst of chaos the Iran situation would
                              remain a problem and need to be dealt with.
                              I don't understand this "we can only deal with
                              or think about one problem at a time and the
                              worst problem makes the second worst problem
                              ok and acceptable by comparison."  This sort of
                              deflection is the second weakest form of
                              rhetorical debate tactic.
                              \- i'm not the one saying "we can only
                                 deal with one problem at a time" and i
                                 am not sure anybody else here is.
                                 my position is:
                                 1. i think iran will get nukes
                                 2. i think from their point of view it makes
                                    sense for them to get nukes [just like it
                                    makes sense for pakistan and the israelis,
                                    and note "makes sense/is rational" !=
                                    "is a good thing/makes me happy"]
                                 3. i would personally be more worried about
                                    the PAK nukes[#4], but that is a estimation
                                    of risks not a policy prescription ...
                                    i might think Las Vegas real estate will
                                    do better than Phoenix real estate but
                                    that doesnt mean i am suggesting buying
                                    into Vega$.
                                 4. in gereral i think the concern about
                                    proliferation is really about "loose
                                    nukes" rather than states we dont line
                                    having the bomb. so the problem is
                                    stability and competence more than
                                  [once again, you may wish to see the
                                  adelphi paper "the spread of nuclear weapons,
                                  more may be better", written by a now
                                  fmr ucb prof kenneth waltz.]
                                  5. sure iran is doing lots of lying but
                                     guess what, that's standard in diplomacy.
                                     if country A asks country B, are you
                                     spying on us, what are they supposed to
                                     do, answer the question completely and
                                     truthfully? when the us signed the non-
                                     proliferation treaty which says the
                                     nuclear states should eventually be
                                     pursuing the goal of total disarmamanet
                                     did the us lie?
            \_ Sell their oil to whomever they wish, continue with theocracy
               without fear of US inteference, etc. Nukes are a deterrent.
               They say leave us the hell alone.
               \_ No one is invading Iran.  Their 18 year effort to get nukes
                  and the lies they've told about it are not about getting a
                  \_ Instead of speaking in negatives, how about explaining
                     what Iran is doing, then?
                  \_ Various elements in the Bush Administration have
                     threatened Iran with invasion and Bush included them
                     in his "axis of evil" so I think it is reasonable that
                     they are concerned about an invasion. If things had
                     gone well in Iraq, Bush proabably would have invaded
                     Iran by now.
2006/1/12-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:41366 Activity:kinda low
1/12    Iran all of a sudden says they want to talk now
        \_ Talk about a play right out of the North Korean handbook.
           \_ True, but all the major players are at a consensus that they
              don't want Iran to have The Bomb, and are also in a position
              to actually punish Iran with economic sanctions -- unlike
              N. Korea, which is already isolated anyway so that the effect
              of sanctions would be diminished, and was a whole big mess
              with S. Korea and China not on the same page as the U.S.
              And you know what?  I credit international diplomacy.
                \_ You credit diplomacy with accomplishing what?
              The EU3 played a role because they want to negotiate first.
              The U.S. played a role because they pushed the EU3 to put
              teeth and a real stick into the negotiations along with the
              carrots.  They moderated each other.
              The IAEA is playing a role because their inspectors are actually
              there, monitoring critical equipment.
              Russia, China, and Annan are playing roles by acting as
              Iran's good buddies, telling Iran that they won't stop the West
              from imposing sanctions (which opens the door to other things),
              until they finally realize they can't play this game anymore.
              This game is playing out as best as it could, IMO.
              \_ oohhh, like good cop/bad cop?
                 \_ Yeah, Russia/China/Annan = good cop ; U.S.+EU3 = bad cop
                    The U.S. needed to infect the EU3 in order for them to
                    become the bad cop.
                    \_ Perhaps I'm an idiot, but what does the 3 in EU3
                       stand for?
                       \_ UK, Germany, France
              \_ Iran supplies close to 20% of China's oil need.  I am not
                 sure China is playing good cop, or is that China is simply
                 don't want to mess around with its main oil supplier (similar
                 to US would never mess with Saudis).  Further, IAEA and EU and
                 USA all have credibility problem.  If IAEA/EU/USA allow
                 India/Pakistan/Israel/N.Korea to have the bomb, why can't
                 Iran join the club?
                 \_ This is a stupid question, I hope you see why.
                    \_ no, I don't.
                       \_ Well, first off, IAEA/EU/USA didn't "allow" any
                          of those countries to get the bomb (except MAYBE
                          Israel, but I'm not even sure they "officially"
                          have the bomb, although they obviously have had
                          it for > 20 years).  Those counties got the bomb
                          secretly.  Can you honestly say the US
                          "allowed" NK to get the bomb?  Those are all
                          considered failures of the anti-nuclear
                          proliferation programs.
                          Furthermore, we don't like Iran, and we don't
                          trust them.  It's perfectly reasonable to try to
                          stop them from getting the bomb.  Sure, that's a
                          subjective measurement, but so is everything.
                          Whether 9/11 was good or bad is also subjective.
              \_ You credit diplomacy with accomplishing what?
                 \_ "This game is playing out as best as it could, IMO."
                 \_ "Our job is to form a common consensus.  This is what's
                    called diplomacy." -GW Bush, Genius (Jan 13, 2006)
                    \_ So the success here was getting the EU to go along with
                       the idea that being in range of Iranian nukes is a bad
                       situation?  In the meantime, they've broken the seals,
                       and restarted (if they ever stopped) working on a nuke.
                       Yay diplomacy!
2006/1/12-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:41360 Activity:nil
1/12    Iran: Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
        \_ Damn that is fucked up.
           \_ Ya it is. It's not stated in the article but I'm guessing that
              the rapists (intended rapists?) were probably part of some
              self-appointed militia that was "defending Islam". In Iran, it's
              illegal to be in public with a member of the opposite sex who is
              not close family (1st cousins often marry, so that's not
           \_ on top of it, how come some lunatic managed to become the
              \_ because it's a religious state and he's the biggest supporter
                 of that sort of thing going back decades?
                 \_ Because he's a fundamentalist politician with a history of
                    anti-corruption and  standing up for the poor. That doesn't
                    mean he's not a nutjob, but it sort of explains the
                    appeal to the voters.
                    \_ It also helps when the religious nut heads who actually
                       run the country decide who is and is not allowed to run
                       in an election.
                       \_ Excellent point. --pp
2006/1/10-12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran] UID:41322 Activity:low
1/10    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/international/10cnd-iran.html
        Iran about to cross the "red line", breaking seals and announcing they
        will introduce uranium gas ino a research centrifuge.  According to an
        IAEA official, if Iran uses that centrifuge, the pilot research would
        allow Iranian scientists "to acquire the knowledge and the ability" to
        do enrichment at any level.
        (The previous breaking of seals was for uranium conversion, which was
        uranium ore -> uranium gas, which is relatively low-tech.)
        My prediction is that they'll let the centrifuge sit unsealed, but
        won't actually spin it with uranium gas inside.  If they do ... this
        would be their "all-in" bet.  This latest move is a big raise, to
        continue that analogy.
        \_ They already crossed the line.
           \_ It is one red line to many people to break those seals, I agree,
              and the West is acting hella pissed off ... but in my book, the
              real red line is actually spinning a (research) centrifuge with
              uranium gas, at which point the West+Russia will *be* more hella
              pissed off than acting that way.
        \_ Iran is doing the best it can to get the EU and the US on the same
        key for a change. They just might succeed.
2006/1/2-4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:41194 Activity:nil
1/2     Next on our target list:  Iran.  This war on terror thing is getting
        better and better!
        After we hit them, only way Iran can hit us back is to support
        terrorist activities against USA... then, we can claiming that
        the pre-emptive strike against Iran is justified because it supports
        terrorist organization... I love this.
        \_ So, what would you suggest we do about Iran?
           \_ leave them alone, just like what we've done to Pakistein,
              India, Israel and North Korea.
              \- Do you mean India -> Hindustein
2005/12/14-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran] UID:41014 Activity:low
12/14   Following up on an earlier thread... "Iran President: Holocaust is
        a 'Myth'"  http://csua.org/u/eb0
        \_ in other news, aliens land in Terran
           \_ Soon they'll land in Protoss and Zerg
2005/12/5-6 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:40850 Activity:high
12/5    http://csua.org/u/e66 (Washington Post, Aug 2 2005)
        "A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a
        decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon
        ... in line with recently revised British and Israeli figures."
        http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article331219.ece (Dec 4 2005)
        "Although IAEA officials have said it would take at least two years for
        Natanz to become fully operational, Mr ElBaradei believes that once the
        facility is up and running, the Iranians could be 'a few months' away
        from a nuclear weapon."
        http://csua.org/u/e67 (jpost.com, Dec 5 2005)
        "IAEA chairman Muhammad ElBaradei on Monday confirmed Israel's
        assessment that Iran is only a few months away from creating an atomic
        So, uh ... what exactly changed between August 2nd, 2005 and now?
        \_ Nothing has changed - the IAEA has always been completely inept.
        \_ Nothing has changed - the IAEA has always been completely inept as
           have most of our politicized intelligence agencies (e.g. State
           and the CIA, glaringly exposed in the Plame case).
           It should not be any surpise then that we missed WTCI and II,
           Pakistan, India, Libya, Cole, Sudan, WMD in GWI, etc...
           The point is not whether Iran is months away from a bomb, they
           probably have that now.  Rather, the key question is whether they
           have a nuclear tipped Shahab-3.
           probably have that now.  Rather, the key question is
           whether they have a nuclear tipped Shahab-3.
           Those nuclear bunker busters and theater missile defense sure
           sound like a good idea now eh?
           Thank you Jimmy Carter
           \_ bunkerbuster bombs dont work, study your physics.
              \_ Yeah, I'm sure those dead people agree.
              \_ tell that to all those women and children hiding in the
                 baby milk factory.
                 \_ I'm glad you brought that up. Those signs looked
                    believable to me.
                    \_ What?  You don't believe a sign written in English in
                       the middle of Iraq that says, "BABY MILK FACTORY! DO
                       NOT BOMB HERE YOU EVIL AMERICAN PIG DOGS!"?
           \_ I would agree that IAEA is completely inept.  I mean, they
              should of pressure USA and Russia to disarm their nuclear
              weapons as part of the deal too.  Instead, it is single-mindly
              focusing on those who want to join the nuclear club.
              \_ Uhm... what?
        \_ Dunno but guessing: new intelligence info?  The world isn't static.
        \_ Maybe the recent story about Iran buying nuclear tech from North
           Korea for oil
           \_ This post is so partisan I don't know what to say.
              \_ Yeah, he forgot the part about the CIA missing the fall of
                 the USSR, since spying on the Soviets and knowing what was
                 going on was the reason for the CIA to exist the last 50+
                 \_ you didn't know that USA and Russia suppose to disarm as
                    part of NPT, don't you?
                    \_ you mean article 6?  re-read it.
        \_ honestly, I don't see any danger of Iran having nuclear weapon.
           If anything, India/Pakistein poses more danger simply because one
                                \- is that the Jewish part of Pakistan?
           of them have the incentive to use it in a conflict.
2005/11/10-12 [Politics/Foreign/Europe, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:40532 Activity:nil
11/10   http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=809
        "The polling also finds that in most majority-Muslim countries
        surveyed, support for suicide bombings and other acts of violence in
        defense of Islam has declined significantly. ...
        A notable exception to this trend is Jordan, where a majority (57%) now
        says suicide bombings and other violent actions are justifiable in
        defense of Islam." (July 14, 2005)
        http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=206 (March 16, 2004)
        [note that support for suicide bombings against coalition forces in
        Iraq dropped from 70 to 49% in Jordan from the '04 to '05 reports]
2005/11/9-11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:40512 Activity:moderate
11/9    Terrorists simultaneously bomb Grand Hyatt, Radisson, and Days Inn
        hotels in Amman Jordan, targeting Westerners / Israelis - 18+ dead,
        120+ injured.
        (yes, they come up with ever more inventive ways to select dates for
        \_ the scary thing is, this is no longer interesting news.
        \_ fyi, Jordanians are at the top when polling on whether bombings
           against Westerners in Iraq, and against Israelis by Palestinians,
           are justifiable -op
           \_ Completely different issue.  Bombing in Iraq is not much
              different than Frensh Resistance in WW2.
              \_ It isn't?  This is another CSUA History Book Fund item.
           \_ Every time I read crap like that I have the very brief urge to
              go join the Israeli army.
              \_ Do it.  It is one of few organization which can perform
                 torture and genocide without being prosecuted.
                 \_ Hi troll!  And liar too.
                 \_ No, no.  That's the PLO.  (Or Hamas, etc.) Other side.
           \_ I am surprised that Isreali Jews dare to venture into places like
              Jordan or Egypt. My understanding was that despite normal
              diplomatic relations between those countries and Israel, the Arab
              population of Jordan and Egypt still harbors hostile feelings
              towards Jews (specially in Jordan, where something like 40% of
              population are descendants of Palestinean refugees).
              \_ Look up "Black September".  They have reason to hate the
                 Jordanians even more.  But then again, I guess "rational"
                 doesn't really apply here.  -John
                 \_ I thought King Hussein got broke his back during one of
                    PLO's attack...
                    \_ KH gave up Jordanian claims on the West Bank because
                       he was rightfully afraid that the palestinians were
                       going to take over his country.  It was the easy way
                       out for him and prevented a civil war he couldn't
                       afford and likely would have lost.
        \_ sorry if this is a morbid detail, but in Jordan the date today is
           written as "9/11" (day before month)
           \_ Ah, they thought today is the "Nine Eleven" anniversay.
              \_ Damned dyslexic terrorists.
                 \_ On what date did the Iraq invasion begin?
2005/10/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:40199 Activity:nil
10/20   Powell fucks Dick
        "a plea bargain process has evidently been opened with Vice President
        Cheney's lawyer ... Powell ... showed that memo only to two people--
        president and vice president. ... Powell testified about this exchange
        in great length to the grand jury ... Powell appeared convinced that
        the vice president played a focal role in disclosing plame's undercover
        \_ Is it possible to overdose on schadenfreude?
           \_ On the contrary, my mom is convinced that when my grandmother
              was dying of a degenerative brain disease back in the 70's,
              that Watergate-related shadenfreude added months to her life.
              She was a Trotskyist, and of course loathed Nixon.
           \_ Could the "schadenfreude" guy please give it a rest? The only
              reason any of us gain any bit of enjoyment in what's happening
              is in the possibly naive hope that America will wake up and
              vote these corrupt, incompetent and treasonous clowns out of
2005/9/24 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:39850 Activity:nil 57%like:39860
9/24    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050924/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_agency_iran
        IAEA votes to refer Iran to UN Security Council.  In order to obtain
        abstentions from China and Russia, language specifying "sanctions" and
        including a specific date were dropped.
        \_ how about N.Korea?
2005/9/15-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran] UID:39697 Activity:low
9/15    US Deploys Powerpoint slides against Iran
        \_ See, last time we used presentation boards.  Powerpoint is MUCH more
        \_ How about India/Pakistan/N.Korea/Israel?  Why pick on Iran?
           Mind you that:
           - Iran is much larger country than Iraq
           - Iran is China's main oil supplier, and China's effort to
             diverse its oil supply kind of killed by USA couple months ago.
           - UN Security Council
           - China sits in UN Security Consoul...
2005/8/25-26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:39269 Activity:low
8/25    Cindy Sheehan equates US to Syria
        http://media.putfile.com/Sheehan_SFSU_Speech                -jblack
        \_ Oh my god, Fox News! Fair and Balanced!
        \_ "It's okay for Israel to occupy Palestine ... and it's okay for ...
           the United States to occupy Iraq, but it's not okay for Syria to be
           in Lebanon?  They're a bunch of fucking hypocrites." April 27, 2005
           My answer:  Israel is in Palestine (right now at least) because
           suicide bombings were popularized in the Israel-Palestine
           conflict.  The U.S. occupies Iraq because we thought they had WMDs
           (they didn't have them when we invaded, and their WMD programs were
           dormant, but despite the fuckup, we're not leaving until things look
           stable).  Syria is occupying Lebanon, but not because they're
           being attacked by suicide bombers or a belief Lebanese have WMDs.
           \_ So, basically, you like our excuses better?
              \_ hey, I said it was a fuckup didn't I?
                 \_ And israel? (that "our" was supposed to be collective)
           \_ what about Guantanamo Bay
              \_ What about it?
           \_ So occupied area fighting back = justification to continue
              \_ Nah, it's just cleaning up your own mess.  You lose points
                 if you're making a bigger mess in the cleanup.
