Israelis urge U.S. to stop Iran's nuke goals

[Stellar]

I know we have seen eye too eye on alot of things, but just because you are a soldier doesn't mean that you know what's best for your country or mine. AND....I've done plenty, it's your turn young man.

You're avoiding what he's talking about. He's saying the same thing I was. You're being hypocritical.

[mklsgl]

Erik:

Whatever you may disagree with personally and/or politically, you are serving for the better good, and I know that you know that. I applaud you for that as do my many friends who depend upon you and your fellow Israeli military for their safety and freedom.

[mklsgl]

Fear Creates Consumption = the core ideology of US propaganda towards its own citizenry.

[Babs]

We all applaud you and Stellar for your service and I applaud my father and grandfather and nephew and girlfriends for their military service. Not everyone has to be a soldier to know that they go through hell. My father would never talk about WWII., but we all knew from experiences later that it took quite a toll on him.

I am not a soldier, but I can certainly talk about the draft as my father believed in people going to serve their country. He would want me to be for the war and the draft if it becomes necessary.

Now, when are you guys going to do what I have done???...you guys do what I have done and I will do what you have done.

[Stellar]

Now, when are you guys going to do what I have done???

What have you done, hmm? You've claimed that people should serve their country by fighting for it... so it doesnt matter what you've done as a civvy, until you've done something in the military you will remain a hypocrite.

[Piney]

Believe me, in the last 6 months of my military life I have done things which I politically disagreed with. Though I had to do them, because the majority of people in this country decided they want this to be done and so the military under the orders of the parliament had to follow orders.

Was I comfortable with pursuing these orders? No.

Though I volunteered for the mission, even though I politically disagreed with it.

You see being a soldier is also knowing when you must act even if you disagree with the orders as long as they do not disobey international law.

If you didn't go through this you have no idea what are the moral crisis and ideological changes which go through a soldier's mind.

"Your nothing, Your no one, because no one doesn't care. Your a tool for a job and that is it. Emotion, ideology, and morals has nothing to do with it. You perform your orders and do your job. Tools do not have emotion or moral values"

.....and you see the faces every night when you close your eyes for the rest of your life and no alcohol or drugs will prevent it from happening........You have my highest respect sir. The damage from being in a state of war can never be prevented or cured.

Lapi'che

[Piney]

What have you done, hmm? You've claimed that people should serve their country by fighting for it... so it doesnt matter what you've done as a civvy, until you've done something in the military you will remain a hypocrite.

Like all those "visitors" who come up to the "George Patton Post" and spout. I have not talked with one combat vet yet that agrees with anything going on today and politics has nothing to do with it.

[Babs]

zep....I think we are just waiting for Bush to tell us what to do. We wait.

[zephyr]

zep....very interesting and I agree with you again with what you are saying. I guess we wait to see what our countries come up with. And, well, of course, it has crossed my mind that you are a disinformationist.

....... It is exciting talking to you, too, because of your level head and the uncertainty (or mystery), I sometimes sense.

...Babs

A 'disinformationist'? Sounds like a professional working for Fox News or something.

Thank you Babs for considering talking to me exciting. As for the 'mystery' you sense, I wonder what gave you that impression. I knew I shouldn't have made posts right after drinking that funny new tea!

What makes you think Bush is going to say anything new; I'm not wasting my time by waiting for politicians to blab their usual nonsense!

...Zep

[Babs]

What can you do? What does the average Iranian do? My country thinks your country is working in secrecy to develop "nukey-poos". You know_ cowboy-ing it! ....ooooh, illegal activities.

[Babs]

what battle ?????

wunarmdscissor, you get the award for all-around boobery!

[zephyr]

What can you do? What does the average Iranian do? My country thinks your country is working in secrecy to develop "nukey-poos". You know_ cowboy-ing it! ....ooooh, illegal activities.

Well Babs; it's not much the average Iranian can do as long as this country is being threatened by ranch cow-boys possessing illegal nukes. It's the hypocritical approach of the US that is the real problem here. Countries can have nukes with complete disregard for international treaties as long as they are the allies and/or puppets of the US (for example Israel has not even signed the NPT and has a secret nuclear arsenal, the only ones possessing such weapons in the ME along with Pakistan, but do we hear even a peep out of the US about them?). That's why in the eyes of many, what the US 'thinks' is not a reference since they themselves along with their puppets are engaged in lots and lots of ....ooooh, illegal activities that include unilateral invasions and occupations, as well as the possession of all sorts of WMD. The US itself is the biggest danger to world peace and a prominent promoter of the law of the jungle that's ruling our world today.