           \_ My answer (and hers, although she's got an unfortunate way of
              putting it): No, it's not okay. And since we're happy to have
              Syria kicked out of Lebanon, we should be happy about the Gaza
              pullout, and we should be making plans to leave Allawi to get
              his own act together.
              \_ Allawi? You're behind the times, dude.
2005/8/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:39222 Activity:moderate
8/23    It's Pat:
        Pat Roberson calls to have Hugo Chavez assassinated. Gee, prominent
        public relig figure calling for "death to <head of state>" ... what
        does that remind you of? I like the line "This is in our sphere of
        influence, so we cant let this happen" ... gee, I wonder if people
        in Venezuala talk about "American Black Helecopters". And I wonder
        if Hugo Chavez is a bigger theat to America than activist judges".
        Any bets on who the next ambassador to Venezuala might be?
        \_ Jesus for Oil..
           \_ I'm willing to make that trade.
        \_ Huge Chavez is a clown. -- ilyas
        \_ Hugo Chavez is a clown. -- ilyas
           \- So? Who would you rather have as your ruler, Hugo or Pat?
              \_ Well, I was gonna say you, Partha, but then I remembered you
                 would feed me ankles first into a woodchipper. -- ilyas
                 \- in spite of your psb-persecution complex, you'ld
                    probably be pretty low on my reeducation or beyond
                    reeducation, convert to fertilizer list. --psbpot
                    \_ I don't know, Partha, you haven't seen me with a lot
                       of money. -- ilyas
                       \- ok i'll keep my options option to have your
                          bones scraped with a rusty file.
              \_ When Pat ran for President in the 80s I distinctly remember
                 him saying that one of his first acts as President would be
                 to nuke the USSR.  So I'd rather have Chavez.
        \_ We need to keep our mullahs in line ... Maybe Venezuela should
           ship off Robertson somewhere, say Egypt.  I love the automatic
           assumption that Venezuela's oil belongs to us because it is in
           our "hemisphere" ... Isn't it property of the people of Venezuela?
           \_ But they are Brown and Catholic, therefore subservient to
              Anglo-Saxon Jesus.
           \_ Heh, yeah, it Belongs to the People. -- ilyas
              \_ No, actually, it's properly owned by PDV, which is at least
                 majority- if not entirely owned by the government of
                 Venezuela, which is, at least pro forma, a democracy, so yes,
                 it Belongs to the People.  If you want to argue that
                 knocking off that fucker Chavez is a good thing due to
                 geostrategic interests (and, well, because he's a fucker)
                 then that's entirely different (this is what I think we
                 should have done with Saddam and couple of other places if
                 we were honest about it).  However, there is _no_ argument
                 that Venezuelan (or any other) oil supplies "belong" to
                 anyone other than whoever's got the drilling rights to
                 them.  -John
                 \_ I am fairly sure the oil in Venezuela belongs to Chavez.
                    Personally, I am in favor of knocking off Chavez _last_
                    among the world's head-of-state fuckers because, hey,
                    at least he's funny. -- ilyas
        \_ Let's see... Chavez is aligned with Iran, Ven. is becoming
           a client state of China, and Chavez provides extensive
           military support to the FARC narco-terrorists.
           Without oil Venezuela = Zimbabwe.  I'd say pat is exactly right,
           but shows poor judgement to say such things in public.
                    \_ Fair enough.  Nonetheless, the point isn't who it
                       belongs to, rather who it doesn't, i.e. us.  And
                       careful, Partha "the Mulcher" is watching.  -John
        \_ Let's see... Chavez is aligned with Iran, Ven. is becoming
           client state of China, and Chavez provides extensive
           military support to the FARC narco-terrorists.  I'd say
           Pat is exactly right.  Without oil Venezuela = Zimbabwe.
                       \- still crazy after all these years ...
                 *Boredcast Message from 'john': Thu Oct 13 15:47:45 1994
                 ||ok...straw poll:
                 ||If anyone on soda was to become the evil dictator of a small
                 ||country, who would it be?
                 ||(assuming I get to be chief of the secret police)
                 *Boredcast Message from 'alanc': Thu Oct 13 15:48:30 1994
                 ||Probably psb
        \_ I am pretty sure that this is an act of terrorism as defined
           by the Patriot Act. I won't hold my breath waiting for him
           to be arrested.
        \_ Let's see... Beaner is aligned with Turbin, Venezuela is becoming
           client state of Chink, and Beaner provides extensive
           military support to the Turbin wearin terrorists.  I'd say
           Pat is exactly right.  Without oil Venezuela = Bin Laden.
           Fuck immigrants, blacks, and Jews.                   !jblack
           \_ "Can anybody understand what this duck is saying?"
        \_ Pat in 2003:
           "How dare the president of the United States say to the duly
            elected president of another country, 'You've got to step down.'"
2005/8/19-20 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:39182 Activity:low
8/18    Really, I probably wouldn't admit to this attack
        http://csua.org/u/d3a (Yahoo)
        \_ Why not?  Terrorism and guerilla warfare rely only in part on
           intimidating your military opponents into thinking they can be
           attacked from anywhere; a large part of the point is to gain
           credibility with the kind of gullible young thugs who're easily
           impressed with this sort of thing--and what's more daring and
           impressive than hitting a US navy warship?  -John
           \_ Except they didn't.  They just killed some random innocent
              Jordan soldier.  I would file that under "screw up."  I see
              what you're saying though.
           \_ terrorism is weak , nothing more absolute than dropping
              a nuke on mecca
              \_ That would just incite more retributive attacks.  How about
                 nuking (or really just conventially blowing up) one of those
                 extremist Islamic schools for every terror attack.
                 \_ Yeah, cuz killing children doesn't piss anyone off.
2005/8/10-11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:39079 Activity:nil
8/10    FYI, Iran broke IAEA seals on equipment that's used in the first half
        of the fuel cycle today.  Earlier this week they had resumed work
        without breaking seals.
        Can you say:  EU3 and U.S. bluff called?
        \_ In other news, I'm now getting propaganda spam about this.
           \_ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/10/nuclear_spam_trojan
              \_ Aiyahhh. Thank you.
2005/8/8-11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:39057 Activity:nil
8/8     Iran resumes fuel cycle work
        My interpretation:
        (1) Iran has just successfully called the bluff of both the EU3 and
            the U.S., or,
        (2) The U.S. really does want to refer Iran to the Security Council,
            impose sanctions, and gear up for war in ~ 2-3 years.
        My solution had been to create a schedule whereby Iran /could/
        perform different stages of the fuel cycle until after some number of
        years they could do the whole thing, but hey, if we want to do (1)
        first that's fine by me, and if the U.S. wants to do (2), well ...
        I guess we'll find the troops to do it somehow.
        \_ They'll just draft CSUAers and conservative bloggers.
2005/8/8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39044 Activity:nil
8/8     Iran resumes fuel cycle work
2005/8/2-4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:38940 Activity:nil
8/2     That's pretty funny.  Last week Iran said they would resume uranium
        enrichment.  Dubya called them on that.  Iran backed down.  Then
        we have reports yesterday of the National Intelligence Estimate saying
        the consensus is that Iran is 10 years away from a nuclear weapon -- at
        best.  Now Iran today says, fuggit, we're enriching.
        Diplomacy at work!
2005/7/30-8/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:38891 Activity:nil
7/30    Freedom is on the march!
        "The vote is the first in which Mubarak -- in power for 24 years --
        will face an opponent, and his government has said it will serve as a
        launching pad for greater democracy. ...
        On Saturday, several hundred men and women were gathering to begin
        their march toward Cairo's main square when men in plainclothes
        descended on them, swinging billy clubs and assaulting the
        demonstrators. Burly government supporters surrounded activists
        sprawled on the pavement, kicking them in the head and ribs and
        tearing at their clothes. Others lifted protesters in the air by the
        arms and legs, hauling them off to police trucks. One elderly man
        wandered in a daze, his head bleeding. 'Down with the rule of the dog
        Mubarak,' one young man yelled as he was being clubbed. "
        \_ Are the several hundred men and women gathering without a permit
           to loudly yell their support for Mubarak not molested in this
           manner?  If your answer is "the government won't give anti-Mub
           demonstrators a license" then there's really a different, more
           immediately relevant blow to democracy right there... and one that's
           much closer to things that are starting to happen in the U.S.
           \_ So you honestly believe the level of freedom in Egypt is similar
              to the levels in the US?  Or that we're not that far from where
              they are?  Okey dokey....
              \_ Boy, I didn't remotely say that, but you turn it into whatever
                 makes you happy.
           \_ Yes, Egypt is massively repressive, especially about things
              like public gatherings. This is not new, btw.
2005/6/22-23 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:38242 Activity:low
6/22    Was this U2 shot down over Iran?
        \_ If you don't know, how would any of us know?
        \_ Which is better, U2 or SR-71?
           \_ SR-71, or originally RS-71, and before that A-12, was better
              but now is retired.
              \_ Huh?  The A-12 was never built, and it wasn't a
                 reconnaissance plane.
              \_ Hmmm.. this guy seems to think the SR-71 is back in
                 service.  Has anyone heard that before?
                 \_ The SR-71 program was cancelled in the late 80s/early 90s,
                    reactivated around 1994, and re-deactivated in the late
                    90s. NASA also used them for a while to escort landing
                    Space Shuttles, since they were the only things fast
                    enough to keep up with the re-entry speeds. -gm
                    \_ Why were landing Space Shuttles escorted?  It's not like
                       the escorting planes could do something when things went
                       wrong on the Shuttles.
                       \_ I think it was to perform visual inspections for
                          damage, that sort of thing. Maybe also to measure
                          wind and such, since the Shuttles are just really big
                          gliders. -gm
2005/6/16-18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:38165 Activity:high
6/16    For those who want to push democracy worldwide and bitch Iran
        being member of "axis of evil,"  Do you even realize that Iran
        has a very lively democracy and they are holding their presidential
        election this Friday?
        \_ anyone remotely familiar with the gov of iran knows that the
           theocratic body can over rule any decision of elected
           representatives at any time.  so either you're ignorant
           or a troll.
        \_ The Democaracy is very weak in Iran. The ultimate authority still
           lies with the mullahs. The president is very weak and mullahs
           get to decide who can run for a seat in Iranian parlament.
           Last year, they prevented a couple of thousand candidates from
           running from not being faithful enough to the priciples of their
           running for not being faithful enough to the priciples of their
           revolution. The mullahs also can pretty much veto anything.
        \_ Hahaha.  Do you realize that people who wish to run in the
        \_ Hahaha.  Do you realize that the only people who run in the
           elections must be approved by the mullahs?  Imagine if Bush got
           to decide who ran in all the elections, state, city, senate,
           house, etc. Would you call that a "lively democracy?" (Oh, and
           Bush has been made supreme leader, he cannot be taken from
           office.  No elections for him.)
           \_ it's a different form of democracy.  Why don't you bitch
              about Britian's upper house are appointed?
              \_ Freedom is slavery!  Despotism is democracy!
           house, etc. Would you call that a "lively democracy?"
              \_ kngharv is funny.
              \_ AFAIK, the house of lords does not directly influence
                 gov policy (except as relates to certain judicial appeals).
              \_ It's _not_ a "different kind of democracy".  By your
                 definition, the Soviet Union was a "different kind of
                 democracy", as was the US before letting women and blacks
                 vote.  Newspapers are regularly shut down, people beaten,
                 imprisoned and killed for voicing anti-government opinions,
                 an unelected self-perpetuating system (council of guardians,
                 supreme leader) has the possibility of vetoing all electoral
                 candidates and laws, and the revolutionary guard/interior
                 ministry holds the implied threat of violence over everyone's
                 head.  But hey, I guess Zimbabwe is a "different kind of
                 democracy" too.  -John
                 \_ threat of violence, though illegal by Red Cross standard,
                    is sactioned by USA and routinely praticed.
                 \_ these are human right issue, which is independent from
                    the issue of democracy.  Iran has supreme leader,
                    USA has electral college and life-term supreme court
                    judges appointed by the president.    I am simply pointing
                    this out because Americans hate current Iranian regime,
                    and we often ignoring the fact that  Iran has one of
                    the most mature democracy in the Middle East.
                    \_ hehe. -- ilyas
                    \_ "mature"?  You are comparing to Syria, Egypt and
                       Saudi Arabia.  That's not a challenge.  Yes, the US
                       have lacked sound judgment in dealing with some aspects
                       of Iran.  That said, how do you treat a regime, one
                       part of which is strongly reformist but impotent, the
                       other of which openly sponsors terrorism and other
                       nasties?  Plus, your comparison to the US beggars
                       belief--the Supreme Court is appointed by an elected
                       official, its members approved by other elected
                       officials.  That said, the threat of violence is NOT
                       separate from the idea of democracy--democracy means,
                       essentially, one man one vote--if said man is
                       intimidated, or his vote fraudulently discounted, or
                       his elected officials rendered irrelevant, he is not
                       living in a democracy.  What is this, ChiCom Troll
                       goes Middle East?  -John
        \_ Democracy and freedom are relevant to the people when they have
           enough food, water, shelter, and stability in the community.
           In another word, most Middle Easterners don't really give a shit
           about freedom at this point since they don't even have enough basic
           necessities to even think about freedom. Americans talks about
           freedom as if it were the greatest thing on earth, and they're
           right because they already have basic necessities for life.
           However, freedom is not for everyone on this planet, especially
           for people who cannot even begin to think about freedom. You can't
           hand freedom to people and expect them to embrace it. People have
           to have basic necessities, and it is then that you can begin to
           talk about freedom and democracy. Giving freedom to the Iraqi
           people is like Microsoft donating billions of dollars worth of
           Windows XP licenses to starving African kids.
           \_ Interestingly, prosperity in the West developed in direct
              proportion to political freedom of the general populace, and
              the merchant and craftsman classes in particular.  Feudal
              serfs will not create prosperity. -- ilyas
              \_ is it also a coincident that all the prosperous
                 Western democracies were Imperial Power of 19th century?
                 \_ This is simply not true.  How about Scandinavian countries?
                    Prosperity enabled imperialism, not the other way around.
                      -- ilyas
                    Also, some countries that were neither prosperous, nor
                    'progressive' politically were imperialist (Russia).
                    I am calling Russia imperialist despite the fact that its
                    colonies were technically on a contiguous land mass with
                    the 'mainland.' This didn't really change the familiar
                    dynamic of imperialism.  Prosperity enabled imperialism
                    in the West, not the other way around.  -- ilyas
           \_ I have been saying that all along and no one listened.
              If you travel to China and look at their human right problem
              more closely, you will find that while political and religious
              dissidents get most of attentions, it is the human right of
              the dirt poor which are been routinely violated on a massive
              scale.  Given the dire economic circumstances, those dirt
              poor's human right are being violated in USA as well (e.g.
              homeless folks in People's Park).  The only differences
              between China and USA, is that China has 300 million of those
              who are at least as poor as Dwellers of People's Park.
              \_ I agree with the pp, (people need food and security
                 before they can really use freedom), but I don't really
                 agree with you.  You're making a pretty tenuous connection
                 between "The poors' human rights are routinely violated,"
                 and "prosperity a human right."  At least, I think that's
                 what you're saying.
                 \_ next time, check out how police evict homeless people
                    on the street, you will understand what do I mean.
                    \_ For my edification, please explain how exactly it is
                       possible to `evict someone on the street.' -dans
                       \_ He may be talking about the state-sponsored (or at
                          least done with the collusion of corrupt officials)
                          beatings and evictions of poor squatters in favor
                          of new factories or luxury homes.  -John
                          \_ I think the squatting phenomenon you're referring
                             to is much more prevalent in Europe, though I
                             have seen a handful of isolated incidents in the
                             New York area.  Regardless, `evict someone on the
                             street' still doesn't parse in any meaningful
                             way. -dans
                             \_ No, it doesn't exist at all here, nor do I
                                believe it's occurred recently in the US (or
                                in any civilized country.)  You are probably
                                referring to squatters who occupy buildings,
                                which sometimes ends up in a violent eviction.
                                Minor semantic difference, but these guys
                                usually squat as a form of protest, knowing
                                that the landlord will try to assert his claim
                                at some point in the future.  I was obliquely
                                referring to this riot in China last week:
                                http://tinyurl.com/dxrbh  Although to be fair,
                                they weren't even squatters, and similar
                                things have happened in Malaysia.  I suppose
                                op was talking about cops telling homeless
                                people to "move along".  -John
           \_ To me your argument seems to state that unless people have
              the necessities (food, water, shelter, &c.) freedom and
              democracy are irrelevant (or at least unnecessary)
              If this is true, why not round up all the people who don't
              have the necessities and stick them in a camp where someone
              provides all of these things to them?
              Of course the camp would be subject to the external control
              of the people providing the necessities and an individual
              in the camp would have no alternative but to live by the
              rules of the external parties.
              The question then is when will a man in the camp be deemed
              capable of having freedom? If the answer is when they have
              the "necessities", then I am led to ask, who decides when
              they have the "necessities" - can the people in the camp
              decide they have got enough and then opt for freedom or
              will the get freedom when the "enlightened" protectors
              decide it is appropriate?
              I think that it is apparent that they will never be given
              Freedom b/c they implicitly bargained it away in exchange
              for physical comfort. Knowing this, it would be wrong to
              give someone physical comfort before freedom.
        \_ Only to the left is the largest state sponsor of terror besides
           the Soviets over the past 3 decades a misunderstood democracry.
           the Soviets over the past 3 decades a misunderstood democracy.
           I'm sure the Lebanese feel just terrible about the
           \_ huh?
              \_ exactly.
2005/6/14 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:38128 Activity:nil 66%like:38130
6/14    A really interesting article on islamic reform:
2005/3/21-23 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:36789 Activity:nil
3/21    GNOME/Mono dude visits Lebanon refugee camps:
        \_ In case you are not familiar with Robert Fisk, here's an
           (admittedly adversarial, having been written by a pro-Israel
           watchdog) introduction:
2005/3/17 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:36741 Activity:high
3/17    http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/03/17/el.baradei/index.html
        CNN interview today on Iran with IAEA head ElBaradei.
        North Korea is "an absolutely black hole" -- we know they have the
        plutonium for a bomb, but we don't know if they've built it into a
        bomb yet.  There are no technical hurdles now they have the plutonium.
        -- Iran, on the other hand, we don't think they have the plutonium or
        highly enriched uranium yet, and they have been cooperative.
        As long as we're talking, it's good.  The U.S. joining is wonderful.
        Enrichment should be limited to an "international consortium" --
        everyone needs to agree on an inclusive and fair system, so if a
        country wants enriched uranium for peaceful purposes, they can get it.
        No one's ruling out the possibility of Iran doing enrichment, but Iran
        has built a "confidence deficit" because of its "undeclared program" of
        the last 20 years.
        Translation:  Iran can enrich, but maybe in the future.
        (My interpretation:  Iran will settle for a plan whereby in x years,
        it can operate research centrifuges, after y years, enrich a certain
        amount, z years, enrich more.  There will be many, many folks
        in Dubya's admin that say x, y, and z should be undefined, or Iran
        should never enrich, but my gut feeling is that Dubya will settle,
        after much bargaining, for x >= 5 years, y >= 10 years, z >= 20 years.
        Included with such an agreement will be a ban on heavy-water reactors
        and other reactors that produce fissile material as a by-product.
        Freepers will scream and shout.)
        \_ Considering that Iran has had a (more or less) stable government
           for the last 15 years, I'd be less worried about them than
           Pakistan. The heavy water reactor is troubling, but given Western
           attitudes towards them, I understand Iran's goals. Hard call on
           this one.
           \_ Shrug.  If they proceed seriously with the heavy water reactor
              or enrichment, we at least call sanctions.  It's just a
              question of how many allies are with us at that point.
        \_ The IAEA is worthless.  Prior to GWI they issued even less
           urgent statements about Iraq.  Post GWI we learned Iraq was 18-
           24 months from a a bomb and had up to 20,000 researchers on the
           project.  Iran has been the largest state sponsor of terror, maybe
           after the USSR, over the past 25 years.  It's naive and completely
           irresponsible to trust them, but thanks to Dem. and leftist
           propaganda Iran is painted as a victim of imperialist American
           \_ Name a Democratic defender of Iran.
              \_ Name one who will do anything about Iran.
                 \_ Answer the question.  What Democrat is painting Iran as
                    a victim of imperialist American hegemony?  -tom
                    \_ Uhm, anyone who is Iranian in origin and a democrat?
                       Duhhh? Talk about missing the point. But what can you
                       expect from tom? He walks in and the average IQ of
                       the room goes down a couple of points. -!PP
                       \_ I notice nobody has answer my question. !tom
           \_ Dubya FAA security was worthless pre-9/11.
              Everything changed after 9/11.
              (Hey, the excuse seemed to work for Dubya, who not for the IAEA)
2005/3/14-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:36679 Activity:moderate
3/14    Hi guys, fyi, there was another protest in Lebanon today,  larger than
        the 500K protest, and this time, against Syria.  Like earlier protests,
        mostly composed of young people.  Considering Lebanon only has 4
        million people, I wonder whether it's 75%+ of people our age and
        younger who decided to get out of the house and protest for/against.
        \_ Yes, and the first rally was likely composed mostly of Iranians.
           \_ Are you saying that the pro-Syria protest had a large number of
              people bussed from Syria / the West Bank?
              \_ That's what I read from the news.  Of course this was American
                 news that I was reading, so.  -- !PP
        \_ Maybe some of the protesters attended both rallies because they were
           paid by both sides to do so.
        \_ Protester of the day
           \_ I never knew foreign women were so beautiful. I guess Lebanon
              isn't such a bad country after all!
              \_ 1: Big waist.
                 \_ that may be so, but she still has a smaller waist than
                    our typical Patriotic Jenny Craig-type of women.
                    European women >>> American women. Less McD fat, less
                    bovine/poultry-hormones, less pesticide, less pollution,
                    and less attitude.
                 2: With that collar she's wearing, it looks more like she's
                    posing for Playboy.
                    \-Beirut's reputation/image before ~1980 and since are
                      very different. It used to be quite a party city.--psb
                        \_ It still is, or rather is again.  I think it has
                           one of the fastest-growing club/bar scenes around
                           the world.  -John
2005/3/10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran] UID:36638 Activity:nil
3/10    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/11/politics/11iran.html
        "Europe and the United States have agreed on a joint approach to
        negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program after months of
        dispute, with the Bush administration agreeing to offer modest
        economic incentives and the Europeans agreeing to take the issue to
        the United Nations Security Council if negotiations fail, senior
        American officials said Thursday. The American incentives would go
        into effect only if Iran agreed to halt the enrichment of uranium
        permanently. The agreement represents a major shift in strategy for
        both the Bush administration, which has refused for years to offer
        Iran incentives to give up its program, and for Europe, which had been
        reluctant to discuss penalties."
2005/3/10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:36635 Activity:nil
3/10    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25429-2005Mar10.html
        UN envoy to present ultimatum to Syria to withdraw completely or face
        (It didn't matter if the Syria president had no idea, it didn't matter
        if the Syrian military/intelligence apparatus didn't do it, it didn't
        matter if al Qaeda did it just to stir up a civil war and create
        another haven for terrorists in Lebanon -- the world is uniting to send
        a message to whoever did it, and Syria just happens to be the one
        paying the bill.  Not that I have any problem with this whatsoever.
        The world never said Syria did it, and so is being completely honest
        about not having any physical evidence of Hariri's assassination by
        Syrian interests as a reason for the sanctions.
        This is in contrast with Dubya, who said there was "no doubt" Saddam
        had WMD stockpiles and was building more, and hasn't plainly conveyed
        the CIA's judgment of this as a mistake to the American populace.)
2005/3/9-10 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:36596 Activity:moderate
3/9     American civil engineers give our infrastructure a D+, say we need
        1.6 trillion in repairs.  I say BRING ON MORE TAX CUTS!!!!!!11!
        http://csua.org/u/bb7 (yahoo news)
        \_ Even better idea, stop fighting wars we don't need to fight.
           That would give us about half the money needed to repair
           \_ Are you crazy?  We're going to NK next, and we're getting
              there by invading Iran, Russia, and China!
              \_ Don't forget Syria.
        \_ Isn't infrastructure mostly a state issue?
           \_ This depends on the scale of the project. The ASCE report card
              targets mid-scale and larger project so the direct fed
              role is large right off the bat. The indirect effect is that as
              the fed gov't backs off of funding joint projects, states have
              less to spend on the smaller stuff (roads and bridges and such)
              that are 100% their responsibility. The real problem with the
              report card is its inherent bias, IMHO. It would be good to hear
              the story from another source. If nothing else it would lend the
              findings more credibility. -- ulysses
              \_ John! How is infrastructure in that Eurofag country of yours?
2005/3/8-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:36579 Activity:high
3/8     500K+ protest in Lebanon AGAINST Syrian withdrawal, when are they
        covering this on the front page of http://cnn.com?
        I see a prominent link of Dubya saying how "freedom will prevail" in
        Lebanon, but it doesn't mention anything about the protest.
        Also, if you're confused how they could get so many people, most are
        Shiite -- most anti-Syria are Sunni + Christian + Druuse.
        And the protest is just as much about being pro-Syria as being
        anti-Israel and anti-U.S.
        \_ Someone needs to write reliable software and come up with a reliable
           way to use it that estimates crowd size.  I'm tired of hearing about
           protests that have "between 20,000 and 200,000 people".  As to
           http://cnn.com, the story is at the top on http://foxnews.com, bbc.co.uk,
           link:english.aljazeera.net and http://nytimes.com.  I think http://cnn.com is just being
           slow here. I can't believe that they have become more censored than
           \_ It's there on CNN, it's just not on the front page.  *shrug*
             \_ CNN has been trying to out-Fox Fox News for quite some time
                \_ Meh, it looks like some editor decided that after days and
                   days of protests, this wasn't front-page newsworthy.  I'm
                   not saying I agree with that call, but sometimes
                   conspiracies can be attributed to plain stupidity.
                   \_ No.  The largest anti-Syria demonstration was 70,000
                      people.  The pro-Syria demonstration numbers 500,000,
                      and finally occurred today.
                      Today, Dubya also made a speech trumpeting freedom in
                      Lebanon, and cited the mass protests against Syria.
                      On http://cnn.com, there is a link on the front page on Dubya's
                      speech, but no link to the much larger protest on the
                      front page nor mention of it in the "freedom" article.
                      In contrast, http://washingtonpost.com, http://nytimes.com,
                      http://latimes.com, http://foxnews.com, and http://msnbc.com feature the
                      pro-Syria/ anti-U.S. / anti-Israel protest prominently.
                      -- No one every said "conspiracy", but between being
                      -- No one ever said "conspiracy", but between being
                      afraid of being branded as part of "the liberal
                      mainstream media", falling ratings, getting spoon-fed
                      articles from the White House for easy posting, potential
                      loss of access to the Administration, and likely internal
                      turmoil at CNN while they struggle with these issues, I
                      would say things like this are the natural result.
                      In contrast, leading print media like the ones I
                      mentioned above have a much larger roster of seasoned
                      professional journalists, so they just print the
                      important news when they see it, and at least try to be
                      fair.  At CNN (specifically the web site -- CNN cable
                      seems to cover everything anyway) I just see paralysis
                      and confusion instead of "conspiracy".
                      \_ Hmm, fair enough.
                      \_ Look, even Fox News has it on the front door. CNN
                         is just being lame.
                         \_ Occam's Razor, baby.  The "No." guy seems to need
                            a lesson in this basic concept.
                            \_ I think you mean to say, "Yeah, I meant all
                               that, but in fewer words."
                               Unless you think http://CNN.com really is intentionally
                               keeping the protest off the front page.
                               \_ No, I'm saying that there's a simpler
                                  explanation for this (mismanagement) that
                                  doesn't require a five page essay to
                                  \_ So in other words, you meant what I did,
                                     but in fewer words?  I am essentially
                                     saying mismanagement as well, but
                                     listed what specific things characterize
                                     \_ Are you the 'No.' guy or the 'Look,
                                        even' guy?  This thread has confused
                                        me horribly.
                                     \_ Is it normally this hard to agree with
                                        you?  If it is, I think I'm gonna
                                        switch sides and argue for a
                                        conspiracy theory or whatever.
                                        \_ So why don't you say, "I agree with
                                           the guy, but he could have been
                                           more concise".  It wasn't clear
                                           if you were agreeing or not.
                                           \_ Because it's a conspiracy -- CNN
                                              is so clearly hiding information
                                              to help boost ratings and to
                                              pander to its political readers
                                              that I'm surprised it doesn't
                                              just put an elephant as its logo/
                                              mascot.  *sheesh*
                                              \_ I can't help but feel I'm
                                                 being trolled by yet a 3rd
                                                 \_ Either there's 2 idiots
                                                    trolling each other in this
                                                    thread, or there's like,
                                                    4 or more people posting -
                                                    none of which are very
                                                    coherent or reading-
        \_ Could it be composed of the millions of Syrian's who come to
           work in Lebanon, or the thousand of Palestinians in refugee
           camps? Naaa
2005/3/6-7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:36546 Activity:nil
3/6     Excellent article on the Lebanon situation
2005/3/3-4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:36514 Activity:high
3/3     http://csua.org/u/b8v (AP)
        So ... "diplomats" at an IAEA meeting today said Iran was "starting
        work" on half-mile deep tunnels of hardened concrete at their premier
        site for uranium enrichment.  The IAEA is pissed that Iran didn't tell
        them beforehand.
        Iran also just began construction of a heavy-water nuclear reactor at
        Arak.  Spent fuel from heavy-water reactors is much more easily
        converted to bomb-grade material.  This is in contrast to the Bushehr
        light-water reactor that Russia helped build.  The reactor material for
        light-water reactors is not easily converted to bomb-grade material,
        and anyway, Russia said they would cart it all away when they were
        done and monitor the stuff.
        Britain, France, and Germany asked Iran nicely not to build the
        heavy-water plant.
        So, uh .... what to do?
        \_ I know!  Let's abandon the people of Iraq and Afghanistan and spend
           another $200 billion getting ourselves into another horrible mess!
           What do I win?  -tom
           \_ Interestingly, this news came on the same day that Dubya was
              meeting Condi to talk about offering concessions to Iran to give
              the EU3 more leverage.
              the EU3 more leverage.  The concessions are:  not opposing Iran's
              WTO entry, and not opposing European sales of civilian aircraft
              parts to Iran; in exchange for:  Iran giving up uranium
              enrichment.  The Arak reactor would produce plutonium, which
              I believe doesn't need the laborious enrichment step of using
              hundreds of centrifuges.  And, as you might have guessed, heavy-
              water reactors use unenriched uranium as fuel.
              The Dubya-Condi meeting was announced at least five days in
        \_ My prediction of how it will play out:
           Condi has told Dubya that he REALLY needs the world's support.
           The U.S. cannot go it alone on Iran.  Dubya trusts Condi.  She
           advised him to invade Iraq.  The U.S. will be on the same page as
           the EU3, and will try not to substantively undermine them.
           Iran will build its tunnels.  Iran will say it will never give up
           the right to enrich uranium.  There will be an understanding they
           won't do it though, nor build more centrifuges; there will be a set
           limit on centrifuge parts.  Arak will not be built.  Bushehr will
           go ahead as the original plan, maybe with plans for another one or
           two light-water reactors.
           The IAEA will periodically send people to look in the tunnels.
           Iran will receive support for WTO entry and other incentives.
           Freepers will scream and yell. -op
           \_ Nice "it could go like this analysis", even if it isn't very
              likely. Keep up the good work.
              \_ Well, I'm not saying this will be worked out in 6 months.
                 It could take years -- but I believe the U.S. will be
                 resolved to expend all possible options before bombing
                 or a full-scale invasion, the idea being it will need
                 its partners before a full-scale invasion, and bombing
                 would make the situation worse.
                 I do think my prediction is the most likely outcome,
                 and fortunately it seems like the best possible outcome
                 given the players.
                 If you really want to be optimistic, you could say that the
                 essential reason for this whole kissy-kissy make-friends-
                 with-Europe-again thing was a common understanding across
                 the ocean of the need for a united front on Iran. -op
                 \_ I wasn't being sarcastic. I liked your analysis.
                    \_ Yeah, I know.  I was just saying it could take a
                       while. -op
        \_ Okay, I'll also give you a possible "bad" situation:
           Iran says, screw you all, we know you can't do shit (what with
           the U.S. being overstretched, and Europe's people ousting their
           leaders if Blair/Chirac/Schroeder ask for war).
           The Security Council passes sanctions (with Russia and China
           abstaining), the U.S. bombs like crazy, a real coalition forms
           and invades Iran, but the common people in Europe and most
           Democrats are still mighty pissed, Iran becomes likes Iraq today.
        \_ Watch out there.
           Population of Iran >> Pop. of Iraq >> Pop. of Sunnis Iraq
           Same for land area.