[Babs]

"When you put it that way". I think I could listen to you all day, zep.

The US doesn't want to be unfair, it's just that the law of the jungle wants to keep dominance in the hands of nations that aren't going to blow the world up. Because of past history we know that particular nations --which have nukes-- won't press the button.

On the other hand, Iran is an unknown quantity...and is involved in supporting and sponsering terrorism.

Edited October 24, 2005 by Babs

[zephyr]

I think I could listen to you all day, zep.

Oh, how nice! Then here is some more talk just for you Babs!

The US doesn't want to be unfair

Maybe she doesn't want to be, but for some odd reason she often is.

it's just that the law of the jungle wants to keep dominance in the hands of nations that aren't going to blow the world up.

No Babs; things aren't that way in our jungle world. The strong promote and encourage the laws of the jungle because fair laws would make their bullying powers useless.

Because of past history we know that particular nations --which have nukes-- won't press the button.

History shows us exactly the opposite of that. The US is the only country that has ever used nukes. How can you be so sure that some lunatic or lunatics won't 'press the button' someday, somewhere? I don't trust anybody with nukes, not the Iranians, the Americans, the Europeans, the Chinese, not anybody at all.

On the other hand, Iran is an unknown quantity

Iran has existed for 3000 years and you consider it as 'an unknown quantity'? In fact the civilized world has never existed without Iran. 'Unknown' are the new, unsettled and aggressive powers of the world. The last time Iran aggressed anybody goes back to 300 years when Agha Mohammad Khan, the Qajar king invaded Georgia. On the other hand, the short history of the US is filled with acts such as using nukes against civilian populations, invasions and occupations of far away countries including bombing of civilians, resorting to terrorism and political assassinations to overthrow sovereign governments, support of ruthless dictators and the list goes on. You can talk to me about 'unknown quantities' and 'terror support' in about 300 years, that is if the US decided to stop its aggressive actions around the world today; only then might I take you and the US seriously about all that talk.

[Erikl]

Iran has existed for 3000 years and you consider it as 'an unknown quantity'? In fact the civilized world has never existed without Iran. 'Unknown' are the new, unsettled and aggressive powers of the world.

Zephyr you are babies though compare to us Semites .

Though it should be noted that not all Semitic cultures are as old as the Hebrew, Aramean, Assyrian and Babylonian ones - the Arabs became civilized about 200 years after the Persians created their first major empire.

[mklsgl]

"The last time Iran aggressed anybody goes back to 300 years when Agha Mohammad Khan, the Qajar king invaded Georgia."

- Then what do you call those 444 days back in 1979-1980?

[Babs]

zep....it's easy to say you don't trust anybody with nukes. Across the board, I would agree with that statement. Hell, it sounds good. BUT.... it's easy to say you don't trust any country with nukes when your country doesn't have any.

And when I say Iran is 'an unknown', I mean 'an unknown' in the modern world. In the modern world of terrorism, specifically.

[Dr_Strangelove]

zep....it's easy to say you don't trust anybody with nukes. Across the board, I would agree with that statement. Hell, it sounds good. BUT.... it's easy to say you don't trust any country with nukes when your country doesn't have any.

And when I say Iran is 'an unknown', I mean 'an unknown' in the modern world. In the modern world of terrorism, specifically.

I actually got to talk to a retired USAF colonel last week and I brought up the issue of Iran having nuclear weapons. I have a lot of faith in this fellow for his level-headed judgement. He told me that quite a few people in the American military fully expect other nations to get nuclear weapons. Its almost vain to try to prevent them from getting the weapons.

He also noted that even with the changes in SAC and our nuclear strategic posturing we still have enough firepower to annilate any nation that attacks us with such weapons.

[Babs]

I actually got to talk to a retired USAF colonel last week and I brought up the issue of Iran having nuclear weapons. I have a lot of faith in this fellow for his level-headed judgement. He told me that quite a few people in the American military fully expect other nations to get nuclear weapons. Its almost vain to try to prevent them from getting the weapons.