2005/2/16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36202 Activity:very high
2/16    "Iran Threatens to Shoot Down U.S. Drones" Why don't they just
        shoot it down? I take it they don't have the capability? If
        anyone's flying drones over the US airspace, you bet we would
        shoot it down on the first opportunity.
        \_ what is the international law on sovereignty of airspace? And how
           high do the drones fly? Just curious...
           \_ Bush breaks International Law again. What do you think?
              \_ WRONG. Bush IS the law, international law.
                 \_ Prepare to be JUDGED!
                    \_ 15 years in the academy
                       He was like no cadet they'd ever seen
                       A man so hard his veins bleed ice
                       and when he speaks he never says it twice
                       they call him judge, his last name is Dredd,
                       so break the law and you'll wind up deeeeeeeeaaaaad!
                       Truth and justice is what he's fighting for
                       judge Dredd the man: he is the laaaaaaaawwwwwwww!!!!
                       Respect the badge!!!
                       he earned it with his blood.
                       fear the gun!!
                       your sentence may be death because
                       I am the laaaaaaawwwwwwwww!!!!
        \_ Where's chicom troll to lecture us on the inherent hypocrisy of the
           US and how China is so much more logical and humanitarian....
           \_ you are stupid.  dumb US just destroyed Iran's arch-enemy
              Saddam for them, at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars,
              and 1500 lives and counting, and are still battling the Iraqi
              Sunnis while Shiite religious fundamentalist parties just
              dominated the election in Iraq.  why would they want to
              shoot down US planes?  chicom troll is not stupid like you.
              even if iran wants to shoot down US plane, they will warn
              first like above, otherwise, US will lie and say they got
              shot down in iraq, blah blah.  now, after the warning,
              when US plane got shot down, the whole world will know
              it's because they violated Iran's airspace and has only
              themselves to blame.  no point getting into unnecessary
              fight with US when it is serving as your running dog.
              the past few years, all the mad iranian mullahs have been
              laughing hysterically at US idiocy and for their regime's good
           \_ Do you have a problem with the above statement? Are you
              suggesting the US will simply protest someone flying
              drones over its airspace? What about the time one CIA
              drone fired a missile at a target on the ground in
              another country? Oh I get it, they are all terrorists,
              and as such they don't have any rights that you so
              proudly claim and try to enforce upon others, but choose
              to abandon at the first sign of trouble for yourself.
              Better yet, call all your enemies terrorists. (Oh wait,
              I take it back, you are already doing that)
              \_ yay! chicom troll's young padawan speaks! -chicom troll #1 fan
                 \_ Wow, nice merging.  This response belongs with the stupid
                    guy, not the problem guy.
           \_ China has been intruding Japanese marine territory with subs for
        \_ Iran claims to have already shot some down. They are going
           public with the info now.
           \_ link?
2005/2/12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:36153 Activity:nil
2/12    THe gift that keeps on giving
        CIA Operation in Iran Failed When Spies Were Exposed
        \_ [IP address replaced with hostname]
2005/1/31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:35987 Activity:nil
1/30    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4217703.stm
        Halliburton pulling out of Iran. I smell a new war in the future.
2005/1/18-19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:35773 Activity:very high
1/18    I just don't get it. We have enough nukes to nuke every major
        city on this planet, yet we go around the world telling other
        countries "no, you cannot have nukes", not to mention we are
        the only country on the face of this planet in the course of
        humanity to use a nuke. We said Iraq definitely have WMD, well
        where the fuck is it? Now we say Iran definitely have it and
        must be eliminated or the world will come to an end. It's like
        a millionaire telling the poor guy on the street, "no, you
        cannot have $10!!" All this shit, and there are still idiots
        on the motd believing Bush and the lies that are coming out of
        this administration. I just don't get it. Without Iran and NK,
        BushCo would have you believe that China would be ready to
        nuke us any minute now. Just tell me again why Iran cannot
        have nukes but we can, and we have shit loads of them.
        \_ Because why does an oil-rich country need nukes?
        \_ Because Iran is ruled by a cabal of religious extremists.
           \_ And the US is not?
              \_ Your brain has been classified as: small.
                 \- you must pay me 5cents.
              \_ No, it's a republic with 3 branches of government.
                 By the way you are stupid.
                 \_ I see it ruled by the republicans.
                    \_ Who were lawfully elected to the offices
                       which they hold. If they fail to properly
                       enact the will of the people they will be
                       voted out of office. Just b/c you didn't
                       vote for them doesn't make them a cabal.
        \_ Do humanity a favor and jump off Evans.
           \_ Do humanity a favor and go fuck yourself.
        \_ Stop thinking! It is unpatriotic.
                        \_ The will of the people?  Bah.  Bush won
                           a popularity contest, not an election
                           based on an electorate rationally considering
                           the issues.  Now, having his illusory "mandate",
                           he will do is own will, not ours.
                           \_ Clinton also won a popularity contest. That's
                              what elections are. Ar-nold.
        \_ You don't understand the difference between Iran and the US?  Try
           living in Iran for a year and let us know how it goes.
        \_ Even forgetting about the arguments about how we're morally
           better than them or have a better form of government, we don't
           want them to have nukes because they are not our friends and we
           want to have more power than them.  It has nothing to do with
           being fair.  It's a seperate argument to say that we are a
           democracy and they are not.  But the real answer to the op's
           question is that we don't let them have nukes because we don't
           want to be threatened by them.  We want to be the ones pushing
           them around, and not vice versa.  Besides, they might be crazy
           and use them for all we know.  Even if this is unlikely, why
           risk it?
        \_ Please tell me that you are a conservative trolling.
        \_ Please tell me that you are a conservative trolling. -liberal
           \_ I think it might be Chicom troll. His English probably improved.
              \_ no, it's not me, and FYI, i don't think he is trolling.
        \_ I've got a gun. That bad guy down the street who hates my guts
           and wants to kill me is trying to figure out how to get a gun.
           He hasn't done it yet but he's getting pretty close. In your
           little world, I should go knock on his door and give him my
           gun so that he can shoot my head off. HINT: Its a jungle out
           there and only the fittest survive. I'm not a saint, and I
           won't be in this life so if its btwn me or the bad guys, I'm
           chosing me.
           \_ I don't have a gun.  But the guy up the street has one and
              hates me.  He has not shot me yet but I am not going to
              sit here and wait.  But since he is trying to keep me from
              getting a gun, obviously he is preparing to shoot me.  In
              your macro world, you would shoot everyone who you think may
              shoot you.  And yes, the guy just hates you because you're
              free.  Ever figure out why people hate each other?
              \_ Good try, but you have made some key mistakes. The
                 critical one is that you assume the good guys want
                 to shoot the bad guy who is trying to get the gun.
                 This is not true. If the bad guy wasn't out to
                 get the good guy, he would leave them alone.
                 The second mistake is that you state that the guy
                 up the street hates you. This is also not true.
                 You are the hater who is going after the good guy
                 who lives up the street.
                 The reason why the bad guys hate us is quite simple.
                 It is the green eyed monster known as envy. Those
                 buggers hate the fact that a free and open society
                 leads to scientific progress and material gain.
                 They resent the fact that our freedoms have made us
                 the most important and prosperous nation in the
                 history of human civilization while their own
                 outmoded ideas have brought them nothing at all.
                 \_ I was with you for your first paragraph, but the second
                    one is bullshit.  You really think the average Iranian
                    who shakes his fist at the Great Satan of the U.S.A.
                    is pondering where their civilization went wrong, and
                    becoming envious as a conclusion?  When people live in
                    a dictatorship, they tend *not* to do much thinking,
                    which is the problem.  Maybe the people *writing* the
                    propoganda think the way you say, but the average man
                    on the street is just spouting crap he heard from his
                    TV/radio/Cleric.  I'm guessing that the real thinkers among
                    them hate the regime so much that they secretly like
                    America just because it's the opposite of what they hate.
                    I've sure met a lot of former soviet citizens who felt
                    that way about Reagan's America.
        \_ Because Iran said they won't
           \-You may wish to read the famous paper "the spread of nuclear
           weapons: more may be better" [adelphi paper #171] by fmr/emeritus
           ucb prof kenneth waltz. there is also a book by waltz and sagan
           that is ok. --psb
                \- oh this paper is online at:
                   [i didnt check if it is complete. pretty much everything
                   by waltz is good.]
             \_ Please explain why the world will be better with a nuclear
                \_ Someone to nuke Israel, duh!
                \-are you more worried about nuclear "leakage" from
                  the ex-Soviet Union or an Iran bomb? How about Iran
                  vs. Pak? I think Pak is more likely to fall apart.
                  My concern w.r.t. nukes is not the ability of states
                  posessing them increase their ability to influence
                  outcomes beyond their borders, but their ability to
                  maintain good command and control systems. It makes
                  sense for Iran to chase the bomb. It probably didnt
                  make sense for South Africa. I dont think it makes
                  sense for Brazil at the moment, but who knows 10yrs
                  from now under the Jeb administration.
                  \_ Sodians are mostly white imperialist,
                     who uses different standard to judge others because
                     they think USA is morally/culturally  superior.  And
                     if you notice, it's not just nukes.  Chemical weapon,
                     biological weapons, land mines... the theme is
                     we got them all and free to use it, but no one else
                     should have it.  *ESPECIALLY* if you are not Christian
                     Jews, and/or white.   Did USA signed universal nuclear
                     test ban treaty? nope.  is USA destroying stockpiles of
                     chemical/biological weapons nope.
                     \_ If the jackal asked the elephant to please give
                        up his trunk and his tusks, the elephant would
                        laugh. There is a universal law, it is called
                        survival of the fittest. If you foolishly give
                        your advantage away you are asking to get killed.
                        The TBT is a terrible idea. It ties our hands
                        but allows our enemies to to whatever they like.
                        It is a good thing that ADULTS run this world,
                        not fools like you.
                        \_ In other words, let's quash those Tibetans
                           since TI is bad for China and detrimental to
                           China's vital national intereset.  It's
                           a matter of survival of the fittest.  When
                           Americans complain about human rights, they
                           are just being a bunch of hypocrites and
                           Pharisees, just like in the Bible.
                                                        - Chicom troll
                          \-ObMelianDialog: The strong do what they can
                            and the weak suffer what they must. [nb i mean
                            that as an empirical not normative statement.
                            assessing the normative nature of the international
                            system is beyond the scope of the motd, but see
                            man, the state, and war, and the Stag Hunt example]
                            \- ObAbeLincolnQuotes:
                               "Let us have faith that right makes might, and
                                in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do
                                our duty as we understand it."
                               "The only assurance of our Nation's safety is
                                to lay our foundation in Morality and Religion"
                               -- chicom troll
                            \- Does the Melian Dialog fit with some kind of
                               Hindu or Buddhist karma world view?
2005/1/17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:35749 Activity:insanely high
1/17    Iran is next!
        \_ And Hersch (and his informer) should be executed for treason.
           Didn't people complain that our intelligence in Iraq was faulty
           because we didn't have human intelligence on the ground?
           \_ Let's execute all dem "newsjournalists" for tippin' off the
              enemy while our boys are behind enemy lines! </troll>
           \_ What is treasonous about this article? Specifically,
              I want you to point out something that was published in
              there that the enemy doesn't already know. Are you against
              the Freedom of The Press now?
              \_ *laugh* take a look at the right wing republican track record
                 on any subject relating to freedom of the press and decide
                 for yourself.  Of course they don't support freedom of the
              \_ I did not know that we had boots on the ground in Iran.  I did
                 not know they were the next target (thought it was Syria).
                 Freedom of the Press does not include shouting fire in a
                 crowded theater.
                 \_ You have to consider the possibility that some of
                    Hersch's sources might be feeding him disinformation.
                    \_ That doesn't change the fact that he shouldn't be
                       printing it.
                       \_ I know we have boots on the ground in North
                          Korea and Pakistan, unless the SEAL who told
                          me he had been there in the last year was lying
                          to me, a distinct possibility. I assume we
                          put Special Ops or CIA agents in places like this.
                          That is their job, after all. And Hersch job as
                          a journalist is to make sure we have a national
                          coversation about war against Iran before we
                          say, bomb the crap out of them. If Hersch had not
                          exposed the Abu Gharib torture, it would probably
                          still be going on. Would that be the best thing
                        \_ do you really thikn we have forces in NK
                           right now?  do they disguise themselves
                           as bowls of gruel?
                          \_ Are you a moron?  The Army had already started
                             their investigation.  Why do you think it would
                             still be going on?  The process was working.
                             \_ If you think it's not STILL GOING ON RIGHT
                                NOW, you, sir, are the moron.
                                \_ So there are still people being abused in
                                   Abu Ghraib right now?  What is your proof?
                                   \_ hey guys, I'm confused, are you talking
                                      about waterboarding, pyramid pileups,
                                      forced masturbation, sexual humiliation
                                      in general, or forced positions?
                                      \_ I think he is talking about the gang
                                         raping of minor boys.
                                         raping of minor boys. Cons always
                                         hate sodomy, except for the non
                                         consensual kind.
                             \_ I don't know, are you ? We were still
                                toruring people at Gitmo for quite a while
                                afterwards and the only reason we stopped
                                was because of the public outcry over Abu
                                \_ Please show a reputable reference that there
                                   was continued abuse at Abu Ghraib after the
                                   military began its investigation.
                                   \_ I meant that torture would still be
                                      going on, not necessarily torture at
                                      Abu Gharab. We continued to torture
                                      at Gitmo. If we had not had that national
                                      conversation about torture, where even
                                      "Torquemada" Gonzalez repudiated it, it
                                      would still be going on.
                          for America? How bad would it have gotten before
                          it was exposed then?
                          \_ do you really thikn we have forces in NK right
                             now?  do they disguise themselves as bowls of
                 \_ Syria isn't dangerous. There's no point wasting time with
                    them. By the way this article is the first time I've
                    noticed the use of an umlaut in words like cooperation and
                    preemptive (pree:mptive). Is that an established thing?
                    \_ It's a New Yorker mag thing, don't worry about
                       it. - danh
                    \_ Doesn't Syria have WMDs?  Aren't a non-negligible number
                       of insurgency leaders in Syria?
            \_ So you think Hersch should be executed for treason
               because he published a report that the US was sending
               Special Ops teams into Iran. Is that your serious
               contention? I think you are a loon.
        \_ "I'm absolutely convinced that the threat we face now, the idea of
           a terrorist in the middle of one of our cities with a nuclear
           weapon, is very real and that we have to use extraordinary measures
           to deal with it." -VP Cheney
           \_ Was that the line against Iraq or Iran?
              \_ VP debate, Oct 5 2004.
        \_ I don't think that he should be executed, like the loony Con up
           there, but I think he should have kept his mouth shut. It is not
           like he is exposing government wrongdoing, like at Abu Gharib or
           in the OSP case or numerous other times. -liberal
        \_ Does the article say whether any special ops teams are there in
           Iran right now?
           \_ "The American task force, aided by the information from Pakistan,
                has been penetrating eastern Iran from Afghanistan"
              \_ thx! -khamenei
                 \_ Next time RTFA!
2005/1/8 [Politics/Foreign/Europe, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:35606 Activity:nil
1/7     U.N.'s rape for food program exposed.
2004/11/5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:34711 Activity:nil
11/4    This is a hypothetical situation. Most of the nations know that
        America is having trouble stretching the military from Afghanistan
        all the way to Iraq, and according to news sources
        (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133728,00.html the troops
        are pulling out of Germany and North Korea and are being reassigned
        to the middle east. Having that said, what would happen if
        all the rogue nations like N Korea, Syria, Lebanon, Iran,
        China simultaneously acquire other countries? How would the US
        respond, given that they're already stretched and can't fight
        3 wars at once, let alone 5 from the above?
2004/10/22-23 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:34302 Activity:nil
10/22   The Jews are at it again: http://tinyurl.com/5hskc
        \_ AH, we can always count on them.  Seriously, Iran has to really
           take into account that Isreal might pre-emptively nuke THEM...
           \_ Count on them?  To do what?  Destabilise the entire middle east?
              Israel has had nukes for decades.  Now they want to make sure
              Iran and we all know about Iraq from 1991 don't get military
              parity.  All they want is walls and nukes and Dubya-like
              pre-emptive strikes on people who are just trying to build a
              better life for themselves building electric power plans.  Why
              can't the Jews just get along with their neighbors?
              \_ Isreal is a dick, Iran is an asshole, and you are a pussy.
                 -trey and matt
                 \_ Are you implying an imminent of invasion of Iran by
                    Israel, or are you saying I shouldn't accept any drinks
                    from Israel?