He also noted that even with the changes in SAC and our nuclear strategic posturing we still have enough firepower to annilate any nation that attacks us with such weapons.

Yea!

Edited October 24, 2005 by Babs

[zephyr]

Zephyr you are babies though compare to us Semites

I was talking about organized governments and states, not races.

Then what do you call those 444 days back in 1979-1980?

I was talking about wars, invasions and military occupations of sovereign nations decided upon by well-established governments unilaterally, not illegal acts committed amidst a revolution by hot-headed revolutionary students and against the government's will and the law of the land itself (the Iranian government led by prime minister Bazargan resigned in protest when it failed to force the students out of the embassy; taking over foreign embassies is against Iranian laws to begin with, and although not an excuse, the fact remains that a state of lawlessness is something that often accompanies revolutions as they are taking place and the Iranian revolution was not an exception in this regard).

it's easy to say you don't trust any country with nukes when your country doesn't have any.

The fact that Iran doesn't have any nukes is a positive point for this country, we just have to make sure it stays that way and work on disarming all the others that have them. Yes Babs, it is easy to say I don't trust anybody with nukes because I REALLY don't.

And when I say Iran is 'an unknown', I mean 'an unknown' in the modern world. In the modern world of terrorism, specifically

In the modern world of terrorism, it's not only Iran that's 'an unknown', it applies to a lot of countries that resort to terror methods as a means of conducting foreign policy. Who gets singled out and who doesn't depends entirely on whose friends you are. That's why the supposed war on terror is going nowhere, there is too much politics involved which of course makes the whole approach quite biased, selective, and therefore ineffective.

Its almost vain to try to prevent them from getting the weapons

It wouldn't be if there were fair laws that were applied to everyone equally. Unfortunately, the countries that possess nuclear weapons have set very bad examples for others by encouraging them to take part in a primitive and dangerous arms race that the said countries themselves have spread throughout the world.

we still have enough firepower to annilate any nation that attacks us with such weapons.

That's the kind of phobia that is spread among the public opinion in order to justify the possession of dangerous WMD; it's a classical and threaded excuse used by those who have no valid arguments for keeping nukes. The best way of making sure nobody attacks anybody with nukes is for everyone that has such weapons to get rid of them ASAP. Encouraging or expecting others to do like you do, that is arming themselves to their teeth and then threatening others with annihilations and such, is a naive way of feeling safe in a world made superficially unsafe, it's a method that defies the most basic common sense.

[Dr_Strangelove]

The history of trying to outlaw any weapon is not particularly good. The main reason certain weapons have been relatively successfully controlled has had more to do with the weapon itself. As long as a nation wants nuclear weapons they will be able to get them.

I don't consider it a phobia under the circumstances. There is a saying where I work; just because your paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

[zephyr]

The history of trying to outlaw any weapon is not particularly good.

That's because there has never been the real will to do it. Naturally (I don't know why the word 'nature' makes me think of the jungle in this case!), the ones that have the weapons don't want them outlawed, at least not for themselves and their friends; and those that don't have them can't outlaw them on their own, and even if they did, it would be pretty useless since they don't have them to begin with anyway. Nukes aren't just 'any weapon' and outlawing them is going to become a necessity rather than an option if man is to come out of the jungle one day.

I don't consider it a phobia under the circumstances

Well, I do!

There is a saying where I work; just because your paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you

Obviously, people making and maintaining nukes have to have that kind of saying, otherwise they couldn't do their job, could they Doc?

[Dr_Strangelove]

Nope, we do have an atmosphere of institutional paranoia. It has been my experience that this is common in a lot of military environments. I just don't think total nuclear disarmament will ever be viable. Sort of interesting since today I was looking at a website maintained by the War College and they had a forum discussing what are known as 'proliferation control' measure. It didn't look particularly optimistic.

I guess I'll just keep betting on deterrence.

[Babs]

Putting pressure on Syria.

here

....things starting to move in a positive direction.

[Ann]

Ahmadinejad to protesters on Wednesday - "Israel "must be wiped out from the map of the world.""

Now, if you were living in that very small place called Israel - would you take the chance of letting that man and his country get a nuclear weapon?