                    \_ I'd go with both, just to be on the safe side.
              \_ Troll!
                 \_ You confuse trolling with dripping sarcasm.
              \_ w00t!
        \_ Dur, the Americans have to do it this time.  Thanks for the URL.
2004/10/22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran] UID:34292 Activity:low
10/22   http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/latimests/20041022/ts_latimes/israelmayhaveiraninitssights
        The Jews are at it again.
        \_ AH, we can always count on them.  Seriously, Iran has to really
           take into account that Isreal might pre-emptively nuke THEM...
           \_ Count on them?  To do what?  Destabilise the entire middle east?
              Israel has had nukes for decades.  Now they want to make sure
              Iran and we all know about Iraq from 1991 don't get military
              parity.  All they want is walls and nukes and Dubya-like
              pre-emptive strikes on people who are just trying to build a
              better life for themselves building electric power plans.  Why
              can't the Jews just get along with their neighbors?
              \_ Isreal is a dick, Iran is an asshole, and you are a pussy.
                 -trey and matt
                 \_ Are you implying an imminent of invasion of Iran by
                    Israel, or are you saying I shouldn't accept any drinks
                    from Israel?
                    \_ I'd go with both, just to be on the safe side.
              \_ Troll!
                 \_ You confuse trolling with dripping sarcasm.
              \_ w00t!
        \_ Dur, the Americans have to do it this time.  Thanks for the URL.
2004/10/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:34213 Activity:nil
10/19   Australian reporter captured by insurgents near embassy.  They threaten
        to kill him, accuse him of working for CIA or being a contractor.
        Proves to insurgents he's just a reporter via google search.
        \_ More on this here.  Read the last two entries.  Everything here is
           great stuff, though.
2004/9/21-22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:33681 Activity:insanely high
9/21    So "liberal" guy, what do you think the US should do about
        Iran's incipient nuclear program?
        \_ I think we should violently rape and kill all non-US citizens.
           Only then can we be SURE we won't be attacked!
        \_ I don't have the whole answer, but this is part of it:
           http://csua.org/u/959 (Yahoo! News)
           Step 1:  Elect Kerry (Bush is bad at coalitions)
                                  \_ And he's good at what exactly? Looking
                                     smug and stupid?
                \_ Does step 1 include the "International tax" the UN wants
                   and GWB would never allow in a million years?  Why did
                   Schroeder make a speech that essentially said, "Wait til
                   November because our boy Kerry will do it!"?
           Step 2:  Get Russia and Europe all on the same page
                    (Do you really want Iran to have nukes?)
                    \_ WTF does this mean?  Get them?  How?  Why not just
                       say the answer to Iran's nuke program is "Get the
                       Iranians to stop having a nuke program"?
           Step 3:  Help Iran build nuclear power plants, but completely
                    restrict enriching uranium, even for peaceful purposes.
                    Russia can supply fuel for the power plants.
                    It doesn't matter if the NPT says Iran can enrich uranium
                    for peaceful purposes.
                    \_ There has been an open offer of help for years that
                       is even less restrictive than this but the Iranians
                       aren't interested.  Now what?  Please read a newspaper
                       every so often before deciding you have all the
           You can still do 2 and 3 without 1, but I can't help but feel
           Dubya will fuck it up again. -liberal
           \_ what the hell do they need nuclear power for?  What about oil?
              \_ Iran will bewt the inspectors if we don't give em Step 3.
                 Europe and Russia will say they can live with Step 3;
                 but if the U.S. doesn't agree, then we're not using force
                 as the last possible option.  We'll just look like warmongers
                 \_ Huh?  The US has offered the Iranians an even better
                    version of your "step 3" for several years.  They are
                    not interested.  Now what?
           \_ Why does Iran need nuclear power??? It is sitting on massive
              petroleum and natural gas reserves.  A gallon of gas in Iran
              is something like 0.30$.  As for Europe, the Germans and
              French were the same countries that sold Iran the illicit
              refining equipment to begin with.  It is Russia who is
              is / has been building Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
              Haven't you figured out appeasement does not work.
              Iran's foreign policy is not coexistence with the West,
              it is elimination of the West.  Iran has been the largest
              state sponsor of terror over the last 30 years.
              \_ Then why the hell did we invade IRAQ?  "Oops, one letter typo"
              \_ iran will probably misuse a nuclear arsenal. but it is
                 well accepted that its oil reserves will not produce enough
                 oil within 50 years.
                 \_ Well accepted?  By whom?  Do you have a source for this
                    \_ It is a geological fact for every country producing
                       oil.  Many countries are now "post peak" and are
                       producing less oil every year, the US being a prime
                \_ "Iran will probably misuse a nuclear arsenal" ... Pakistan
                   has nukes and hasn't misused them.  The only country to
                   use nukes so far is us.
              \_ Of course Iran wants nukes; only a moron would think they
                 were only interested in nuclear power.  No one tries to
                 squish a country with nukes without hestitating.
                 No one also doubts that they are at the top of list for
                 state sponsors of terror -- but it's also true we don't have
                 smoking gun evidence of an al Qaeda link.
                 Also, please provide a URL showing that Germany and France
                 sold "[nuclear] refining equipment" to Iran.  I believe
                 Pakistan sold centrifuge equipment to Iran.
                 Also, WW2 showed that giving up a country to an invading
                 country doesn't work.  This was the example of WW2, Korea,
                 and Kuwait.  However, Vietnam and Iraq have been different
                 stories, and it might be again with Iran.
                 So, do we have enough people to invade Iran ...?
                 I told you what I'd do.  Now what would you? -op
                 \_ He answered.  He'd appease.
                    \-semi-tangential comment: while this doenst rise to
                      a "clash of civilizations" there are some instances
                      where it is hard to put yourself in the other guys
                      shoes ...
                      [continuation moved to ~psb/MOTD/AmericanDoubleStandards]
                        \_ When you're a super power there are no double
                           standards.  You do what you want and make the rules
                           for everyone.  That's what being a super power is
                           all about.  The US is a rather benign super power
                           as these things go.  What other country with this
                           kind of power would do so little with it?
                           \_ US is rather benign, but it's not because of
                              the current administration.
        \_ I think a fair solution would be to allow Iran to use the nuclear
           technologies for peaceful purposes, including the dual-use
           technologies, as long as they allow UN's international atomic agency
           to fully monitor their nuclear activities without any exceptions.
           Iran's government has been working a lot in the recent times to
           develop domestic manufacturing (including auto, aerospace) and IT
           industries. Their nuclear ambitions might be viewed simply as yet
           another step on the way to joining the "technologically advanced
           nation" club. They also argue that meeting domestic energy needs
           using solely fossil fuels will have a serious environmental impact.
           Neither they have enough power generating capacity to meet energy
           needs for future. This is probably why they have just started
           building a gas pipeline to Armenia. They say they intend to export
           gas to Armenia and import electricity produced there. I am not
           saying that everything is well in Iran. They were definitely caught
           red-handed handed with their undisclosed uranium enrichment
           facilities but I would allow them to keep their reactors as long
           as they agree to play by the rules.
        \_ Wait a minute.  Isn't our invasion of Iraq supposed to scare
           countries like Iran and N. Korea into abandoning their WMD
2004/9/21 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:33677 Activity:nil
9/21    [re-posted with various changes]
        So Iran today started to create uranium hexafluoride gas.  They have
        nuclear centrifuges already built to enrich this to nuclear plant fuel,
        but can easily continue to weapons-grade concentrations.  Their stock
        of yellowcake is sufficient for several nukes.  So, I read that it will
        be about a year before Iran can build nukes without outside help.  I
        don't understand this; I believe that IF Iran kicked out the inspectors
        today and IF they wanted to and IF no one did anything, they could have
        a nuke between 6-24 months from now without outside assistance.  Isn't
        this accurate?
        The difficult step in creating a nuke is obtaining weapons-grade
        concentrations of uranium, while the weapon design is easy, and Iran
        already has the centrifuges I believe. -liberal
2004/9/21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:33667 Activity:insanely high
9/21    So Iran today started to enrich uranium, from a stock sufficient for
        several nukes.  I read that it will be about a year before Iran can
        build nukes without outside help.  I don't understand this; I believe
        they can do it by themselves today if they kicked the inspectors out.
        Isn't this accurate?  Granted it would be 3-12 months before a
        successful nuke test. -liberal
        (For all you wankers who think I'm a crazed freeper since I'm talking
        about Iran, here's an anti-Bush carrot for you: http://csua.org/u/959
        \_ Obviously you are a nuclear arms expert and intelligence agent
           rolled into one so I believe you.
           \_ I took Muller's Physics 7B class and read what he wrote about
              calutrons.  I think that, reading Sum Of All Fears, knowing
              what happened with Pakistan / India, and having some clue is
              enough to make my assertion.  I am asking whether it's accurate,
              after all.
              Muller:  "separation is the hard part; the weapon design is easy"
              http://people.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb5.htm -op
              \_ I saw 'Red Dawn' and took Physics 7ABC and I think you
                 are a troll.
                 \_ Have you read Sum Of All Fears (no, watching the movie
                    definitely doesn't count)?  Have you read Muller's article?
                    Repeat after me:
                    "separation is the hard part; the weapon design is easy"
                    Muller:  "... can employ the simple, reliable gun method.
                    ... the Hiroshima bomb ... was considered so reliable that
                    it was never tested before it was used."
                    \_ Repeat after me: troll.
                          \_ That's because he's an idiot.  He has however
                             discovered that one of the best ways to troll
                             is calling serious posters trolls.
                             \_ The best way to troll is to arm yourself
                                with a little bit of knowledge and act like
                                you know something. This guy is hilarious!
                                Physics 7B!!! I am going to bust a gut!
                                \_ With Muller.  If you took his class, you'd
                                   know what I meant.
                                   I don't see you disputing any of the
                                   evidence provided, and again, the original
                                   post was "please show me I'm wrong". -op
                                   \_ Let's start with your first
                                      sentence: "Iran today started to
                                      enrich uranium." You follow this
                                      with: "I believe they can do it by
                                      themselves today." You think they
                                      can process two tons of ore in a
                                      day? This is where the year comes
                                      \_ You really have a tough time with
                                         English comprehension. The, "...
                                         can do it today" part obviously
                                         refers to the build a bomb without
                                         outside help. In fact, the whole
                                         construct makes no sense otherwise.
                                         Why you would take an ambiguous
                                         phrase and interpret it in the way
                                         that makes it senselessness is
                                         beyond me. Is English your native
                                         language? -!op
                                         \_ No, its the motd.  He just wants
                                            to start a fight. --also !op
        \_ Yep, I think this is about the time the Isreali special forces
           show up and blow the crap out of it.
        \_ Whatever.  Israel, Bush, Kerry, Europe, Russia -- they all know
           the score, I just want sodans to know too when something goes down,
           whatever that may be. -op
2004/9/14 [Computer/SW, Academia/GradSchool, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:33518 Activity:high
9/14    I've tried to contact a grad student about some of his work, but my
        email hasn't been responded to.  Anyone know Jordan Smith?  I'm
        interested in his work here:
        If he's got a paper out on this or source code available I'd love to
        see it.  Anyone know him?
2004/7/19-20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran] UID:32354 Activity:very high
7/19    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3908245.stm
        We be invading Iran next.
        \_ FOUR MORE YEAH!
        \_ Pay no attention to the Saudi behind the curtain.
        \_ By definition, this is crying wolf.
           \_ How so?  Tell us the names of the 3 "axis of evil" countries.
              \_ By definition, yermom is a slut.
                 \_ Thanks for adding nothing and proving me right.
2004/7/17-18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:32335 Activity:very high
7/16    Iran Accused of Complicity in World Trade Center Attack!
        \_ Does Iran have any oil?  And why aren't we just shipping the oil
           out of Iraq straight to America for free?
        \_ Good thing to know we have another war to look forward to after
           Bush gets re-elected. Don't you think one will require the draft
           \_ I think Bush is sick and tire of pick on easy target.  Look at
              that "routine" military exercise involved 7 out of 12 air
              aircraft carriers.  I think Bush want to nuke China out of
              existance after he get elected.
              \_ At least it's easy to recognize chicom troll from his
                 hideous engrish.  Thanks for weighing in.
                 \_ a Jew who uses racial slur.
              \_ You went to all the trouble of getting a degree from
                 an American university.  Why not go the extra mile, and
                 actually learn our language?
                 \_ blame on Berkeley.
              \_ I'm getting a headache just trying to read this post.
              \_ Is a Taiwan educaton that good?  YT Lee should speed up his
        \_ How does this make them more complicitous than, say, Saudi Arabia?
2004/6/30-7/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:31101 Activity:insanely high
6/30    http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1240819,00.html
        Hezbollah offers help distributing Farenheit 9/11.
        \_ see, they are nice people after all
           \_ "Hizbollah condemns this horrible act [Nick Berg beheading] that
              has done very great harm to Islam and Muslims by this group that
              claims affiliation to the religion of mercy, compassion and
              humane principles."
              \_ Yeah, they really prefer mass murders over a single killing in
                 a more intimate setting.  Are you really defending Hezbollah?
                 \_ You will note that, without making judgments about them,
                    Hizbollah (dammit I hate the way everyone writes Arabic
                    words differently) is following a long-established pattern
                    of guerilla/terrorist/independence groups to attempt to
                    re-organize and legitimate itself politically and
                    militarily.  Draw some parallels with the Viet Cong.
                    Just an observation.  -John
                    \_ Hezbollah would do better to follow a different pattern
                       focused more on military targets than civilian targets.
                       Neither the Viet Cong, the Basque ETA, nor the IRA
                       won significant gains for their causes through attacks
                       on civilians.
                 \_ Take a second to think.  And to notice that it's in
                    quotes.  This was their (Hezbollah) press release.
                    Reading comprehension courses are available...
                 \_ Why do you hate America?
2004/6/18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:30896 Activity:nil
6/18    CNN The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution, submitted
        by three European powers -- France, Germany and Britain ... In harsh
        language, the resolution approved by the 35-member board of
        governors of the IAEA "deplores" that "Iran's cooperation has not
        been as full, timely and proactive as it should have been," and
        notes "with concern that after almost two years" since Iran's
        undeclared program came to light, "a number of questions remain
        outstanding." ... it states it is essential for Iran to deal with
        issues "within the next few months."
        The irony is that Dubya will probably get credit for this (building
        a coalition, Iran will probably back down, and the U.S. will avoid
        using force).
        \_ Why should Iran back down?  "Ooh, please don't hit me with that
           strong language again!"
           \_ Compare and contrast:
              Iraq -
              Other nations:  Iraq is contained, there is no smoking gun
              U.S.:  Iraq has WMD and may give them to Al Qaeda
              Iran -
              Other nations:  Iran looks like it wants nukes, and we will stop
              U.S.  Iran looks like it wants nukes, and we will stop them.
              \_ It's all rhetoric so far.  What happens when Iran says
                 \_ You're entitled to your analysis, but mine is still that
                    the other countries are all on-board, Iran will probably
                    back down, and Dubya will probably get credit.
2004/6/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:30563 Activity:very high
6/3     Tenet resigns:
        \_ Yup, looks like the administration is siding with Chalabi.  Also
           interesting timing with Bush consulting a lawyer over the whole
           Plame thing.
           \_ Can you please connect-the-dots for those of us not frothing or
              tinhat fashionable enough to see what Chalabi has to do with
              Bush seeing a lawyer for some other issue?  Also, if we held it
              against every President who talked to a lawyer, they'd all be in
           \_ It's a stretch to connect this with "siding with Chalabi", even
              though I personally think Chalabi was framed (or the CIA screwed
              up another one -- saw what they wanted to see).
              \_ Just curious, why do you think Chalabi was "framed" even
                 though there is overwhelming evidence that the guy is just a
                 crook?  He was a well known crook even before the Pentagon
                 adopted him.  Who's the one wearing the tinfoil hat here,
                 \_ I don't know if "framed" is the right word, but the timing
                    of the raid on his office was mighty convenient: it
                    allowed the Prez to pretend to be distancing himself
                    from a crooked thief and liar.
                 \_ Scenario 1:  Chalabi told Iran's Baghdad intelligence
                    station chief that the U.S. cracked their code and is
                    reading all Iranian intelligence messages.  Iran's Baghdad
                    station chief sends a *detailed* message (including the
                    part about the drunken American) to headquarters using
                    same code.
                    This part of the story sounds highly implausible; I have
                    read no explanation for this.
                    Scenario 2:  Chalabi just told you, as station chief, that
                    the code encrypting all your intelligence communications
                    has been cracked by the Americans.  You know Chalabi will
                    get royally fucked if he is revealed as the source, so he
                    must want some reward or have a great interest in helping
                    Iran.  You travel to Iran and personally disclose this to
                    HQ, and then send a dummy message to confirm that the
                    Americans have cracked your code.
                    Scenario 3:  Iran wants Chalabi out.  Iran knows the CIA
                    wants him out.  Iran has known for a while the U.S. has
                    "that" code cracked.  Intelligence chief pens the frame-up
                    story to HQ, knowing this is what the CIA most wants to
                    hear.  Chalabi represents a secular Iraq, and has strong
                    ties with Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz, Defense Department.  Whack
                    the Americans' best bud.
                    The simplest answer here is scenario 3, a frame-up.
                    Scenario 1 is what the CIA wants you to believe; scenario
                    2 is how it should have happened if it were true.
                    I also am skeptical about Chalabi's "crook" labels.
                    I'm going to stick with "distrust" from the State
                    Department and CIA.
                    Simplest answer Part Deux:  Evidence surfaces that the
                    CIA just got duped again, and involving the idiot Chalabi
                    of all people.  Tenet resigns.
                    \_ So Chalabi's white collar criminal convictions mean
                       nothing?  The guy is a well known crook and has
                       zero credibility with just about everybody at this
                       point.  Your "frame up" scenario is far less
                       plausible than anything else I've heard thus far.
                       \_ I know it's a little hard to believe the CIA could
                          be so wrong.
                          Some history:  What happened in Jordan was that
                          Chalabi used a lot of personal connections to move
                          money into the bank.  However, he also loaned a lot
                          of money to family, and these loans defaulted.  He
                          speculated, and lost all the bank's money.
                          He ran, Jordan had to cover all the costs, and they
                          convicted him in absentia.
                          He also fed people to Rumsfeld saying Saddam's had
                          an active WMD program.  He fucked that up too.
                          But I tend to disbelieve the whole "Chalabi was
                          a spy the whole time!"
                          But I tend to disbelieve the "Chalabi was a spy the
                          whole time!" theory.
                          In any case, please offer an explanation for the
                          big hole in Scenario 1.
2004/6/2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran] UID:30539 Activity:high
6/2     Chalabi has got to be one of the greatest spies in modern history.
        Single-handedly brought down Iran's arch enemy Saddam by making
        use of the dumb and dumber Bush regime, another supposed enemy
        of Iran, gave Iran a strong foothood in Iraq, made BUSH CO waste
        120 billion and counting, weakened US economy, destroyed US
        international reputation, damaged its alliances, tied up US
        military, exposed its limitations, and wasted the invaluable US
        breaking of the Iran communication encryption code, and he
        still gets to walk and speak freely, lambasting the Coalition,
        and asking US to "let my people go!" like a modern day Moses.
        \_ What proof is there that Chalabi sold us out?  Which U.S. government
           entity is directing the blame?
           \_ hahaha, see how brilliant chalabi is?  the victim can't
              even admit being sold out because it is too embarrassing.
           \_ I see it's Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz that cut off his $340K/month
              Pentagon stipend last month.  Iran is also saying that although
              they talk to Chalabi a lot, they never received any confidential
              information from him.  Chalabi also said on May 23 that the CIA
              is out to get him on the intercept question.
2004/5/10-11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:30130 Activity:high
5/10    We have economic sanctions against Syria now.  I thought the whole
        point about going to war in Iraq was that sanctions flat out don't
        work.  What's a real conseravtive to think?
        \_ We should have been in Syria by now if the liberals had not tried
        \_ We should have been in Syria by now if da liburhuls had not tried
           so hard to obstruct US.  But it won't delay us for so long.  In a
           year we will, and then Iran, NK....
           \_ No no no, clearly the Shleiffen plan calls for a sweep to the
              right, violating the neutrality of Belgium.
              \_ Everybody knows we should have started with Western Australia.
        \_ No.  That was not the point, troll.  Sanctions can work in some
           places.  They can not work in places where the leadership has solid
           control over the population and is otherwise isolated from any
           sanctions effects by their own access to wealth such as Hussein's
           entire clan during the corrupt UN run 'oil for food' criminal
2004/4/29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:13454 Activity:insanely high 52%like:13446
4/28  Has anyone heard anything more about the foiled Jordan Terror
        \_ Nope.  They haven't finished tying iraq and al qaueda together
           with it.  When they do, you'll hear it loud and clear.
        \_ Get your BushCo sponsored WSJ crap off the motd!  Only papers that
           agree with my agenda such as the NYT, LAT, and Village Voice carry
           any weight around here!
2004/4/28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:13446 Activity:nil 52%like:13454
4/28    Al Qaeda's Poison Gas - The foiled attack in Jordan might have
        killed thousands.
2004/4/27 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:13407 Activity:nil
4/27    Terrorist attacks in Syria?
2004/4/26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:13385 Activity:nil
4/26    Jordan Foils Chemical attack making the rounds again.
        \_ Jordan's VX attack == Chemical attack
           and I've seen only one URL which said "VX"
2004/4/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:13272 Activity:nil
4/19    Why is this not all over the news.
        Jordan King says WMD Vx gas attack stopped. Al Qaeda/Syrian
        connection suspected.
2004/2/7-8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:12149 Activity:high
2/6     A guy I work with who is not a US citizen wants to give money to an
        American political campaign.  He's convinced that he can just use his
        credit card to donate a hundred bucks and no one will notice.  Is he
        right?  I actually like working with this guy, and would hate to
        see him get deported over some dumb stunt like this.
        \_ Judging by the responses below, he should consider the prevalence
           of hostile idiots in the US, decide that he doesn't give a rat's
           ass about our defective political machinations, and use the
           cash for something that will benefit mankind a bit more in the
           long run, like a down payment on a hot tub.  Some of you people
           don't seem to know (or care) about the extent to which other
           parts of the world look on US politics with a mixture of amusement
           and sheer unbelieving horror.  -John
           \_ Hey John, guess what?  No one in the US cares *or should care*
              what other people in the world think of our politics.  They
              should mind their own fucking business and worry about their own
              very often very fucked up systems.  The *least* important concern
              for anyone here is what anyone anywhere else thinks of our
              system, our politicians, or anything else.  Envy and jealousy
              are so ugly.
              \_ Of course we should care about how others think about
                 our political system cause we are always trying to
                 regime change other countries, by force or otherwise,
                 to be like ours, and it would make our job a little easier
                 if they like our system.
                 \_ That'll never happen since they get a highly distorted view
                    of our country from their government run media.  You really
                    think a foreign government is going to go out of it's way
                    to show it's people anything good about our system?  Esp.
                    in places like the middle east?
        \_ what a DUMB ASS. $100 will not make a difference. Better donate
           that money to Redcross, and/or the Green Linux Association or
           Bay Area Bike Ride Fanatic Club
        \_ If he is an Israeli AND was not born in Iran/q, then he can do
           whatever he likes.  If not, he might get in trouble.  If he is from
           some other countries, he would be damned by just having the thought.
           \_ oooh, nice little racist troll.  good one.
                \_ here's a helpful little tidbit you should try to keep in
                      \_ You still haven't explained why it is racist.
                         \_ no cookie, troll.
                            \_ it's obviously not a troll, moron.
                               (the request for explanation that is)
                               \_ quite obviously it is and I'm not biting.  no
                                  cookie, troll.  that's the best you'll get
                                  out of this one.  calling me a moron and
                                  abusing the word "obviously" doesn't make it
                                  different from the troll that it is.  troll.
                   mind next time you want to voice your opinion or call things
        \_ why not jsut have him give the money to you and you give the money
                   racist:  You are an idiot.  You have a reading comprehension
                   problem, and are too stupid to be runing around using loaded
                   words like that.  I am not the person who posted the replied
                   to comment, and the comment isn't correct, but it was not
           \_ can't this be construed as money laundering?
                   racist.  You probably can't do anything about your stupidity
                   but you can refrain from subjecting others to it; please try
                   \_ Here's a little tidbit that's about as helpful or useful
                      as anything you've ever posted to the motd: FUCK OFF AND
                      \_ You still haven't explained why it is racist.
                            \_ it's obviously not a troll, moron.
                               \_ He's right, it's a troll.  Trollity troll!
        \_ why not just have him give the money to you and you give the money
           to the candidate?
           \_ can't this be construed as money laundering?
           \_ Even better, have him give you the money and tell him you donated
              it and pocket it for yourself.
              \_ Bingo!
        \_ Maybe he should influence politics in his own country.
           \_ He comes from a neutral country with the world's dullest
              \_ That's his own fucking problem and no excuse to mess with
                    \_ The amazing thing is that this thread was actually
                       not intended as a troll, although it seems to have
                       turned into the troll of the day. Oh well.  -OP
                    \_ No I don't think it was a troll since I know foreigners
                       with the exact same intent and attitude.  You have the
                       right to do anything you'd like to international law
                       breakers as soon as there's an international law, troll.
        \_ Maybe he should influence politics in his own country.
              to improve it through internal efforts.
                 the politics in this country.
           \_ Nah, now that US is world's police man, openly defies
              international laws and claims the right to regime change
              other countries, he has every reason to try to influence
              politics in the US since it's easier to improve his
              country by cajoling US to regime change it than to try
              to improve it through internal efforts.
              \_ Everyone in the world has a reason to attempt to influence
                 politics in the only super power.  They don't have the right.
                       \_ All national governments do (or should do) what is in
                          the best interests of the nation as a whole.  Your
                          government has chosen to interfere in foreign
                          nations.  Other governments have chosen to interfere
                          in our government.  You are a citizen, not a national
                          government and by interfering in a foreign government
                          you are creating your own foreign policy which is
                          detrimental to the rest of the nation as a whole.  If
                          you'd like to create your own foreign policy go make
                          your own nation somewhere else first.
              \_ can I help a foreigner to influence politics in his
                 And I'm not going to even bother with the trollish bit about
                 international laws nonsense.
                 \_ You haven't noticed this whole thread was a
                    troll and you jumped right into it?  And
           for the guy.
           directly to a candidate, give money to an interest group that
           supports his positions.
                    yes, I have an inalienable right to dethrone the
                    international law breaking lying through its teeth bush
                    \_ The amazing thing is that this thread was actually
                       not intended as a troll, although it seems to have
                       turned into the troll of the day. Oh well.  -OP
                    \_ No I don't think it was a troll since I know foreigners
                       with the exact same intent and attitude.  You have the
                       right to do anything you'd like to international law
                       breakers as soon as there's an international law, troll.
        \_ Nothing wrong with that.  It's not like he donated millions
           for the guy.
           \_ This is almost the right answer.  The real answer is that he
              *can* do it because it is such a small number no one will
              notice but he *shouldn't* do it and you sure as hell shouldn't
              be helping a foreigner influence politics in your own country.
              \_ can I help a foreigner to influence politics in his
                 \_ Can?  You *can* do many things.  I don't think you should.
                    \_ My country is doing it all the time.  Why shouldn't
                       I do it too?
                       \_ All national governments do (or should do) what is in
                          the best interests of the nation as a whole.  Your
                          government has chosen to interfere in foreign
                          nations.  Other governments have chosen to interfere
                          in our government.  You are a citizen, not a national
                          government and by interfering in a foreign government
                          you are creating your own foreign policy which is
                          detrimental to the rest of the nation as a whole.  If
                          you'd like to create your own foreign policy go make
                          your own nation somewhere else first.
                          \_ are you really this stupid?
        \_ Perhaps the better thing for him to do is, instead of giving money
           directly to a candidate, give money to an interest group that
           supports his positions.
           \_ He should donate to a political party in his own country that
              supports his positions.  As a foreigner he has no 'positions'
              in this country.
2003/12/3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:29689 Activity:nil
12/2    "Iran is a more complex problem because the problem is not as clearly
        verifiable as it is in North Korea. Also, we have less - fewer levers.
        The key, I believe, to Iran is pressure through the Soviet Union.
        The Soviet Union is supplying much of the equipment that Iran, I
        believe, most likely is using to set itself along the path of
        developing nuclear weapons. We need to use that leverage with the
        Soviet Union and it may require us buying the equipment the Soviet
        Union was ultimately going to sell to Iran to prevent Iran from
        developing nuclear weapons."  -- Howard Dean (as of a few days ago)
        \_ source?
           \_ Statement on Hardball with Chris Matthews on MSNBC.
              \_ Picked up by http://RushLimbaugh.com
                 \_ Better quote:
                    "Dean's ignorance of how people get their news
                    - and hostility towards letting them choose it
                    - is truly frightening, as is his quip that
                    he'd break up Fox News Channel "on ideological
                    grounds." Imagine the outrage if Bush made a
                    similar statement about CNN!" --Rush Limbaugh
                    \_ I can't tell: is this better because you agree with it?
                       \_ Dean did say he would break up Fox on ideological
                          grounds which makes him sound scary, rather than
                          stupid, like the first quote.  However, I think it
                          was meant to be a joke in context of the show.
                          I didn't find it particularly funny myself.
                          \_ obviously it's not scary if it's a "quip".
                             How about this comment:
                             "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a
                             lot easier...just as long as I'm the dictator..."
                                                        -- GW Bush, 2000
                             \_ Benevolent dictatorship, ho!
        \_ What Soviet Union?
           \_ Exactly.  This whole thread seems to miss the original point,
              which is that Dean's a moron.
2003/11/14 [Politics/Foreign, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:11069 Activity:nil
11/13   Ex-Mexican consul arrested in connection with trafficking of
        illegal Arab migrants
        \_ Government Employees (Foreign or Domestic) - The Enemy Within!!
2003/10/16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:10651 Activity:nil
10/15   Syria here we come!
        \_ finally
        \_ US from the East, Israel from the South, bye bye Syria
        \_ I think we should attack the mad mullahs of Iran first.
        \_ I say we start 2nd Korean War before Iran.  This is good shit,
           we are conquering barbarians everywhere.
        \_ Let's follow up with Saudi Arabia and then maybe Kazakhstan or sth.
           \_ then Yemen, Indonesia...
           \_ You guys aren't even trolls.  You're just dumbasses.
        \_ It's like Maddie said at her confirmation hearing regarding the
           use of the military.  She said the reason to have a military is
           to use it.  She's an ugly old crone but she's a neocon at heart.
        \_ Ok, let's get this in order:
           1. Korea
           2. Syria
           3. Iran
           4. Malaysia (damned racists!)
           5. China (Star Wars Episode V)
2003/10/5-6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:10479 Activity:low
10/5    Two links from the drudgereport that Israel has just attacked terrorist
        bases in Syria.  They haven't had direct conflict with Syria in 20
        years.  If this escalates, the entire Palestinian thing is going to
        be resolved with mass migration out of the war zones.
        \_ they've had plenty of indirect ones, syria has been secretly
           and not so secretly funding terrorist groups that pick
           at Israel, for 20+ years.
           \_ And Israel has sent in agents here and there to execute people.
              That's still much different than seeing F16s flying over Syrian
              territory dropping bombs.  If a real wat breaks out, the gloves
              are coming off and there won't be any more noise about 67 borders
              or land for peace or concerns about if Arafat is alive or not.
              We'll be talking about going back to the pre-2003 borders until
              the next war.
        \_ two links from the drudgereport?  no shit. wow. it's also on
           cnn, nytimes, aljazeera, foxnews, bbc, googlenews, etc etc, but
           if it's in the drudgereport, it must be news.
           \_ Idiot.  The drugereport just refers you to all those other
              places.  It's a bookmark service, moron.
              \_ then why mention it, jackass?
                 \_ Because, my intellectually diminshed young friend, it is
                    easier to say, "go to the drudgereport, that well known
                    news site bookmarking service" than to say, "here's a few
                    really fucking long URLs" or "here's the shortened URL
                    so you have no idea where the fuck I'm sending you".  -op
                    \_ so why post a URL at all, since it's on literally
                       every news wire on the planet, you
                       fucking dildo ass wanker jerkoff punk.
                       \_ To start this thing called 'discussion' or
                          'debate' or 'argument'.  You know...like on a
                          message board.  Jesus H Christ, just admit you're
                          wrong, pretend to be somewhat mature, and STFU. -!op
                 \_ to avoid the inevitable "such-and-such newspaper is
                    biased" free for all.  -!op
                    \_ all media have bias but "left vs right" is probably
                       not the most troublesome one. they're too profit
                       driven to effectively serve the public interest,
                       with biases that favor blood and sensationalism.
                       see al franken, eric alterman, joe conason for more.
                       \_ and this has what to do with the op directing
                          us to the drudge report to avoid the argument?
                          \_ nothing.  that wasn't my reason for it at all. -op
2003/9/15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:29539 Activity:high
9/14    The tread regard to Iran has been censored again. Haha, I think
        I know why that particular thread is being targeted.  It exposes
        the failure of current administration's foreign policy.  And the
        Motd Censor think by deleting it, people wouldn't know about it.
        \_ LOL why censor why you Carter and Clinton to fall back on.
        \_ LOL why censor when one has Carter and Clinton to fall back on.
2003/8/8-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:29282 Activity:insanely high
8/8     So why did Israel break the ceasefire? No flames please, I am
        seriously trying to understand this.
        \_ ??? They didn't.  URL, please.  CNN reports nothing about it.
           \_ http://sg.news.yahoo.com/030808/1/3d9km.html
              \_ This says no such thing.
        \_ It isn't a ceasefire when the other side is still shooting and
           taking public 'credit' for killing your civilians.  Can you ask
           a more loaded question next time?  Thanks!
           \_ Please show me evidence that Hamas or Fatah is taking
              "credit" for this. That is what I was asking for.
              \_ Arafat's boys have taken credit for several attacks
                 recently.  Read the papers everyday.  I shouldn't have to
                 provide you proof that the sky is blue or water is wet.
        \_ Did you read about the recent kidnappings of israeli teens by
           terror groups?  Israel never broke any ceasefire agreements
           \_ How about that big wall cutting into Palestinian land? I guess
              they should be proud the land is going to better use huh?
              \_ Oh yeah, a little construction vs actual kidnapping and
           \_ I thought they were still classified as "missing."
              \_ One was found dead recently.  Some palestinians tried to
                 force a soldier into their car recently, but ran when he
           \_ I think you're misusing the term 'flame'.
                 cocked his rifle.  His superiors gave the soldier a hard time
                 for not firing and ending their reign of terror.
                 \_ I did not know this. Thanks for telling me. I know
                    the US media only ever gets 1/2 of the story and
                    usually the details all mixed up at that.
        \_ I think even mentioning Israel on the motd qualifies as a flame.
           Its almost like a motd corallary of Godwin's law.
           \_ I think you're misusing the term 'flame'.  You probably mean
           \_ very good point... shall we call it the MOTD Corallary and
              try to circulate it in general use? Someone mail the jargon
        \_ About the infamous West Bank wall. I am wondering whether the
           Palestinian claims that the wall is a land grab attempt is true and
           to what degree.  Does anyone have a URL for a map that shows where
           this wall will pass and Israel's actual internationally recognized
           \_ What's so infamous about a wall?  If Canadians were coming over
              the border to commit suicide bombings every day, we'd not only
              start building walls, but raid and invade parts of Canada on a
              near daily basis until we broke their will or killed every last
              one of them.  Walls?  That's tame compared to what most any
              other country would do in Israel's position.
           \_ In order to have an internationally recognized border, your
              existence must be internationally recognized.  Israel isn't
              while numerous other 3rd world states with infinitely worse
              human rights records (such as *all* of their neighbors) are.
              How can anyone seriously expect the Israelis to respect anything
              "international" when they don't even exist legally to a large
              chunk of the planet?
              \_ I meant the internationally recognized border as in what UN
                 and countries who do recognize the state of Israel think
                 their border is. And please don't change the topic. I asked
                 for the map, not an excuse for building the security wall.
                 And BTW, Jordan and Egypt have signed peace agreements
                 with Israel a long time ago, so it's not like none of their
                 neighboors are not recognizing them.
                 \_ fortunately, our local google hater has not yet brought
                    google to it's knees.
                 \_ True, they did.  After getting beaten into submission.
                    Several times.  Anyway, to answer your question, there
                    really isn't such a thing.  You want the pre-67 borders?
                    Post-67?  What about all the deadman's land both
                    populations have expanded into since 47?  There just
                    aren't any nice clean lines anywhere.  That's part of the
                    problem.  Borders aren't real.  If someone pays you taxes
                    they're inside your borders, if not then not.
                    \_ It is exactly this kind of idiotic thinking that has
                       put Israel in the position it is today, with 200k
                       settlers smack dab in the middle of 3.5M Arabs,
                       neither of who is going to move. This desire to
                       have it all will inevitably lead to Israel's demise,
                       at least as a Jewish state. Perhaps it will live on
                       as a multi-secular state, sort of like Lebanon. Too
                       bad you didn't reign in the fanatics while you still
                       could have. It is too late now.
                       \_ Israel can't be a multi secular state because one
                          of your segments wants to genocide the other major
                          segment and 'push them into the sea'.  Yes, it's
                          now too late for the Muslim fanatics to genocide
                          the Jews.
                       \_ By that "thinking," it was alwas "too late" for
                          Israel.  5 million Jews in smack dab in the middle
                          of 200-300 million Arabs, a lot less than 6%.
                          Also, I wouldn't trust a map that declares,
                          "The Palestinians agreed to settle for 22%," when
                          so many are holding out for more.
                       \_ Anyone who calls Lebanon a "multi secular state"
                          has no business advising anyone on their affairs.
                          Lebanon is a chaotic puppet state run by Syria and
                          has been for decades.  You're either deeply confused
                          and misinformed or just plain nutty.
                          \_ What would you call it then? There are people
                             of more than one religion there, aren't there?
                             Being like Lebanon is not a thing to aspire to.
                             \_ I'd call it a Syrian run shit hole puppet
                                state, just like I called it above but with
                                extra emphasis because you didn't read it
                                the first time.  Lebanon is not a country.
                                They don't have a government of any note.
                                Holding up Lebanon as an example of something
                                to emulate is simply bizarre.  If your only
                                standard to call something a multi whatever
                                state is 'people of more than one religion
                                there', then every country in the world
                                fits your description, many of them far better
                                than the wreck that is Lebanon.
                                \_ This is the kind of future Israel has
                                   bought for itself. Watch and see. If
                                   you are not familiar with Lebanon's
                                   attempt to set up a multi-ethnic
                                   Constitution and the resulting civil
                                   wars, then more the pity to be you.
                                   Not that history is your strong point,
                                   but Syria has only occupied the country
                                   since 1990, not "many decades" as you claim.
2003/8/5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:29238 Activity:insanely high
8/4     Why can't U.S. allow assassination of say, Sadam or Bin Laden? Why
        is bombing (which is messier) preferred over assassination? Wouldn't
        both effect to take out or weaken leadership, hence both are
        \_ AFAIR, there was a long standing executive order that assassination
           is not to be used as a policy.  I believe Georgie Jr. nullified that
           \_ Gerald Ford signed the executive order in the 70s and it has
              never been revoked.
        \_ you really think we haven't sent out special forces teams
           to try and hunt down and kill him?
        \_ I believe we used laser-guided bomb / cruise missle to do the same
           thing, caused some collateral damage.  But when other people
           do it, it's called act of terrorism
           \_ who let the tamil tiger hippie have a soda account?
           \_ yeah, they really wanted to kill just that one guy who jumped off
              the Twin Towers but accidently killed everyone else. Take your
              hate America B.S. somewhere like Cuba or Iran or Germany
              \_ Or France and Belgium.  I honestly wonder sometimes if the
                 various EU countries lost too many real men during WWI/II and
                 literally just don't have the right stuff in their genes now.
                 \_ is this your explanation for russia, china, new zealand,
                    canada and most of the rest of the world as well?
                    \_ Yes. And California, New York and all those wussies
                       in Hawaii, too.
                       \_ No, that's just a case of trash flocking to trash.
                    \_ China?  Pacifists?  Are you nuts?  The Russians aren't
                       either, they just can't afford an army.
        \_ Who says we can't allow the assassination of anyone?  That isn't a
           law, it isn't in the constitution, Congress never voted on it, the
           Senate never affirmed it.  That was just Jimmy Carter telling the
                                                          \_ Bzzt.  Read a book.
           world, "we're nice! don't attack us!" shortly before the whole Iran
           hostages embassy fiasco.  Being nice always worked well in world
           politic.  We can, we do and we should.  What's the question?
           \_ You're an asshole.
              \_ Yes, I am, but that has nothing to do with what I said above
                 about the US/Carter assassination policy.  It is all 100%
                 factually correct.  Maybe next time you'll show up with some
                 counter-facts instead of your little dirty-boy's mouth.
                 \_ 100% except for the Carter part.  Oh, and the Iran hostage
                 \_ You scare me. I hope someday you read a book.
                    \_ You still haven't corrected anything with facts, just
                       useless personal attack.  It's too bad facts scare you.
                       \_ It's too bad you haven't gotten laid lately.  Or
                          \_ only by yermom
                          \_ Keep trying.  I'm an asshole, I get laid, and I'm
                             still right and you're not.
                             \_ Hey asshole.
           \_ I don't usually waste my time with morons, but since you
              keep spouting the same lies, I am going to smack you down:
              Guess who was President in Dec 1981? Not Carter, dumbass.
              \_ now start your stopwatch and wait for the thread to get
              \_ Carter freed the hostages, but due to "unusual circumstances"
                 their flight to Germany was delayed so that it would land
                 a few hours into Reagan's presidency, so he could steal all
                 of the credit for their release.
                 \_ No unusual circumstances. The Iranians did it on purpose
                    as a final slap against Carter. Of course they did get
                    all of those swell spare parts, a cake, and a signed bible
                    from Reagan later on...
        \_ Because assassinations work both ways. At a certain point in
           "civilized warfare," specific targeting of enemy officers became
           "uncivil." It was thought that the lack of officers would lead to
           chaos in the field and uncontrolled slaughter would result. This
           was a "do as I say, not as I do" policy and officer targeting
           continued for the most part although officer ransoming and prisoner
           exchanges were much more prevalant then. IOW, we say no assasination
           but we'll do it given half a chance. If they did it, we'd call them
           barbarians. Neat, huh?
2003/8/3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:29223 Activity:nil
8/3     Edward Said rocks:
2003/6/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:28616 Activity:low
6/3     DIY Cruise Missile:
        \_ This looks like something nweaver would do.
                \_ obIPartiedW/Nweaver
                \_ nweaver has the motive (being disgruntled), the means,
                   and the opportunity to do so. It's just a matter of time.
2003/5/22 [Health/Disease/AIDS, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:28522 Activity:high
5/21    Bayer sells medicine that carried high risk of transmitting
        AIDS in Asia and Latin America after it stop selling it in
        the west.  100 people in Hong Kong and Taiwan got HIV after
        using Bayer's medicine.
        \_ So?  Don't those other countries have their own control over drugs
           in the marketplace?  You know there are drugs approved for use in
           Europe that aren't allowed here?  They should protect themselves
           better and not rely on foreign nations to decide what drugs are
           good or bad for their people.
            \_ you have no idea what your great country is doing.  USA
                never reluctant to throw their weight around to sell their
                products.  if the government is not co-operating... well,
                the worse case is what happened to Guatemala, Iran, and
                Iraq - government got overthrown by US either conventional
                or covert forces.
                \_ uhhh, Bayer is german!  damn nazi's experimenting again.
                \_ So the Great White Satan goes to these countries and says,
                   "You must accept our poisoned drugs or we'll invade your
                    country and install a government that will sell our broken
                    drugs to your citizens"?  Stop reading so much
                \_ You've read too many Gibson novels.  Perhaps you should
                   sit down, put a damp towel over your head and take a long
                   \_ Hasn't government basically dissapeard in Gibson's
                      futuristic novels?  Is the US government mentioned
                      even once in the Sprawl series?
                   \_ any citizens of foreign nation who is politically
                      conscious know this.  These are facts, not fictions.
                      For most part, USA just throw its economic weight
                      around, and because USA is the largest export market,
                      that is usually enough.  It's unfortunate for Iran
                      and Iraq, because oil is too much to gave up.
                      \_ Iran?  You mean that we invaded Iran for their oil?
                         WTF are you babbling about?  You're beneath idiocy.
                         \_ You know that the US overthrew a democratically
                            elected leader in Iran and had the Shah installed
                            in his place in 1953, right?
                    \_ Could you join us in the current century please?  And
                       as always, it's not nearly as grade school simple as
                       you'd like to portray history.
           \_ Good troll. Lots of bites.
        \_ You are moron. -aaron
           \_ "You are [a] moron. -aaron" [corrected]
              \_ You are fool" -!aaron
                \_ I am not aaron - eric
2003/4/15-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:28134 Activity:very high
4/15    Couldn't find the link that says we won't be attacking Syria?
        Was <DEAD>www.cnn.com's<DEAD> front page too hard to find?  If you stopped
        reading biased trash that prints only what you want to read you
        might find these things on your own.  It's ridiculous that I'd
        have to actually *tell* you to go to http://cnn.com as a counter point to
        some obscure link from europe.
        \_ are you going to apologize for being such a dumbass if we invade
           \_ Sure, right after you apologize for all the anti-Bush, the-world
              -is-doomed/quagmire/terrorism++ noise which all came to nothing
              as usual.
              \_ fine.  I was wrong about alot of things about the recent
                 war, and have changed my outlook accordingly.  In the end
                 I think the actions of the Syrian government will determine
                 wether there is war or not.
              \_ dude, the quagmire/terrorism++ worries are far from over.
                 Just because major media outlets are saying "the war is over
                 we won, neener neener" doesn't mean that serious problems
                 are still not develping.  It will be years before the issue
                 can even begin to be answered one way or the other.
                 \_ NNOOOO!  Do not you inject thought and rationality into
                    this!  Your lack of ad hominem is completely outrageous!1!!
        \_ why did you delete the european link?
           \_ why do you think I did?  I didn't.
              \_ Where is it then? What the hell are you talking about?
        \_ You claimed that Bush said we weren't going to invade Syria.
           http://CNN.com has Colin Powell saying that there are no plans to invade
           Syria. Powell has been wrong before, and he is not Bush.  If you're
           going to post your spew, you can have the decency to back it up
           with a link.  Food for thought:
           \_ I think he said "There are currently no plans to invade Syria."
              A fairly open ended statement.  Easy to update if someone in
              the administration suddenly gets a fire up their ass.
2003/4/15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:28127 Activity:very high
4/15    Most people guessed N. Korea, I guessed Iran, I guess we were all
        wrong: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2947571.stm
        \_ Perhaps you missed all the articles yesterday where Bush stated
           flat out that we will not be attacking Syria militarily?  It would
           help if you read news sources that cover all the news, not just the
           news you'd like to read.  I'll be honest.  I'm disappointed that
           you're wrong.  It would be a better, safer world if the current
           Syrian dictatorship was crushed instead of economically prodded in
           the right direction.
           \_ First, provide a link. Second, you have got to be fucking
              kidding me.
           \_ Yeah.  Kill.  Kill!  Destroy!  Maim!  We numbah one!  We the
              greatest country!  YEAH!  KILL!  KILL!
2003/4/10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:28067 Activity:high
4/10    We have a lot of troops there in Iraq now.  Why not just keep going
        and move into Iran and Syria?  We will move in there eventually but
        it'll cost a lot more if we have to pull the troops back into the US
        and move them there again in a year or so from now.
        \_ Why do we need to invade Iran and Syria?
        \_ I don't think its necessary.  The credibility of the US has been
           reestablished, and we are in much stronger negotiating position
           with these regimes.  I believe the threat will be sufficient to
           achieve compliance.
           \_ how has credibility been reestablished? by all those wmd's
              that were found in saddam's palaces?
              \_ Street cred
        \_ Saudi Arabia is the best target right now and the most likely to
           breed terrorists. Plus the oil. Iran is actually making some
           progress towards democracy.
        \_ Let's take it one step further and just go invade Canada
           and Mexico, too, while we're at it. They're definitely nearby.
           \_ We should take all of Canada except make Quebec independent.
              Those Frenchies don't have any oil.
        \_ Of course, Patton wanted to take out the Red Army after WWII.
           Who knows what might have happened then?
           \_ Morally, there is no justification for not doing so. We let
              Stalin keep the part of Poland he invaded and impose totalitarian
              rule over a score of nations.
        \_ The real world doesn't play out like Risk(tm).
        \_ U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A!!!
2003/4/4-5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:27994 Activity:high
4/4     Associated Press article on Yahoo news: http://csua.org/u/c59
        "Al-Jazeera is based in the Persian Gulf state of Qatar. It has
        received funding by Qatar's government but is an unusually independent
        voice in the Arab world."
        Does this give Al-Jazeera more credibility?
        \_ do you have a point?
           \_ I meant people have been saying that Al Jazeera is biased towards
              Iraq.  Now that AP calls it independent, maybe it is not as
              biased as we think?
              the Iraq side.  Now that AP calls it independent, maybe it is not
              as biased as we think?
              \_ No.  It doesn't say what you think it says.  It says it is an
                 'unusually independent voice in the Arab world' which means
                 it doesn't necessary spout off the noise from the government
                 that funds it, but isn't necessarily unbiased.  So, no, it
                 doesn't come across any more neutral than it did before you
                 mis-read your own posting.
              \_ Of course they're biased. Al-Jazeera is based in an Arab
                 country and their primary audience are Arabs.
                 \_ So our US media are all biased too?
                    \_ All media is biased.  Some is more biased than others.
        \_ More than what? NPR? Fox News?
           \_ Than the motd.
              \_ The motd is the final authority on all things.
                 \_ No it isn't.  (hah! now you go into a Kirkian Logic Loop!)
                    \_ But it is, but it says it isn't and if it says it isn't i\
t must not be because it is but if it is then it can't be because it says it isn\
't but ..  But it is, but it says it isn't and if it says it isn't it must not b\
e because it is but if it is then it can't be because it says it isn't but ..  B\
ut it is, but it says it isn't and if it says it isn't it must not be because it\
 is but if it is then it can't be because it says it isn't but ..  But it is, bu\
t it says it isn't and if it says it isn't it must not be because it is but if i\
t is then it can't be because it says it isn't but ..  But it is, but it says it\
 isn't and if it says it isn't it must not be because it is but if it is then it\
 can't be because it says it isn't but ..  But it is, but it says it isn't and i\
f it says it isn't it must not be because it is but if it is then it can't be be\
cause it says it isn't but ..  But it is, but it says it isn't and if it says it\
 isn't it must not be because it is but if it is then it can't be beca
2003/2/16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:27435 Activity:nil
2/16    Carter Sold Out Iran 1977-1978
        "Ramsey Clark...played a behind the scenes role influencing members
        of Congress to not get involved in the crisis."
2003/1/21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:27178 Activity:nil
1/21    The MJ Commercial: http://espn.go.com/page2/s/neel/030116.html#
        Anyone know how to save the .wmv stream as a file on the hd?
        \_ google ASF Recorder. I've used that for a bunch of things
           but it doesn't work with the stuff on http://ESPN.com. Probably
           something to do with the fact they play all these ads first.
2003/1/21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:27166 Activity:high
1/20    What are the realistic chances of US mobilizing 100,000 strong
        force on the border of Iraq, and move them back to the States
        without a fight?  In this regard, wouldn't you think this entire
        UN weapon inspection thingy is pointless since we are going to
        fight anyway?
        \_ when the U.S. goes in, the administration thinks there will be
           international pouting but that's it
        \_ Were I any foreign country with nukes, I'd proliferate them
           like crazy to dilute the power of the US.  Who knows who Bush
           will brand evil next?
                \_ Exactly which countries would those be? North Korea,
                   Iran, and Iraq maybe?  Who else is not aligned
                   with the West and nuclear?  And what would be the biggest
                   deterent for a nation interested in developing nuclear
                   weapons and their delivery systems?  Rendering such
                   a weapon useless with ABM technology.
                   And so you honestly believe Iran, Iraq and NK are not
                   evil countries?
                   \_ Mind you, USA created North Korea at
                      at first place (in exchange, Soviet declared war
                      against Japan for something like 3 days before
                      Japanese surrandered).  We don't like Iran cuz
                      they overthrow Sha we installed back in the 50's.
                      and Both Iran and Iraq's oil are nationalized,
                      not controlled by handful of monarchs thus much
                      harder to extract and manipulate profit from it.
                      And I sincerely believe the last reason is why
                      we don't like Iraq and Iran (oppose to other Monarchs
                      whose human right records are not exactly spotless).
                        \_ In fact we did partition Korea, and look at the
                           result.  South Korea is the 13th largest economy
                           in the world. It was led by Rhee, a dictator,
                           for all but 14 years of its existence.  This
                           was the paradigm for U.S. client states during
                           the Cold War.  South Korea's success attests to
                           Reza Shah's hold on power existed for more than
                           30 years up until WWII when he entreated the
                           Axis.  Iran was invaded by the Allies, and his
                           son came to power after a coup of the Soviet's
                           M. Shah was overthrown when Nobel
                           M. Shah was overthrown after Nobel
                           Laureate Carter withdrew U.S. support.
                           This precipated militant Islam's first success,
                           the legacy of which we fight today.  Had the
                           Shah maintained power, Iran could arguably
                           be much like S. Korea.  Furthermore, the eight
                           year Iran-Iraq war would likely not have happened.
                           Reza Shah's hold on power existed for more than
                           30 years up until WWII when he entreated the
                           Axis.  Iran was invaded by the Allies, and his
                           son came to power after a coup of the Soviet's
                           Iraq and Iran are rogue states whose acts
                           threaten international stability.
                           \_ Can't believe you actually believe our
                              imperialistic intervention is for the better
                              of the natives.  Go back to 19th century and
                              enjoy your White Man's Burden.

                              Iran has a very lively democracy today. This
                              can not be achieved with our claws muddling
                              their national affairs for the purpose of oil.

                              North Korea's government evolved from the
                              underground resistance during the Japanese
                              Occupation.  If anything, they are more legit
                              then the puppet we set up in the South.
                              \_ Kim Il Sung was educated in Moscow and
                                 a hand picked protege of Stalin.
                                 A very 'lively' democracy indeed.
2003/1/17-18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Consumer/TV] UID:27128 Activity:high
1/16    I want to see this new Gatorade Jordan 23 vs 39 commerical
        everyone is talking about. But I don't watch that much TV. And to
        my surprise, I found out http://adcritic.com is now a pay site. Any know
        of similar sites or where I can find that commercial online? (It's
        not on http://gatorade.com)
        \_ http://ESPN.com has a story and a copy of the video.  Overhyped.
        \_ ?
        \_ try those p2p clients (fast-track / gnutella)  They have a lot
           of commercials.  Eventhough I didn't have any luck finding
           all these beer commercials I saw on Superbowl.
        \_ Money! thanks. that commercial rules. -op
2003/1/16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:27113 Activity:high
1/15    http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030115-035849-6156r
        Israel's new policy of assassination in friendly nations.
        \_ We are doing the same (remember the Missile trick we pulled
           off in Yemen?).  This action is no different from PLO's
           suicide bombers
           \_ We do it better.  Nothing left but a burning wreck and a smear
              in the sand.
              \_ What?  You don't like giving a terrorist a cell-phone bomb
                 and then calling it?
                 \_ Ok, well that was kind of cool but I like the video game
                    aspect of Terrorst Hunter (req's directx 8.1 and 3d card).
           \_ Yemen is not a friendly nation, in people's spirit at least.
2002/12/11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:26783 Activity:nil
12/10   http://csua.org/u/69b [azcentral.com]
        Goooooo bears!
        \_ I believe its pronounced: GO BEAH!
2002/9/9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:25821 Activity:high
9/9     On why being 7 years old in Iran can be fatal: http://csua.org/u/237
        \_ that has nothing to do with being 7.
           \_ it has to do with being 7 in Iran.  If she was 30 her dad would
              not have gotten an axe out.
        \_ Did this happen in Tehran or the arab equivalent of a hodunk town?
        \_ there is nothing specific about Iran.  Fucked up shit like that
           happens all over the place.  Isn't it also humiliating that
           they even checked whether she was still a virgin?
           \_ seems somewhat appropriate given the situation. maybe that's a
              a standard autopsy thing.
           \_ all over the place? uh, no.
        \_ "Rape often goes unreported in Iran where the conservative
           society sees it as bringing shame on the victim and family."
           Clearly, it's the victim's fault for being raped.  How shameful.
        \_ http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/jul2002-weekly/you-16-07-2002/#2
           and if anyone has a more reliable news source for this i'd
           appreciate it.
           \_ Dude this is so main stream even CNN has it.  I think Time might
              have done it already too.
              have done it already too.  IIRC, they sentenced the 4 rapists to
              death or some such thing and a bunch of others got jail time.
              They're appealing but currently in prison.
2002/4/25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:24592 Activity:nil
4/25    Egypt wants $100b to attack Israel.  I'm not making this up.
        \_ there sure are a lot of landmines in the way, did
           they recently invent magic hovercraft?
        \_ Grade: D-
           Comments: Dropped from C- to D- for saying "I'm not making this
                     up."                       - troll grader
           \_ You're an idiot.  It's a serious topic when a country announces
              they'll attack another country presumably with the intent of
              completely destroying them and killing everyone if the price
              is right.  Or maybe you're a moron.  I'm undecided on that.
2002/3/11-12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:24082 Activity:insanely high
3/11    Please recommend a first-time 7 day tour of Egypt.  We are independent
        minded travellers but want to take advantage of the discount a tour
        package would offer as well as the convenience for someone who have
        not been to Egypt before.  We will depart from Europe.  Ok tnx.
        \_ risking your life there eh? you are nuts to travel in middleeast
           \_ It's not like Egypt and Israel have actually declared open war
              on each other yet.  That'll probably take a few months.  Like if
              the Israeli's do some brutal pounding in Gaza and a few hundred
              thousand flee south to Egypt.  God knows the Egyptians don't
              have any use for the Palestinians.  Who wants that coming over
              their border?
              \_ Search google using: egypt tourist kill
                 It's the anti-Egyptian-govt forces that'll kill you
                 If anything, Egypt govt is pro-israel.
                 \_ It was all way back in 1997!  It's safe now!  Really! Come
                    back to Jamai-- I mean Egypt, your new isla-- desert home!
                 \_ it was also a suspected al-queda-sponsored attack [formatd]
                 \_ Egypt?  Pro-Israeli government?  You're nuts.  Try reading
                    any of the Egyptian newspapers which are all government
                    controlled mouth pieces.  You'd think they were in the
                    middle of a hot war the way they talk about Israel.  With
                    friends like that....  Anyway, definitely not a great place
                    to tour these days if you value your life.
        \_ Egypt is safer than most US cities. Email if you want some
        \_ Cairo is safer than most US cities. Email if you want some
           advice from someone who has visited there. -ausman
           \_ when was the last time you visited? A friend of mine
              got into a rough spot earlier this year.
              \_ End of 2000. I had to chase some leering men away from
                 a female traveling companion at one point, but it did not
                 seem particularly dangerous to me. She might have felt
                 differently about it. Egypt has very defined gender roles,
                 which is what I wanted to talk to the op about. -ausman
                 \_ very defined gender roles = need to chase leering men away
                    from female tourists?  uh say what?
2001/9/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36332 Activity:nil
9/19    Another one for the America haters
2001/9/12 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:36282 Activity:nil
9/12    Something to think about:
        Not that this changes the fact that we should nuke everything
        from palestine to pakistan and be done with the muslim menace
        \_ That's right, if i remember my Bible correctly, didn't
           Christ himself give the thumbs up to eye-for-an-eye argument?
           \_ You're not remembering it correctly. Try reading it again.
              He advocated "turning the other cheek."
              \_ irony
           Killing all brown people in the world is the best and only
           solution. And don't forget to nuke Indonesia and Turkey while
           solution. And don't forget to nuke Malaysia and Turkey while
           you're at it.
           \_ Idiots like gandhi who believed that "an eye for an eye
              makes the whole world blind" are the reason we are in
              this situation.  The fruits of years of diplomacy and
              concilliation and consideration were reaped yesterday.
              Now is the time for action not moderation and compassion.
              \_ HAHAHAHHHHH!!!    When have we EVER had a single DAY
                 of concilliation or consideration in our foreign policy?
                 Read up on Chile, El Salvador, Iraq, et al.  It's sentiment
                 like this that keeps Kissinger out of the Hague.
                 \_ Our policy of toleration of egypt, syria, jordan,
                    iraq, iran, the sudan, wimpiness in korean and
                    vietnam, detente are all the result of "diplomats".
                    If we had trusted our military leaders, we would
                    not be in this situation now.
                    \_ You're right.  We'd be neck deep in blood and no
                       better off.
1998/6/22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Recreation/Sports] UID:14231 Activity:nil
6/21    How the hell is soccer supposed to make it in the US when
        they can't even beat Iran?
        \_ US team whined too much.  What is it with "We would have won
           9 times out of 10" and all that stuff?  If they lost, they
           should swallow the defeat, go home, practice hard, and come
           back 4 years later.  Enough with that sore looser crap.
           No wonder the world doesnt repect US soccer.
        \_ IRAN RULES, BABY!!           --azarm
1998/4/23-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:14002 Activity:nil
4/23    Is there some competition between Tom Clancy and Robert Jordan to
        see who can produce the longest books? 800-1000pgs per novel. Ack.
        \_What did Robert Jordan write?
          \_ The Wheel Of Time series, which hardbacks combined weigh more
             than I do.
        \_ Its all crap anyway, who cares?  Go buy the Xanth series in
           hardback if you want to read by weight instead of quality.
           \_ Go and get some Ayn Rand instead.  Utter drivel like
              Piers Anthony, but some people think it's "deep."
                \-It is shakespeare's bday today. Go read Merchant of Venice
                or Henry V. --psb
                \_ I found a new deeper meaning to life in the Xanth books.:-)
        \_ Try "Don Quixote."
1998/3/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Computer/Rants, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:13752 Activity:very high
3/3     Jim Barksdale admits that he is a Bill Gates "admirer". http://www.cnnfn.com
        \_ Who is this and why do we care?
                \_ ceo@netscape.com
                \_ Ok, now why do we care?
                \_ If you admir your enemy, then you are STUPID. And you NSCP
                   people, don't even try to erase this message again!
                        \_ Your spelling and attitude demonstrate your
                           ignorance clearly.  Mr. Barksdale on the other
                           hand obviously sees Mr. Bill has built Microsoft
                           into an incredible juggernaut, and can admire him
                           for that while trying to compete against it.
        \_ This is like saying "I think Hitler is c00l, but I hate him."
                \_ No, this is like Jason Kidd saying "I think Michael Jordan
                   is a great basketball player even though I have to try
                   and beat him when our teams play each other."
1998/1/22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:13543 Activity:high
1/21    US sponsors genocide of Cuba!
        \_ Sad but true.  What had Cuba done to warrant an embargo even
           worse than one given to Iraq?  So it has a communist regime,
           is that a crime?  What is this BS from US government that
           the embargo is meant to promote freedom of speech and crap
           like that?  What about freedom to live?
           \_ the embargo is the legacy of influential lobbyists
              funded by people who lost property when castro
              made cuba a communist state and they are not going
              to go away anytime soon, they are patient and
              are just waiting for castro to pass on.
        \_ AMERICA.  LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT, BUDDY. - danh
          \_ I think the embargo of Cuba is stupid and does no
             good, but the US is the only major nation that enforces
             the sanctions. They can get whatever they want from Canada,
             France or any of the other 200 countries that do not
             have restrictions on trade with Cuba. Any genocide
             is a result of Castro and the Communist government,
             not of the US embargo. this is unlike the sanctions
             against Iraq, which were supported by the West for a long
             time. This is no excuse for hussein's atrocities, but let's
             keep the facts straight. If you think the problems of the
             Cuban people are to be blamed on the US embargo,  then
             you have a serious misunderstanding of politics and economics.
             \_ Wrong.  USA punishes domestic and foreign companies that
                trade with Cuba.
                \_ this is only partially true. As far as I understand it,
                 the helms-Burton act has only been enforced against a
                 a small number of firms. While a lot of people are pissed,
                and justifiably so -H-B act is pretty silly, it has
                made no impact on the trade between cuba and foreign
                nations. the H-B act is an empty threat in the overwhelming
                number of cases. Ie, Jesse Helms is just one guy.
                One cranky Southern guy can't stop world trade.
                Finally, the US cannot punish firsm which do no business
                in Cuba. Another good example of what i am talking about is
                Jordan and Israel. Israel refuses to trade with Jordan,
                until recently. But trade still happens. All the goods
                are routed to Cyprus, a neutral country. as I understand it,
                that is how a lot of US/Cuba trade actually happens.
                Any foreign firm with US ties could set up dummy companies
                with no US ties, which is what happens. Of course, since
                cuba with its present economic system, produces little wealth,
                its probably not to profitable to try to often. The fact
                remains: any country that wanted to trade with Cuba, can.
                Cuba's poverty is not primarily the fault of the US embargo.
                I recommend removing the embargo so that fact will be
                totally clear. - fab@csua
2022/05/27 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Results 1 - 150 of 185   < 1 2 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Foreign:MiddleEast:Others: