Escalation of War (Predictions about Iran, Iraq, and the future of war in the middle east...) (2814 hits)
Category: PoliticsLabels: ets_sociopolitical_commentary ets_essays
Rating: 0.58 on 130 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2007-01-14 16:09:17 EST
A while back, I linked you all to an obscure, shadowy article on some offroad, out-of-the-way website that talked about the American warships that were being moved to the Persian Gulf. I told you how I took it as validation of my suspicions of U.S. intent to either provoke Iran into an all-out war or carry out a false-flag attack on one of our own ships and blame it on Iran. In true uber-fashion, you people not only flatly rejected that notion, you verbally berated me for it.
Well, the other day, our fearless leader made a speech calling for an escalation of 21,000+ more troops in Iraq, a move even members of his own party in congress reject. He also announced yet another escalation in Navy presence off the coast of Iran and told us that one component of this "new strategy" of his involved dealing with Iranian and Syrian influence in this war...(whatever THAT means.)
Now, even national newscasters and congreemen are openly questioning whether we are deliberately trying to bait Iran into some kind of Gulf of Tonkin scenario: http://youtube.com/watch?v=yGFP3zP7sbA&mode=related&search=
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16596476/
"OLBERMANN: While we have the Vietnam parallels on the table, could we be looking at another Gulf of Tonkin? By moving that carrier group, sending a Patriot missile battalion into the Persian Gulf, by storming an Iranian consulate in northern Iraq, might the U.S. be looking to materially provoke Tehran?
ALTER: Well, I think the comparison there is a little less exact, because, remember, the Gulf of Tonkin was in 1964. It was at the beginning of the Vietnam War, before the country had soured on it. So LBJ was looking for a pretext to really escalate the war. Here, they're looking for a little bit of a different kind of pretext, maybe, if you think that they do want to take on Iran. But they certainly wouldn't be doing so with the support of the American people. As Joe Biden indicated, if they did do that, if they came up with some kind of a provocation, and that hostilities commenced with Iran, it would precipitate a constitutional crisis."
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst011507.htm
"The truth is that Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone America or Israel. I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran." - Rep. Ron Paul, Republican TX
But even well before now, it was being reported that the president's eyes on the ground, the generals themselves, were at odds with him over the addition of more U.S. troops to the effort (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Gzshc4rnp-o http://youtube.com/watch?v=fUlBDdkBXdk) and whether we might be trying to get into an open and direct conflict with Iran (http://youtube.com/watch?v=rnO8dQ3mauM).
So what did the president do??? He simply replaced the commanding officer on the ground with someone who would go along with his plans...Petraeus! He puts an air commander in charge over a ground conflict. Why? Is it perhaps because it won't BE a ground conflict much longer? Or is it simply because he wanted to be able to use the already prepared speech that stated that the ground commanders approved of the troop increase? Of course it'll be true if you keep replacing everyone who disagrees.
Then, the following day, it was reported that American soldiers had attacked the Iranian embassy in Iraq and taken prisoners, in effect attacking the nation of Iran itself - (a violation of international accords). Now we get to the thick of it.
Motive.
For every crime, there must be a motive. For every successful propaganda campaign, there must be a clear-cut, easily understandable reason why we should do or not do a certain thing. In this case, not only are the Iranians angry about our continued threats against them, but now we have attacked their own nation (in an effort to thwart "terrorism", of course.)
Now, when you turn on your TVs or open your browsers and find that an American aircraft carrier has been attacked (a la Gulf of Tonkin) and we believe the Iranians are responsible, it will be no wonder... We will not have to deal with these pesky questions about why they didn't attack sooner; we will know it was because we had attacked their embassy. Your average Joe on the street might even be inclined to say to himself, "we probably deserved it," but so long as he's not questioning who's really responsible, the planned regional escalation of this war can commence as planned with the same lukewarm resistence at home.
Recently, the so-called "despotic" leader of Turkmenistan - the country situated just to the north of Iran - "passed away" suddenly. Immediately, western news sources such as our beloved Big Broth...uh...BBC were denouncing his rule as one of narcissism and cult of personality that hurt the people of Turkmenistan. Who am I to say any different? Have I ever personally BEEN to Turkmenistan? Has anyone I KNOW ever been to Turkmenistan? No. So obviously, we believe the reports and in no way suspect that CIA and MI6 operatives might be in that country right now negotiating for a Western-friendly ruler.
Who's to counteract these suspicions? Who can argue with the fact that our forces seem to have Iran surrounded and that Turkmenistan was the last remaining uncontrolled outlet? Who can argue that it does not appear as if we are blockading Iran's supply lines for an upcoming invasion? It only takes a cursory examination by anyone knowing even the most mundane and minute facts about military history to suspect this.
When their civilian nuclear ambitions are drummed up to WMD ambitions ad nauseum in speeches, when our newscasts are openly speculating about the very real possibility of war, when we are attacking the opposing country's embassies, when we are blockading them with military presence on ALL sides, when we are parking detachments of war ships off their coast, when we are calling them part of an "axis of evil", when we are clearly in a regional and worldwide conflict for the security of future oil reserves, when think-tanks and scholars have written too many books to count about the "age of oil" and the importance of the middle east and Balkans in the future of world domination...it's just too obvious to ignore.
In short, people, prepare for war. Prepare to be lied to about the reasons. Prepare for the possibility that I might just be right on this....
The United States is about to blow up one or more of her own ships off the coast of Iran and blame it on them as a pretext for invasion and nuclear-based bunker-busting surgical strikes against nuclear facilities inside Iran. Don't say I didn't warn ya. And remember, I'm not the only one saying this... even Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough have discussed the possibility that we are trying to bait them into a conflict.
User Reviews
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2009-03-03 05:42:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I almost shat my pants when i saw an ETS post on the front page. Then i saw it was old and went :(
Come back brad, and bring your economic downturn-proof silver with you!
Submitted by dangerdude (user info) at 2009-03-03 02:43:33 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Did it smell like garbage?
Because NY and NJ smell terrible.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2007-01-24 01:40:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Read this "Israel, The US will soon die":
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3356154,00.html
Just another of a host of threats made by the leader of Iran to destroy Israel & the United States. He is trying to obtain nuclear weapons, you know.
Now, let us talk about military hardware. Patriot missiles are used to prevent missile attacks. Why would the U.S. want these? Perhaps, in case of an air strike in Iran, to guard our own troops in Iraq where the patriot missile batteries left soon after the invasion of Iraq? Extra troops could also convince Iran that attacking U.S. positions in Iraq is a very unwise decision.
It is a fact that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. It is a fact that Iran supports (very vocally) the destruction of the USA and Israel. It is a fact that Iran supports Hezbollah with material support.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what is going to happen next: A call for Iran to cede nuclear development in a verifiable manner...and if they fail to do so, Israel will proceed to bomb the holy hell out of Iran's military and nuclear facilities.
The U.S. will keep a watchful eye on Syria, and protect its own positions. Then afterwards folks can complain about if we should have joined in and marched all the way to Tehran.
Iran is a menace and needs to be dealt with. Your comments of the Texas republican calling Iran's military capabilities as the same as Iraq's is funny as hell. I don't remember Iraq really having a navy that served any purpose...Iran has just been delivered many modern surface to air missiles from Russia. Iran has rockets that can reach Europe...and, quite honestly, I hope they use them against Europe. Because the EU are a bunch of pussies who need a fuckin' wake up call. But they'll probably just blame the USA as usual.
Fuck Iran, dude. I won't buy into your bullshit. War with Iran is coming alright... and that ain't a bad thing given the direction they are going.
Could you imagine no Iran or Syria to provide material support to insurgents in Lebanon or Iraq? Talk about advancing the middle east peace process! Wow. Nobody supporting terrorism designed to kill civilians?!? How can we live with ourselves!
But that's right. You are an anti-semite like most conspiracy theorists are...so you want Israel destroyed and Iran is your friend.
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-01-19 17:02:32 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
But dude... don't forget about the Dairy Farmers.... Those bastards!
http://www.ubersite.com/m/97852#2282687
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-19 14:38:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
As far as I know it has always been possible for non-clerics to run for the Assembly of Experts, and it certainly is now.....none have ever been voted in but that's up to the electorate...hang on I'll try and find you a link...
But anyway, if you really think that a country can have requirements about age, race, sex, nationality, legal training (and bare in mind that what we are disuccing here boils down to, when all is said and done, legal training, so you are really contradicting yourself), and whatever else, and still remain democratic....but not religion, then we will simply have to disagree.
But I think that is extremely hypocritical, if not stupid.
"The Guardian Council on Thursday 29 November issued the list of approved candidates for the Assembly of Experts elections. It approved 163 candidates from 495 to compete for 86 seats in the 15 December vote. The list contains no women, but one non-cleric who passed an exam in jurisprudence"
http://angusmcdowall.com/
As a further to my point about what we are discussing simply being another kinda of legal requirement, jurisprudence means 'knowledge of law'.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-01-19 14:17:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Scott_James (user info) at 2007-01-19 10:44:34 (#)
Ranking: 0
"...it is worth bearing in mind that just because somebody disagrees with what you have to say doesn't necessarily make them your enemy."
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-01-19 14:13:55 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I meant if they *didn't* change it on the first sentence.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-01-19 14:07:16 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Woody,
I gotta run, time to get drunk, and I have gventhis post too much heat.
If they changed that law and non-clerics can be on the assembly of experts, I really don't think your argument has a leg to stand on. If they did change it, then we will just agree to disagree I think religious requirements for leading a govt do constitute a theocracy.
Have a nice weekend.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-01-19 14:00:26 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-19 13:30:38 (#)
Ranking: 0
This is where your argunment falls down, because that's wrong, the Assembly of Experts is not made up entirely of clerics, candidates must pass a test showing they know enough about Islam, they do not necesarily have to be Muslims, or even male.
And even if they did, which they don't, I would say that is no more a example of why Iran isn't a democracy than if they had to be a certain age or sex.
We already said we're not talking about exact true definition of democracy, and provisos such as many countries have about the age, sex, or country of birth, I do not see as being more than superficially different than being a certain religion.
Arnold Schwarzenegger can't run for president because he doesn't meet the requirements, having requirements for candidates for a political office does not make a country undemocratic.
Non-clerics have passed the....I don't know what it's called...the test of how much the potential candidates know about Islam, and although I don't think any women have yet it is only a matter of time, there is no 'do you have a penis? yes/no' question for 50 bonus points, it is a fair test of knowledge of Islam and anyone can take it (ignoring other provisos about age and being an Iranian citizen).
I really really do not like religion, to say the least, but we can not fairly say that a country is undemocratic because the requirements to run for certain offices are religious in nature.
-----------------------
Sorry Woody, the council of experts is made up completely of clerics. Reformists tried to change this law last year, but failed since they weren't allowed to run because of the guardian council. If this has changed I would appreciate a link because it is news to me.
Even if they did change this law and non-clerics were allowed to run they would still have to be devout muslims. They don't just have to understand islamic laws they have to want to interpret real laws according to islamic laws.
Even if I am wrong about what I said above (please link me to something that says I am, I think it would be cool if Iran did change this) I do think you can say that a country is undemocratic if to hold power in that country there are religious requirements. And lets be clear it isn't "certain" offices, it is the main offices.
If a country has religious requirements for its main positions I feel completely comfortable labeling it a theocratic country.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-19 13:30:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"The supreme leader is elected by people who have to follow a certain religion and have a certain religious stature"
This is where your argunment falls down, because that's wrong, the Assembly of Experts is not made up entirely of clerics, candidates must pass a test showing they know enough about Islam, they do not necesarily have to be Muslims, or even male.
And even if they did, which they don't, I would say that is no more a example of why Iran isn't a democracy than if they had to be a certain age or sex.
We already said we're not talking about exact true definition of democracy, and provisos such as many countries have about the age, sex, or country of birth, I do not see as being more than superficially different than being a certain religion.
Arnold Schwarzenegger can't run for president because he doesn't meet the requirements, having requirements for candidates for a political office does not make a country undemocratic.
Non-clerics have passed the....I don't know what it's called...the test of how much the potential candidates know about Islam, and although I don't think any women have yet it is only a matter of time, there is no 'do you have a penis? yes/no' question for 50 bonus points, it is a fair test of knowledge of Islam and anyone can take it (ignoring other provisos about age and being an Iranian citizen).
I really really do not like religion, to say the least, but we can not fairly say that a country is undemocratic because the requirements to run for certain offices are religious in nature.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-01-19 12:50:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-19 10:16:48 (#)
Ranking: 0
Apollo, you don't even know what you're talking about, Scott has been acting increasingly like an ass for some time now and THINKS he's doing it in a way that prevents me from striking back, but I've had enough.
Now, just mind your own business and I'll mind mine."""
Of COURSE i don't know what i'm talking about.
I just wanted to fight.
:(
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-01-19 12:49:24 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-19 10:56:08 (#)
Ranking: 0
Just because it's an Islamic Democracy doesn't mean it's not a democracy. The English House of Lords for example, has many members who are there because they hold Religious Offices.
Requirements for candiadates to have religous knowledge doesn't stop it being a democracy any more than requirements for candidates to be lawyers does.
--------------------------
I thought the house of lords didn't have any real power.
I know it doesn't have power comprable to being the "ultimate head of political power."
They aren't required to just have religious knowledge. They have to be practicing, worshipping Muslims. They have to work towards laws that follow Islamic law.
This is going in circles. The supreme leader is elected by people who have to follow a certain religion and have a certain religious stature. If the power is held by one religious group I call it a theocracy.
When I think of an islamic democracy I think of a country that is overwhelmingly muslim and democratic. Indonesia, Maylasia, but not Iran. In those countries if all of a sudden 80% of the people converted the muslim voice in the govt would lose power. This is not the case in Iran. If 80% of the people in Iran converted the supreme power would still be in the hands of muslims. They would still pass and enforce laws based on muslim beliefs. That is not a democracy.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-19 10:58:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-01-19 10:53:33 (#)
Ranking: -2
Woody,
This is just getting silly.
Look up the supreme leader. What does it say. The the highest ranking political and religious authority of the nation. How can you not call that a theocracy?
----------------
The Supreme Leader is chosen by the Assembly of Experts, which is elected by the people.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-19 10:56:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"It doesn't? People having power in govt stricly based on their religious beliefs doesn't have any bearing on a conversation about said country being a theocracy?
I know the assembly of experts choses the supreme leader, but in order to be a member of it you have to be a mujtahids, or a scholar of islamic law.
Still has no inkling of a theocracy to you?"
Just because it's an Islamic Democracy doesn't mean it's not a democracy. The English House of Lords for example, has many members who are there because they hold Religious Offices.
Requirements for candiadates to have religous knowledge doesn't stop it being a democracy any more than requirements for candidates to be lawyers does.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-01-19 10:53:33 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Woody,
This is just getting silly.
Look up the supreme leader. What does it say. The the highest ranking political and religious authority of the nation. How can you not call that a theocracy?
I know in the UK it says the same about the monarch (as far as political power), but in Iran the powers of the supreme leader via the council are actually flexed, they do block laws, and block candidates from running.
Submitted by Scott_James (user info) at 2007-01-19 10:44:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I may have been an "ass" in the past... (I just said that aloud and it sounds wrong) but most of my remarks were made to tease you. Even so, it is worth bearing in mind that just because somebody disagrees with what you have to say doesn't necessarily make them your enemy.
Consider the matter dropped from now on, you crazy handsome devil...
...Sorry, had to get one last dig in. ;-)
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-01-19 10:43:22 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-19 10:31:29 (#)
Ranking: 0
Firstly that last point you make has absolutely no actual relevance to the subject in hand.
Secondly the first point you make.....do you know where the Iranian Supreme Leader, and therefore the Guardian Council, comes from Indo?
In the USA, the Supreme Court is chosen by the President ( (and approved by the Senate), who is chosen by the electoral college, which is elected by the people.
In Iran, the Guardian Council is chosen by the Supreme Leader, who is chosen by the Assembly of Experts, which is elected by the people.
The Guardian Council IS just as valid a democratic organisation as the Supreme Court.
------------------------
It doesn't? People having power in govt stricly based on their religious beliefs doesn't have any bearing on a conversation about said country being a theocracy?
I know the assembly of experts choses the supreme leader, but in order to be a member of it you have to be a mujtahids, or a scholar of islamic law.
Still has no inkling of a theocracy to you? The supreme political power rests in the hands of a person elected by religious scholars of a particular faith? He appoints clerics and lawyers to decide if candidates can run in various elections, and can block laws?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-19 10:31:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"The guardian council does have 6 lawyers, but they are all appointed by an un-elected figure. In the US they are appointed by the pres (elected) but must be approved by the senate (elected).
And half of the supreme court doesn;'t make their decisions based strictly on religion."
Ahh, now we're really cooking.
Firstly that last point you make has absolutely no actual relevance to the subject in hand.
Secondly the first point you make.....do you know where the Iranian Supreme Leader, and therefore the Guardian Council, comes from Indo?
In the USA, the Supreme Court is chosen by the President ( (and approved by the Senate), who is chosen by the electoral college, which is elected by the people.
In Iran, the Guardian Council is chosen by the Supreme Leader, who is chosen by the Assembly of Experts, which is elected by the people.
The Guardian Council IS just as valid a democratic organisation as the Supreme Court.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-01-19 10:31:05 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-19 10:22:32 (#)
Ranking: 0
"But for the sake of argument lets say that you are right, in the absence of an actual case, and contrary to prescident, they couldn't block a president. They still have significant power if they can keep a party from power, block laws, and counter presidential orders."
Yeah they have significant power, so does the USA Supreme Court, and (to a lesser extent thesedays) the English House of Lords.
Keep going Indo (just remembered you don't like the n), we're getting close to the key point here.
------------------------------------------------
I mentioned it below, but the supreme court is appointed by the president (elected) and confirmed by the senate (elected), and half of its members are not making their decisions on the basis of religious laws.
The council's clerics are appointed by the Ayatollah, and the lawyers are appointed by the judicial system (who are appointed by the Ayatollah). The Ayatollah can also kick anyone he wants out of the council.
The power that the council weilds also dwarfs the power of the supreme court.
Do you really think the two are comprable? Do you really think the monarchy is comparable to a group that has banned candidates and has blocked the passing of laws?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-19 10:22:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"But for the sake of argument lets say that you are right, in the absence of an actual case, and contrary to prescident, they couldn't block a president. They still have significant power if they can keep a party from power, block laws, and counter presidential orders."
Yeah they have significant power, so does the USA Supreme Court, and (to a lesser extent thesedays) the English House of Lords.
Keep going Indo (just remembered you don't like the n), we're getting close to the key point here.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-19 10:22:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm gonna accept that as an apology, Scott, and that's the last I wanna hear about it.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-01-19 10:20:35 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-19 09:48:37 (#)
Ranking: 0
And as for your argument that the council (and I suspect that some less knowledgable person might be confused by you saying 'the clerics' all the time, it is s specific council made up of 6 clerics and 6 lawyers, not just clerics in general) has the power to override laws.....yes they do.
There are many democratic countries in which an unelected body has the power to overide laws, I believe I already compared the Iranian Guradian Council to the USA Supreme Court.
------------------
The supreme court can only rule on things that have been brought to them. They have no control to block a law from being passed.
The guardian council does have 6 lawyers, but they are all appointed by an un-elected figure. In the US they are appointed by the pres (elected) but must be approved by the senate (elected).
And half of the supreme court doesn;'t make their decisions based strictly on religion.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-01-19 10:17:28 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
The guardian council has, in my opinion (and I would be suprised to hear you openly take the direct opposite one), no more ability to change the outcome of an election than the British monarch, and as for the other stuff I refer you to the USA Supreme Court.
The guardian council is the Iranian version of the supreme court.
--------------------------
The British monarchy can and has blocked people from running for the house of commons? That is news to me.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-19 10:16:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Apollo, you don't even know what you're talking about, Scott has been acting increasingly like an ass for some time now and THINKS he's doing it in a way that prevents me from striking back, but I've had enough.
Now, just mind your own business and I'll mind mine.
Submitted by Scott_James (user info) at 2007-01-19 10:14:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Crikey, you're one angry puppy when you get going...
My comments were not meant to cause offence and for the record I don't believe that your political views and theories are without merit. I just find a few of your theories - forgive me the prior use of the word "outlandish" was disrespectful - a little hard to swallow especially when I look at your sources. Perhaps I need to invent a far more delicate means of expressing myself clearly.
For the record, I am open to the idea that there was a conspiracy surrounding the assassination of Kennedy purely because the evidence presented by the Warren Commission does not correlate with Kennedy's wounds or the Zapruda tape. I would, however, hesitate to hypothesise who was responsible due to the fact that there were a lot of people who wanted him dead. Moreover, there were just as many people who would have benefited from his death.
-- "My issue is that you only ever seem to be digging up the "facts" that support your own outlandish theories...."
If this remark came across as insulting then I apologise because what I was pointing out was one possible reason why your arguments - no matter how eloquently made - continue to fall on deaf ears. On Ubersite, you are already regarded (unfairly) as a political nutjob so every time you post people already know what to expect - whether they like what you have to say or not. Haters love to hate etc...
Maybe you are aware of this. Maybe not. If you are then I continue to be vexed by why you should choose to post here when you know it won't make a blind bit of difference.
People seem to already have a preconceived idea about what to expect from you. And part of that idea is that you have all these preconceived ideas of how the world is run and then search for the facts to support your conclusions. BUT... before you jump down my throat to rip out my heart, I should add is that this is how it appears to me and judging from what I read in the replies to your posts, that is what a lot of other people seem to think too. I am not saying you are completely and utterly wrong in your views but the fervour with which you attack people sometimes reminds me of the same kind of people you claim to abhor.
My remark about imperialism was not a moral judgement. Some absolutely disgraceful atrocities were done in the name of the British Empire but it was also responsible for a many great things like common law, systems of land ownership, and habeas corpus etc... But perhaps the greatest thing it accomplished was its last stand before Nazi Germany. My point being that while I have no problem accepting whatever atrocities may have been committed in the name of imperialism I would regard myself as a hypocrite if I did not accept that some good things came out of it to because I, like you to a certain extent, enjoy the fruits of my ancestors' labour - hence my comment about standard of living. Again, I am not asserting a moral vale here. I am simply presenting myself as being humble before the truth of my origins.
Human history is bloody, cold and unrelenting. It will continue to be for a great many years and probably even after that. We might even go back to the dark ages but my faith in humanity will not quiver because as a species we are still learning and we are still growing.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-01-19 10:13:28 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-19 10:06:15 (#)
Ranking: 0
"The power is theoretical, but so is the peoples power to overide their decision. You have no basis to claim that it couldn't happen. It is all conjecture because the situation hasn't arisen."
Therefore you have no basis to claim that the British monarch couldn't stop someone being PM because it's never been tested. Cmon man, you really walked into that one.
---------------
Their power of blocking candidates in Iran has been tested, and they can. No it hasn't happened to a presidential candidate, but in 2004 they blocked almost an entire party from running, including a number of legislators who were going for re-election.
So the constitution says they have the power to do it, and they have exercised that power on smaller elections, how can you be sure it won't work on the pres.
But for the sake of argument lets say that you are right, in the absence of an actual case, and contrary to prescident, they couldn't block a president. They still have significant power if they can keep a party from power, block laws, and counter presidential orders.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-01-19 10:12:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-19 04:46:00 (#)
Ranking: 0
-----------------
You know what I find funny, Scott... Just about every one of these sons-of-bitches around here who think that I am just "desperately trying to make sense of my world" when I talk about some "conspiracy theory" are doing just what they accuse me of doing by trying to attack me for it, yourself included. You can have all the misgivings you like about "conspiracy theories", but it seems to me you're just painting everything with the same brush and the same colored paint. IF you don't know what I'm talking about, then just go back and read your first paragraph again... "All these conspiracy theories..."
All WHAT conspiracy theories? What "conspiracy theories" do I ever talk about that even EXISTED when you were a kid? Kennedy assassination, maybe... But surely even YOU will have to admit that event was obviously a conspiracy. That's hardly even debated anymore. The only question remaining about that one is 'who' and 'why'.
All you're doing by following this stubborn "there's no such thing as conspiracies" line is making yourself into the same kind of mindless dumbass you see surrounding you every day of your life. These are the people who tend to turn on infomercials and truly believe the product will "change their life". As far as I'm concerned, when you do this, you're trying to simplify your world into something that makes sense to you and doesn't require you to rethink all the bullshit your parents and teachers taught you growing up. You're avoiding resistence, just like everyone else.
As for this comment: "My issue is that you only ever seem to be digging up the "facts" that support your own outlandish theories...." What the hell is that supposed to mean?! That's gotta be the most ignorant statement I've ever heard. Why would I present the opposing side's argument as a 'fact' if the whole basis of my argument is they are lying to us? What kind of lazy-boy logic is that? Could I pull out some shit that looked like 'facts' and argue the other side? Sure I could, but that would make me a sellout, because I don't BELIEVE the other side. And by the way...if you've got a problem with one of my "facts", then start being fucking specific or your comments are fucking useless.
On to your 'imperialism' comment...
I'm so sick of this argument... Last I checked, necessity, not conquest, was the mother of invention. The Wright Brothers perfected the airplane without a DIME from the military. Running water is thousands of years old and it wasn't thought up by some bloke on a battlefield. The lightbulb, refridgeration, modern agricultural equipment, which of these things were thought up by a general in uniform?
You have taken one of the saddest realities of man - the fact that we only seem to want to improve our world or create anything when rewarded with money or conquest - and made it sound like it's necessary. That's a sad fucking worldview you've got there, friend.
What constitutes a "high" standard of living for you, Scott? It seems to me that the more we "build", the more we destroy. The more we "learn", the more ignorant and empty we become as a people. Compartmentalization - a relatively new mode of living for human beings - has made it so that people are now forced to rely on others for the basic necessities because they have lost the knowledge of how to acquire them on their own. This "higher standard of living" has expanded our territory and lifespans so much now that there isn't a corner of the earth where human beings cannot be found, and everywhere we go, we destroy nature. We suck it dry and spit it out, and still we know nothing about what it means to live in harmony with our surroundings or go a day without some kind of technological fucking device shoved up our ass.
The populations of human beings who at least still attempt to live in harmony with nature are growing thin, and this has been entirely due to imperialism. You might think it's a good idea...you might write it off as human nature and inevitable, but from where I'm sitting, you'd be dead wrong.
Let's give them a better life whether they like it or not, is that it? Let's force-feed the people of the world this "higher standard of living" you speak of. Give it to them at the end of a blade... What the hell! In a few generations, when their children's children no longer remember the languages or culture of their forefathers, they will be welcomed to the fold with open arms and handed a grocery bag, a bottle of whiskey, and a credit card like the Native Americans.
"Outlandish theories", indeed. Tell you what...fuck you, Scott. I've had about all the thinly veiled insults from you I'm gonna take. You got a problem with me, just come out and say so, otherwise shut the fuck up and go attempt your psychoanalysis on someone else.
...or if you like, I'll do a little analyzing on you next time. """
WHAT THE FUCK???
Scott left a perfectly reasonable and balance comment and you flipped your lid?
Is it cos he got to throw it up your 'wife' first?
Can you still smell a bit of welsh in her cunt? Did a bit dribble out when you were down there?
That's why you're not worth talking to / debating with:
1) You are irrational
2) You are not very intelligent
As for Scott's point which you deliberatly misinterpreted (that is giving you the benefit of the doubt because if you actually interpreted as you response indicates then you are even more backward than I imagined) that the standard of life we all enjoy right now is as a DIRECT RESULT of western expansion and development - i couldn't agree more.
You sit there on your computer in your warm safe house with food in your belly and water a couple of feet away at most and rail against the modern world.
is it perfect? Fuck no.
Is it better than living in Africa?
Fuck yes.
Is your life perfect?
No.
Is mine?
It's as good as I want to make it.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-19 10:06:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"The power is theoretical, but so is the peoples power to overide their decision. You have no basis to claim that it couldn't happen. It is all conjecture because the situation hasn't arisen."
Therefore you have no basis to claim that the British monarch couldn't stop someone being PM because it's never been tested. Cmon man, you really walked into that one.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-01-19 10:04:16 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-19 09:48:37 (#)
Ranking: 0
"You have mentioned repeatedly that the Council of Guardians power is symbolic making their system of govt on Par with the UK, but this is simply not true."
No no no, I was saying that their theoretical power to stop someone becoming president doesn't make Iran not a democracy, any more than the British monarchs theoretical power to stop someone becoming PM stops the UK being a democracy. I just said to stop putting words in my mouth and I gave this exact example and you're saying the same thing again.
--------------------------
The power is theoretical, but so is the peoples power to overide their decision. You have no basis to claim that it couldn't happen. It is all conjecture because the situation hasn't arisen.
In the case of their legislature the case has arisen and the Guardian council DID keep people from running.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-19 09:48:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"You have mentioned repeatedly that the Council of Guardians power is symbolic making their system of govt on Par with the UK, but this is simply not true."
No no no, I was saying that their theoretical power to stop someone becoming president doesn't make Iran not a democracy, any more than the British monarchs theoretical power to stop someone becoming PM stops the UK being a democracy. I just said to stop putting words in my mouth and I gave this exact example and you're saying the same thing again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-18 19:41:41 (#)
Ranking: 0
I realise I didn't explain where you are putting words in my mouth this time, a clear cut example is the 'no power' bit, I never said the council has no power, they have a very similar role to the usa supreme court, I think the links you posted about them demonstrate that perfectly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See?
It is conjecture that they couldn't have stopped Mahmood becoming president, but I'm pretty confident in my conjecture, if you really honestly believe that the council could use their banning power to change the outcome of an election then that is your opinion, but I do not think that even you are stupid enough to claim that.
And as for your argument that the council (and I suspect that some less knowledgable person might be confused by you saying 'the clerics' all the time, it is s specific council made up of 6 clerics and 6 lawyers, not just clerics in general) has the power to override laws.....yes they do.
There are many democratic countries in which an unelected body has the power to overide laws, I believe I already compared the Iranian Guradian Council to the USA Supreme Court.
"Now the only argument lays in weather you consider a govt that has an independent religious body with the power to block laws, candidates, and executive decisions a democracy. I don't."
The guardian council has, in my opinion (and I would be suprised to hear you openly take the direct opposite one), no more ability to change the outcome of an election than the British monarch, and as for the other stuff I refer you to the USA Supreme Court.
The guardian council is the Iranian version of the supreme court.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-01-19 08:22:00 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-18 19:37:08 (#)
Ranking: 0
You really make me angry Indon, it's the combination of your points being not outrageous so I don't feel I can simply write you off as I may ETS(for example) when I grow tired of going round in circles, your seeming to totally ignor what I (or whoever) am saying, even though they usually end up repeating themselves over and over and over.
But mostly it's the way you put words in my mouth. I am going to say this one last time and then I'm going to drop it, whether you accept that I have a different opinion to you or not I am fed up of going round and round and round and round over this.
"That is my point, Iran is a democracy because the president is elected, and no other power has, in reality, the power to overule this."
If you really want to disagree with me fine. But don't try to make me out as an idiot for holding a perfectly reasonable view, simply because you don't like it.
I think Iran is a democracy, and I'm sure as hell confident in the point I originally made in this post; that if the usa invaded Iran, managed to succeed, and set up a democracy, they would get someone at least and very probably considerably more anti-american than there is now.
---------------------------------
You are ignoring what I am saying.
I am not trying to agrgue it is stricly a theocracy. The people do have power to elect officials, but the clerics DO have a great deal of power.
The clerics CAN and HAVE overuled the decisions made by the president. This is an inarguable fact.
The clerics CAN and HAVE overuled the laws made by their legislature. This too is an inarguable fact.
I have listened to your arguements, I don't ignore them. They are simply wrong. You have mentioned repeatedly that the Council of Guardians power is symbolic making their system of govt on Par with the UK, but this is simply not true.
The council hasn't tried to block a candidate for president who was likely to win yet. So for you to claim that they would be overturned is pure conjecture. In 2004 they effectively banned an most of a party from having seats in their legislature.
These are facts that are backed up by everything from al-Jazeera, HRW, BBC, and FOX news.
Now the only argument lays in weather you consider a govt that has an independent religious body with the power to block laws, candidates, and executive decisions a democracy. I don't. I wouldn't call it a theocracy either, but it is hardly a democracy when clergy wields that much power. When I do toss out Iran is a theocracy it is an exagerration, but not nearly as much as saying it is a democracy.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-19 04:46:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Scott_James (user info) at 2007-01-18 20:45:11 (#)
Ranking: 0
I had serious misgivings about all these conspiracy theories when I was a kid and now that I am even more jaded and cynical I have to take everything I read with a pinch of salt... and possibly some lime and tequila. Oh to be off the wagon.
But I digress...
In essence, I have no problem with the idea that the military, politicians and statesman can manipulate situations as to provoke a war. Politics is power - nothing more.
However, I do have to arch a sceptical eyebrow because it seems that you see conspiracies everywhere. Or more to the point, you are so disenchanted with the world as you see it (and rightly so; life is harsher than it should be) that you want to believe in these conspiracy theories because you believe they will act as a great motivator for change.
My issue is that you only ever seem to be digging up the "facts" that support your own outlandish theories.
Wax lyrical all you want about the evils of imperialism past and present but without the best bits of the British Empire and the current American incarnation, you probably would not be enjoying the high standard of life that you are now.
-----------------
You know what I find funny, Scott... Just about every one of these sons-of-bitches around here who think that I am just "desperately trying to make sense of my world" when I talk about some "conspiracy theory" are doing just what they accuse me of doing by trying to attack me for it, yourself included. You can have all the misgivings you like about "conspiracy theories", but it seems to me you're just painting everything with the same brush and the same colored paint. IF you don't know what I'm talking about, then just go back and read your first paragraph again... "All these conspiracy theories..."
All WHAT conspiracy theories? What "conspiracy theories" do I ever talk about that even EXISTED when you were a kid? Kennedy assassination, maybe... But surely even YOU will have to admit that event was obviously a conspiracy. That's hardly even debated anymore. The only question remaining about that one is 'who' and 'why'.
All you're doing by following this stubborn "there's no such thing as conspiracies" line is making yourself into the same kind of mindless dumbass you see surrounding you every day of your life. These are the people who tend to turn on infomercials and truly believe the product will "change their life". As far as I'm concerned, when you do this, you're trying to simplify your world into something that makes sense to you and doesn't require you to rethink all the bullshit your parents and teachers taught you growing up. You're avoiding resistence, just like everyone else.
As for this comment: "My issue is that you only ever seem to be digging up the "facts" that support your own outlandish theories...." What the hell is that supposed to mean?! That's gotta be the most ignorant statement I've ever heard. Why would I present the opposing side's argument as a 'fact' if the whole basis of my argument is they are lying to us? What kind of lazy-boy logic is that? Could I pull out some shit that looked like 'facts' and argue the other side? Sure I could, but that would make me a sellout, because I don't BELIEVE the other side. And by the way...if you've got a problem with one of my "facts", then start being fucking specific or your comments are fucking useless.
On to your 'imperialism' comment...
I'm so sick of this argument... Last I checked, necessity, not conquest, was the mother of invention. The Wright Brothers perfected the airplane without a DIME from the military. Running water is thousands of years old and it wasn't thought up by some bloke on a battlefield. The lightbulb, refridgeration, modern agricultural equipment, which of these things were thought up by a general in uniform?
You have taken one of the saddest realities of man - the fact that we only seem to want to improve our world or create anything when rewarded with money or conquest - and made it sound like it's necessary. That's a sad fucking worldview you've got there, friend.
What constitutes a "high" standard of living for you, Scott? It seems to me that the more we "build", the more we destroy. The more we "learn", the more ignorant and empty we become as a people. Compartmentalization - a relatively new mode of living for human beings - has made it so that people are now forced to rely on others for the basic necessities because they have lost the knowledge of how to acquire them on their own. This "higher standard of living" has expanded our territory and lifespans so much now that there isn't a corner of the earth where human beings cannot be found, and everywhere we go, we destroy nature. We suck it dry and spit it out, and still we know nothing about what it means to live in harmony with our surroundings or go a day without some kind of technological fucking device shoved up our ass.
The populations of human beings who at least still attempt to live in harmony with nature are growing thin, and this has been entirely due to imperialism. You might think it's a good idea...you might write it off as human nature and inevitable, but from where I'm sitting, you'd be dead wrong.
Let's give them a better life whether they like it or not, is that it? Let's force-feed the people of the world this "higher standard of living" you speak of. Give it to them at the end of a blade... What the hell! In a few generations, when their children's children no longer remember the languages or culture of their forefathers, they will be welcomed to the fold with open arms and handed a grocery bag, a bottle of whiskey, and a credit card like the Native Americans.
"Outlandish theories", indeed. Tell you what...fuck you, Scott. I've had about all the thinly veiled insults from you I'm gonna take. You got a problem with me, just come out and say so, otherwise shut the fuck up and go attempt your psychoanalysis on someone else.
...or if you like, I'll do a little analyzing on you next time.
Submitted by jraines (user info) at 2007-01-19 01:03:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You know it.
http://www.virtualcitizens.com/articles/War_on_the_World
Submitted by Scott_James (user info) at 2007-01-18 20:45:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I had serious misgivings about all these conspiracy theories when I was a kid and now that I am even more jaded and cynical I have to take everything I read with a pinch of salt... and possibly some lime and tequila. Oh to be off the wagon.
But I digress...
In essence, I have no problem with the idea that the military, politicians and statesman can manipulate situations as to provoke a war. Politics is power - nothing more.
However, I do have to arch a sceptical eyebrow because it seems that you see conspiracies everywhere. Or more to the point, you are so disenchanted with the world as you see it (and rightly so; life is harsher than it should be) that you want to believe in these conspiracy theories because you believe they will act as a great motivator for change.
My issue is that you only ever seem to be digging up the "facts" that support your own outlandish theories.
Wax lyrical all you want about the evils of imperialism past and present but without the best bits of the British Empire and the current American incarnation, you probably would not be enjoying the high standard of life that you are now.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2007-01-18 20:25:32 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You guys have resolved exactly the same political points
in this post as you did in all the others: None.
Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one, and they all stink.
Submitted by ih8u2man (user info) at 2007-01-18 19:54:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/97807
Her's my take on it. NOW WITH A NEKKID LADY!!!!!!
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-18 19:50:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh yeah, moderate part, it seems we just have different opiniions of what is a moderate, would you say Kerry wasn't a moderate because he was to the left? I was trying to make the point that in Iranian terms Mahmood isn't an extremist, people don't usually vote for someone they consider to be an extremist.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-18 19:41:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I realise I didn't explain where you are putting words in my mouth this time, a clear cut example is the 'no power' bit, I never said the council has no power, they have a very similar role to the usa supreme court, I think the links you posted about them demonstrate that perfectly.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-18 19:37:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You really make me angry Indon, it's the combination of your points being not outrageous so I don't feel I can simply write you off as I may ETS(for example) when I grow tired of going round in circles, your seeming to totally ignor what I (or whoever) am saying, even though they usually end up repeating themselves over and over and over.
But mostly it's the way you put words in my mouth. I am going to say this one last time and then I'm going to drop it, whether you accept that I have a different opinion to you or not I am fed up of going round and round and round and round over this.
"That is my point, Iran is a democracy because the president is elected, and no other power has, in reality, the power to overule this."
If you really want to disagree with me fine. But don't try to make me out as an idiot for holding a perfectly reasonable view, simply because you don't like it.
I think Iran is a democracy, and I'm sure as hell confident in the point I originally made in this post; that if the usa invaded Iran, managed to succeed, and set up a democracy, they would get someone at least and very probably considerably more anti-american than there is now.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-01-18 15:10:59 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
By PBS I meant NPR.
But of course you are too fucking stubborn or dumb to read up on any of that DC. Go ahead and keep believing that the guardian council has no power despite every major news source in the world disagreeing with you.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-01-18 15:09:19 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-18 13:53:37 (#)
Ranking: 0
If you don't remember Indon you stupid annoying making-me-repeat-myself-over-and-over-and-over fuck,
we've had this exact same discussion more than once before, I'm going to say these points one last time.
------------------
I missed this first part.
Let me make it simple you illiterate twit.
I have no clue where you pull your BS about Iran from, but it is completely wrong.
-The Guardian council can, and does block candidates, yes they can be overturned but this has only happened when the Ayatollah steps in, or under overwhelming public pressure. In the case of the 2004 election over 1/3 of the candidates were still barred from the elections, candidates who had large followings and who were part of the ruling party in the previous election.
-The Guardian Council can and does block laws from being passed. I have never heard of their "veto" being overturned.
If you disagree with the two statements above you don't know fucking shit about Iran.
I won't post any links because you don't seem capable of reading them. Do two fucking minutes of research yourself and you will realize I am not making this up. Al-Jazeera, PBS, Human Rights Watch all say the same godamn thing, the friends I used to work with from Iran said the same godamn thing, but I guess you know more than all of them.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-01-18 15:00:21 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
1. Bush is not a moderate. He is pretty right for a republican. Mahmood was the cadidate from a far right party. Sure their are people who are futher to the right than, but that doesn't make him a moderate. Everything from his foreign policy to his attempts at enforcing of shaira dress codes in Iran are right, even for Iran.
2. True, but Iran is very far from it.
3. What actually happens in Iran is the the clerics council DO block laws, they DO block the presidents actions. Take two seconds and look up Khatami. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the Council of Guardians didn't cancel out some of his decisions? You are flat out wrong if you think their power is just symbolic. You don't see them doing much with Mahmoud around because he is pretty hard line. Go to HRW (human rights watch) in 2001, 2004 snd 2005 they blocked candidates. Yes in 2004 some were allowed back in but one party was virtually barred from running. Why can't you accept this? What don't you understand about them actually barring people from running?
4. You keep saying their power is theoretical. Are you denying that they DID block about a third of the candidates from running in 2004? How is it theoretical when they can, and did block candidates. I am not saying the clerics are all powerful (as they are made out to be in the constitution), but they do have significant power in running the country. They have blocked candidates from running, they have blocked laws from passing, that is power.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EF05Ak03.html
"Acting practically as a type of upper house of the parliament, the council is in charge of determining the compatibility of all approved bills with the Iranian constitution and the religious law (sharia). After a few months of deliberations, the latter rejected the two bills on the ground of their violating the constitution. In such a case, the bills can be submitted to the Expediency Council headed by former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. That council arbitrates between parliament and the Guardian Council on disputed bills, a process usually done by changing certain aspects of the rejected bills to make them acceptable for the Guardian Council.
However, on Sunday Khatami refused to follow that path, as he correctly recognized the satisfaction of the Guardian Council as the only way to end the long process."
Does that sound like a group with no power?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-18 13:53:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If you don't remember Indon you stupid annoying making-me-repeat-myself-over-and-over-and-over fuck,
we've had this exact same discussion more than once before, I'm going to say these points one last time.
1 Mahmood is a moderate in Iran. No-one on this site would vote for him, but in Iran he is a moderate. The same as Bush is a Moderate in the usa. Mahmood was opposed by people both to the right and to the left of him, in Iranian politics, he is a moderate.
2 There are no major countries witrh true democracies, Switzerland probably comes closest with all the referendums but no country actually is a true democracy, we're talking about the spirit of democracy here.
3 You saying what is in their constitution makes no difference, unless you are claiming that the UK is also not a democracy because in theory the reigning monarch can refuse a PM, what is important is what actually happens.
4 The council banned many many people from running last time around, two of these people, the names I can't recall, had some support and the council was forced to reverse its decision. The council in theory has the power to ban people from running, but in practice it can't stop people who are likely to get any votes. My comparing the guardian councils power with that of the British monarch is entirely valid, the council can no more stop someone being elected than the monarch can, its power over this is theoretical and when it comes to it they can't excersise it. If the council had banned absolutely nobody from running last time it would not have made a blind bit of difference and Mahmood would still be president. If the council had tried to ban Mahmood from running it would not have made a blind bit of difference and he would still be president. If any of the people that the council did attempt to or succeed in banning had recieved the most votes then they would now be president.
The council has no actual control over who becomes the president, it doesn't matter who they ban or try to ban, it has not and will not make any difference to who becomes the next president.
Conclusion: The electorate votes for the president, the council has no choice but to go with the electorate. That is my point, Iran is a democracy because the president is elected, and no other power has, in reality, the power to overule this.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-01-18 13:03:17 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-17 18:53:27 (#)
Ranking: 0
I call bullshit Indon, there is no fucking way you could read much about Iran and not be aware of what happened with the clerics at the last Presidential election.
------------------------
Then why don't you offer a link from a reliable source saying that all the candidates that the clerics blocked from running were later allowed to run.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3475473.stm
"The unelected Guardians Council last month barred nearly half of the 8,200 candidates who wanted to run in the election.
It reinstated about 1,000 candidates last week following a rare intervention from Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
But three days ago, he ordered an end to complaints about the banning of the reformist candidates.
That dashed any final hopes of a delay to allow a resolution to the country's political row before the ballot."
They originally banned half from running, then decided to only ban about a third. I know this was from 2004, but in 2005 I can find nothing that says once barred candidates can run again. Please show me a source that says I am wrong. I am really curious where you get your info about Iran from if you think it is a democracy and you think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a moderate.
Do a little research. It is right in their constitution.
Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: Appointed for life, overrides all other authorities
Guardians Council: Half chosen by Khamenei, responsible for vetting election candidates and laws
President : Elected for four years, power can be circumscribed by clerics
Parliament: 290 members introduce and pass laws, subject to approval
Does that sound like a democracy to you?
Does a guy who "embraces the ideas of the revolution" sound like a moderate to you?
Submitted by Wisher (user info) at 2007-01-18 01:22:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-01-18 01:14:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
Your electoral college is one of the most screwed up perversions of proportional representation imaginable.
***
I knew that in forth grade, and failed an essay because I wrote basically what you just said. I still remember it. GOD! No wonder everybody hates us. First thing a new pres needs to do {but won't because they can't} is eliminate that ancient backwards shit. It was established for dubious reasons a century ago.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-01-18 01:14:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Your electoral college is one of the most screwed up perversions of proportional representation imaginable.
Submitted by Wisher (user info) at 2007-01-18 01:05:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
PS: D-Prime, I'm fairly certain you know, but the US is not a democracy eiter. We're a pretend democracy. We don't vote direcly to elect our leaders, we have the bizarre "electoral College" that supposedly votes for us. It's all a crock, and everybody, it seems, except us US citizens, knows that. We live in a pretend democracy. Truth is, we're a repubic.
Submitted by DonovanMD (user info) at 2007-01-18 01:03:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Your prediction posts are great, I may disagree with some of it, but I have a hard time not at least considering most of it.
Submitted by Wisher (user info) at 2007-01-18 00:57:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
They tested 150 chemical plants, to see if they were unvolved, none were, offically. Finally, the team assigned to assess the "smell" said it was {and they took air samples from diff places all over NYy area, they said that they "could not identify" the smell or what created it. That sounds like a smart chemist that knew how to test whilst concealing a highly concentraded odor, that just to see how far the smell/ future chemical, would travel. It covered NJ and all of NY, ~~~~ I'm not sure about long island. That's all I know
Sounds like a test to me. Next time, if it is the worst case, there won't be any smell.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-18 00:46:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-01-17 20:55:04 (#)
Ranking: -2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/97654#2277625
I know this is an old quote, but Iran is *not* a democracy. It has elections, but that does not make it one. The Ayatollah, the Muslim religious leader of the region, chooses the candidates and the citizens vote from the ones he has provided for them. That is only similar to democracy in the most inessential way.
It would be like the Pope picking the candidates that are allowed to run in Italy or another highly Catholic Western nation.
Also, it happens to be a police state that oppresses individual citizens, which is unjustifiable: majority-choice or not (which it doesn't have anyway.)
-------------------
This review is particularly funny to me for several reasons...
a) it reveals the mental age of the writer
b) it assumes, without saying as much, that our own 'democracies' in the western world are true democracies
c) it completely forgets that in our country the media is largely responsible for how candidates are portrayed, and THIS is largely what wins and loses primaries and general elections
d) anyone who can live through the 2000 presidential elections and still thinks we live in a 'democracy' is sadly ill-informed and naive
e) flawed as it may seem to a western eye, Iranian democracy isn't any more baseless than our own, and at least they know full well who is, in fact, cherry picking and funding the candidates, which is more than I can say for us here
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-18 00:36:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Wisher: What was the official explanation for this 'odor', and what did it smell like?
The problem I have with his explanation is that the distance an odor travels will largely depend on the weather, so continuous testing would be needed to yield a result that would indicate what might happen in various conditions year round. Furthermore, it would take more than just news reports of reported smells to scientifically tell how many PPM (parts per million) of the odor-causing particulates were in a given sample of air.
I think your boyfriend is probably right in that experiments like this have already taken place, but at this point, empirical data would probably only serve to verify computer models of a given scenario.
Hope this makes sense, because I just pulled it out of my ass.
Submitted by Wisher (user info) at 2007-01-17 23:41:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Has the world gone mad!!??
ETS, you're supposed to know and explain all this. I guess I over-estimated you.
I'm posting on the wrong website. that's it. Gah! I can't take it. And Jack, you should have a few cents to throw in, Un-fucking-believable.
Submitted by Wisher (user info) at 2007-01-17 21:59:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
ETS: this is important: re reviewing/ also jack, i'd like to hear your thoughts
Submitted by Wisher (user info) at 2007-01-17 21:24:33 (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS, today my boyfriend said something that scared me, and the other people in the car. Remember that "smell" that went over NJ and NY weeks back? He said he thinks the "Odor" was was a test, to see how far reaching a dirty bomb would go, a chemical warfare bomb, and that all the people involved would have to do, to see how well it would work {how far it would reach} was watch the news.
In others words, a skyrocket the kind bought at a fireworks stand, those big ones, would be be enough to send a bio bomb high enough to saturate the whole of NY, and that this test proved to them how easy it'll be next time, when they will be now smell, only poison, whatever.
What do you think. I told him his idea scared me, and that I wanted to warn people if he was right, and that I wanted to tell people online. He said look for ETS's latest post, and say this here.
I did. Tell me he was wrong, please.
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2007-01-17 21:49:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Wisher (user info) at 2007-01-17 21:24:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS, today my boyfriend said something that scared me, and the other people in the car. Remember that "smell" that went over NJ and NY weeks back? He said he thinks the "Odor" was was a test, to see how far reaching a dirty bomb would go, a chemical warfare bomb, and that all the people involved would have to do, to see how well it would work {how far it would reach} was watch the news.
In others words, a skyrocket the kind bought at a fireworks stand, those big ones, would be be enough to send a bio bomb high enough to saturate the whole of NY, and that this test proved to them how easy it'll be next time, when they will be now smell, only poison, whatever.
What do you think. I told him his idea scared me, and that I wanted to warn people if he was right, and that I wanted to tell people online. He said look for ETS's latest post, and say this here.
I did. Tell me he was wrong, please.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-01-17 20:55:04 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/97654#2277625
I know this is an old quote, but Iran is *not* a democracy. It has elections, but that does not make it one. The Ayatollah, the Muslim religious leader of the region, chooses the candidates and the citizens vote from the ones he has provided for them. That is only similar to democracy in the most inessential way.
It would be like the Pope picking the candidates that are allowed to run in Italy or another highly Catholic Western nation.
Also, it happens to be a police state that oppresses individual citizens, which is unjustifiable: majority-choice or not (which it doesn't have anyway.)
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-17 18:53:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I call bullshit Indon, there is no fucking way you could read much about Iran and not be aware of what happened with the clerics at the last Presidential election.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-01-17 16:06:38 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-16 15:14:53 (#)
Ranking: 0
Dude, we've been through this before, the Clerics power is only theoretical, in the same way that the English Monarch can theoretically refuse a PM, yes they tried to ban people from running, but they were forced to change their decision.
And Mahmood is on the middle side of the religious wing, in Iran he is just to the right of the middle ground.
------------------
Who was forced to change their decision the Monarchy in the UK or the clerics in Iran? I read quite a lot about Iran (and not just fox, cnn or bbc), and this is the first I have ever heard of the clerics being forced to change their mind about allowing people to run.
Now he is just to the right, but on your last comment he was a moderniser?
He may be in the middle of his party, but it is an extreme party. Trying to get shaira laws enforced again after years of relaxing them is extreme, and not just by my standards.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-17 15:56:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Snare,
First, let me apologise for referring to you as Snark before. I misread your name. Now as for your comments...
This is a fair assessment...one that I can understand completely. You've hit on something important concerning the nature of human perception. Of course there are going to be a myriad of ways to perceive the same things, and even with accurate data about the world this difference in perception is inevitable.
One example I like to use is Newton's Theory of Gravity... He gave us a mathematical model of gravity that, for all practical purposes is accurate and useful to humanity in his quest to understand the workings of the cosmos and the world on which he resides, BUT it is incomplete!
In the 20th Century, new information came to light about the periphelion motion of planets that led Einstein to revise Newton's Theory of Gravity, adding another mathematical element to the model, that more completely explained this observed phenomenon. It did not negate Newton, it merely elaborated on it.
This is very much like what we're talking about here. You mentioned Occam's Razor, which states that the simplest explanation is usually the correct answer, but given the above example, this is both true and false. On the one hand, if we're talking about getting a payload of human beings into earth orbit, Newton's equasions will work fine. The simplest answer is best. But if we're talking about discovering the nature of the early universe, Newton is completely inadequate. For this, we must turn to Einstein and to quantum theories, which in spite of their elaborations, will STILL fail to completely explain things. Ironically, as we move backward in time toward the beginning of this universe, at the point at which the laws of physics break down, the only explanations that make any sense whatsoever are non-scientific in nature. At that point, it becomes an exercise in philosophy and even religious belief.
So, considering this, what place does this 'Occam's Razor' really hold? How can Mr. Chomsky's model of a disconnected network of competing and cooperating corporations fully explain the things we've seen happen in our world? How can it fully explain the admitted conspiracy of the Federal Reserve as it was conceived on Jekyll Island? How can it fully explain the role of annual Bilderberg meetings, which feature attendees from industry, politics, and the mass media all in the same place without so much as a whisper from established media? As much as I'd like to believe that the ever-intelligent Chomsky is correct in his assessment, he does not explain the serious questions I have concerning 9/11.
Do you see what I'm driving at here?
Even an accurate perception of truth using Occam's Razor requires that we have accurate and complete information beforehand, does it not? And from where does this information about our come to us? Unless we're reading a lot of independent books or websites, we are getting the information about our world, on the whole, from corporate media, who, even Chomsky will admit, are at the beckon call of advertising sponsors.
NBC, for instance, is owned in large part by GE, who, just down the road from where I live, make aircraft engines under Defense Department contracts. Now, do Occam's Razor or Mr. Chomsky really tell you that NBC is going to give you an unbiased scoop on the happenings or the causes of any American conflict when their parent company is one of the top defense contractors?
How about Murdoch-owned Fox News? Are they going to offer an unbiased or complete picture of events?
The bottom line is, as far as I'm concerned, Occam's Razor tells me that the common thread, money, corrupts the truth, and those who possess large quantities of it not only possess the power to purchase television stations that will spread their version of events, but they also possess the power to buy judges and congressmen and senators and local representatives to ensure that government regulations do not infringe upon their corporate interests. And, as more and more companies consolidate and swollow one another in increasingly larger mergers, the variety of perceptions that can be found concerning the nature and reasoning behind world events is lessened.
I'd like to think that we could execute real and lasting change topically without understanding the source of our world's woes, or by using a similar methodology we could affect real and lasting change while possessing widely different views about the source of the problem, but I don't see how that can happen.
I can give you a checklist of actions that could be taken that would begin to help the matter and at the top of the list would be abolishing the privately-owned Federal Reserve Banking System to take the source of power away from the elite, but considering your resistence to my viewpoint and your acceptance of Mr. Chomsky's more 'coincidental' assessment...well, you can see where this is going.
Thanks for the input, but without a cohesive and common perspective on things I don't see how any real change can happen, because anything we would do would be the result of a compromise that would be analogous to applying a band-aid to a knife wound.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2007-01-17 10:46:15 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
outstanding work here. spot on.
Submitted by kaioken (user info) at 2007-01-17 08:24:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Ron Paul for president!
Submitted by Snare (user info) at 2007-01-16 17:51:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
O.K.
ETS, you attribute these actions to an inner circle of old money ties.
The most believable analysis of the motivations for the manipulations we observe that I have read comes from Chomsky, where he explains these actions in terms of self-interested corporate boards and their undue influence on policy makers.
He rejects the existence of a shadowy inner-circle as being an unnecessary elaboration. The dynamics of the system are all that we need to explain the actions and influences we see.
The idea of a central controlling group is seductive because it gives us an enemy to face, a human element to oppose. But in his research he has found little evidence of such a group, and less evidence of the mechanisms that they might use to actively control the Pat Buchanans, the Karl Roves, the Colin Powells, etc, these people who appear to be the leaders of the group running the presidency.
He goes on to explain how the cohesive action of the self-interested rich can be explained by their efforts to maximise their wealth and power inside the dynamics of the social model of militarist capitalism that the Western world has adopted since the end of the Great Depression.
If you can explain phenomena with observed causational factors, there is no need to add novel factors. Occam's Razor.
Regardless of our different interpretations of the causational factors of the situation we agree on the basic tenants of its impact on the world, and on ourselves. And we agree that this needs to be actively resisted. And the form of our resistance will be the same. We will inform our fellow citizens that their elected representatives are not acting on their behalf. We will be active in local progressive and leftist political parties. We will put efforts into forming the diaspora of alternative and reactionary activists into a coherent resistance against the neo-conservatives.
Our differences of opinion on the source of our world's woes don't matter. We have the same goals in wishing to alleviate them. And we use the same methods to achieve these goals
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-16 15:14:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-01-15 11:42:42 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-14 18:17:52 (#)
Ranking: 0
"Bomb the fuck out of Iran hoping that if he damages the infrastructure badly enough that the people will all of a sudden see the brutality of the regime they live under and choose democracy all on their own?"
Thats the major problem right there, Iran already is a democracy. Invade a democracy and replace it with a.....erm.....another democracy.....Mahmood is thought of as extremist by the west but in Iranian terms he is a moderniser....if anything, you could only get him changed for a real extremist
---------------------
You define a country that has its clergey decide who can run as a democracy? You do realize that in the last presidential election over a quarter (or was it half, I forget) of the candidates were blocked from running by the religious leaders?
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is far from a moderate. Hashemi Rafsanjani was a moderate, Mohammad Khatami was a moderate.
-----------------
Dude, we've been through this before, the Clerics power is only theoretical, in the same way that the English Monarch can theoretically refuse a PM, yes they tried to ban people from running, but they were forced to change their decision.
And Mahmood is on the middle side of the religious wing, in Iran he is just to the right of the middle ground.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-16 05:43:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
By the way, Snark, thanks for your input. It's very appreciated.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-16 05:40:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Snark, you MIGHT be spot on... With what you said and what I said in the review directly prior to yours, there is one way of understanding this wider war.
BUT...(open your mind for a second for this one because this is where the issue gets REALLY misty)...
I operate under the premises that a powerful, international elite - one that, on the whole, meets in the annual Blderberger Group, the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations - controls the movements of the "chess pieces", (aka armed conflicts, interest rates, unemployment rates, national debt, stated oil reserves and oil prices via OPEC, etc...).
Taking this as a given, because in my book IT IS, what it looks like is going on here is that the people who control the central banks - the OLD MONEY families, namely the Rothschilds and Rockefellers - are creating these wars as a way of generating debt for the United States, debt that THEY eventually receive as another feather in their cap. They don't care whether we win, lose, or draw, what's important is that BOTH sides in te conflict take a blow and become weaker as a result. Having not one, but TWO weaker enemies makes you stronger.
Knowing what I know - that the British Empire is still alive and well and using the United States like a puppetmaster to acheive its own foreign policy and financial ends (as they have been doing or trying to do since the creation of this country, and finally DID with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913) - it becomes clear what's going on here, and I don't think it has as much to do with the fear of a power vacuum as it does seizing an opportunity....an opportunity that was CONVENIENTLY provided by the attacks of 9/11.
They know that if they let go of the reigns now...if they don't ride out what little might be left of the 9/11 "let's get 'em" wave, they will have to manufacture something else to use as an excuse. The problem is, as polls continually show, the American and British people are fed up with this profiteering war. They see through the bullshit like a pane of glass and are sick of the obvious lies. They will either A) use Bush as a patsy or fall guy...blaming him for every wrong turn from here on out to the end of his presidency which is likely, or B) they will create another 9/11, Gulf of Tonkin, or Pearl Harbor to create that last little UMPH of support for a carpet bombing and/or invasion of Iran.
Time will tell, but in my mind, the pieces are on the board and I see them clearly. Those who disagree have a prerogative to do so, but I fear they wil be proven wrong very very soon.
Submitted by Snare (user info) at 2007-01-16 03:31:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Why is the USA still in Iraq?
Because they're concerned for the well-being of the local populace? HAH.
Because they want the oil to keep flowing? But they're already failing at that on the ground.
Because the administration still wants to be? No. The whole Bush admin policy for the last year has been get out. As soon as possible.
USA is still in Iraq because they need a strong and cohesive local government, supported by a functioning armed forces, to be running the country when they leave.
Why?
Because if they leave a power vacuum then this will be filled from across the border in Iran. And a combined Iran/Irag is a huge step towards an Arab supernation - something America fears greatly.
So, if you're running a brain-dead chimp of a president, who is approaching his use-by date, but your past decisions have made it almost impossible to install your next chimp on the throne, and this quagmire in the middle east is a big part of it, what you do?
If you're in too deep to get out, go forward. And if a strong Iran is your problem, and wars make the ruling chimp popular (cos they do) then what better way to tip the balance in the the 2009 elections than by having your country involved in another YipeeKiYayMuthaFucka invasion-conquest?
See, it's not hard to think like these people. Because they don't think much.
And now you have one more peice of the puzzle to help you understand this crime that the people who run country are committing right before your eyes.
You have their motive.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-15 18:08:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6264761.stm
Further evidence that the BBC is nothing more than a propaganda tool.
Read this article closely... See what they're doing? They are questioning Bush's new "strategy" as something that might create more problems than it solves, yet they offer no evidence and accept as gospel the claim that Iran and Syria are even helping fuel the conflict in Iraq. So, where's the evidence of this? Where are the dead Iranian and Syrian bodies killed in the conflict? Where's the smoking gun of their participation? Where and how has this growing myth evolved?
At one point in the article, they produce a whole damning quote from the Sunni VP, but provide no such counter quote from a Shia leader, who, they simply say, "of course disagree".
Just like America's New York Times or Washington Post, the BBC is there to give us an illusion of credible voice, when in reality, the true purpose of this article in particular is to convince us tat there is no question that Iranian and Syrian influence in the Iraqi conflict is leading directly to U.S. and British casualties.
It is THIS assumption they are counting on people making in order to justify further expansion of the war into one or both of those aforementioned countries.
Read the article and think about what I said. Also read the PrisonPlanet article below and consider this:
http://infowars.com/articles/ww3/iran_ron_paul_fears_tonkin_provoke_war.htm
"In reality, the source of the IED technology being utilized by the insurgents goes back to the British security services, from whom it was acquired by the IRA and then sold around the world in the early nineties. Claims that Iran is helping Shia insurgents to make the devices is outright propaganda."
Who is misleading whom? Do you even have enough information to tell? Or are you just going to believe the one you THINK is most "credible"?
http://www.ubersite.com/m/97667#2278664
"We have been conditioned to accept certain media sources as "gospel" while it is widely understood that others are mere "rags".
For instance, we would more likely believe something sensational being reported by CNN than by the National Enquirer. We would more likely believe something reported via BBC than we would The Sun...
So if the BBC World Service came on and announced that a strange air/space craft had crash-landed and strange 'people' were coming out and atacking us, would we not in some manner be inclined to believe them based on their storehouse of credibility?
Credibility is like currency, and can be manipulated just like anything else."
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-15 17:52:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.prisonplanet.com/index.html
You heard it here first.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-15 17:10:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Russian Admiral Says U.S. Navy Prepares Missile Strike on Iran
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2007/01/15/admiral.shtml
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-15 17:10:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2007-01-15 12:49:40 (#)
Ranking: -1
Prepare for the possibility that I might just be right on this....
--------
YES YOU WERE SPOT ON WITH THAT 'IRANIAN OIL BOURSE' - MAN, THE YOU-ESS-OF-A REALLY GOT SLAMMED ON THAT ONE...
------------------
That's not over yet. It's only been a year since I said it.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-01-15 13:11:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-01-15 12:42:56 (#)
Ranking: 0
hahahah
like you retards arguing about shit you don't understand makes any difference.
---
What about us retards that do understand the shit we are arguing about?
Does that make our lack of making a difference any less laughable ...or simply more pathetic?
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2007-01-15 12:49:40 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Prepare for the possibility that I might just be right on this....
--------
YES YOU WERE SPOT ON WITH THAT 'IRANIAN OIL BOURSE' - MAN, THE YOU-ESS-OF-A REALLY GOT SLAMMED ON THAT ONE...
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-01-15 12:42:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
hahahah
like you retards arguing about shit you don't understand makes any difference.
Submitted by Wicked (user info) at 2007-01-15 11:47:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
This made me laugh.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-01-15 11:42:42 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-14 18:17:52 (#)
Ranking: 0
"Bomb the fuck out of Iran hoping that if he damages the infrastructure badly enough that the people will all of a sudden see the brutality of the regime they live under and choose democracy all on their own?"
Thats the major problem right there, Iran already is a democracy. Invade a democracy and replace it with a.....erm.....another democracy.....Mahmood is thought of as extremist by the west but in Iranian terms he is a moderniser....if anything, you could only get him changed for a real extremist
---------------------
You define a country that has its clergey decide who can run as a democracy? You do realize that in the last presidential election over a quarter (or was it half, I forget) of the candidates were blocked from running by the religious leaders?
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is far from a moderate. Hashemi Rafsanjani was a moderate, Mohammad Khatami was a moderate. They have both spoken out against Ahmadinejad and recent poles in local elections show that the moderate parties are looking stronger, and do not appreciate his actions.
"When he became mayor of Tehran, the former revolutionary guard curtailed many of the reforms put in place by the moderates who had run the city before him."
"Mr Ahmadinejad reportedly spent no money on his presidential campaign - but he was backed by powerful conservatives who used their network of mosques to mobilise support for him."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4107270.stm
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2007-01-15 08:52:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/97654#2277732
----------------
Mr. Berg is right. Apathy is the new opiate of the masses.
Submitted by Flack (user info) at 2007-01-15 07:48:19 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-14 19:53:56 (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't hate you, Rob. I don't 'hate' any of you. I just get annoyed when you retreat to your familiar terrain of blindness to what's taking place in front of your eyes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I hate you. But then again I hate everyone. Especially long-haired fags that play horrible versions of already horrible Nirvana songs.
Submitted by Flack (user info) at 2007-01-15 07:40:36 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I like beer becasue it's good
I drink beer becasue I should
If there was a song to sing
I sing it and beer you bring
I like beer when I am sad
coz the beer it makes me glad
Now theres nothing left to say
So lets go drink beer
BEER IS GOOD
BEER IS GOOD
BEER IS GOOD...AND STUFF
BEER IS GOOD
BEER IS GOOD
BEER IS GOOD
Let's go drink some BEER
When its warm it tastes real crappy
But cold beer will make me happy
When I throw yp on the floor
I can go and drink some more
They say beer will make me dumb
It are go good with pizza
Now that we have drank some beer
Lets go drive a car
BEER IS GOOD
BEER IS GOOD
BEER IS GOOD...AND STUFF
BEER IS GOOD
BEER IS GOOD
BEER IS GOOD
Let's go drink some BEER
Uh, dude.. I think you've had enough
NO!
LETS GO DRINK SOME BEER
(I am drunk, drunk is me. I am drunk, Whee. I am drunk, drunk is me. I am drunk, whee)
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2007-01-15 04:23:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-01-14 19:25:13 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-14 19:00:53 (#)
Ranking: 0
All I ask is that people who haven't seen the video watch it and decide for themselves. But, of course, there will always be those who, out of deliberate smokescreening or malinformed prejudice, will attempt to dissuade people from thinking for themselves
===
decide for themselves? i watched almost all the videos you posted and when i questionned them, i was greeted with a typical ETS irrational fit.
all you ask people is to agree with you, o great prophet.
--------------
I hate it when Caul is right.
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2007-01-15 03:50:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by hot_pocket (user info) at 2007-01-15 00:59:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
i love you
Submitted by TheDivider (user info) at 2007-01-15 00:44:33 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Well written.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-01-14 22:44:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-01-14 22:43:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2007-01-14 20:32:25 (#)
Ranking: 2
Hey ETS! Here is a pic taken by a guy I've (very recently) started seeing. He works for most of the local radio stations as their photographer. Consequently, he gets to go to all the concerts for free. Lucky bastard
I figured you'd like and appreciate this!
http://www.pbase.com/blkftindian/image/72968184
=================================
Impeach Bush?
Before you even think about going down that road, just take a moment to consider his sucessor. So please, please, please, someone shoot Dick Cheney in the face (in an honest hunting accident of course) before trying to impeach curious George.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-01-14 22:29:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I read the first 2 paragraphs and got bored with this.
We've been at war with Iran since 1979.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-01-14 22:15:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
This blurb was right up there in my face.
Submitted by locksly (user info) at 2007-01-14 21:58:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-01-14 21:57:21 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
predictions that we are all blind and zombies if we don't agree with them.
that sounds like facts to me.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-14 21:39:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-01-14 21:34:32 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-14 20:47:43 (#)
Ranking: 0
But out of curiosity, what in this post leads you to the PREconception that I belong in a cell or a straight jacket along with Bush?
===
stop pretending you don't understand, the sentence said it: "you sit back and state what you think it's facts"
the guy was spot on. you might think these people are you arch enemies, but for us, you're no different. that's not a preconception, that's a perception, which many have of you.
----------------
The title of the post included the word "prediction"; what more do you want? What the hell is your point?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-01-14 21:34:32 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-14 20:47:43 (#)
Ranking: 0
But out of curiosity, what in this post leads you to the PREconception that I belong in a cell or a straight jacket along with Bush?
===
stop pretending you don't understand, the sentence said it: "you sit back and state what you think it's facts"
the guy was spot on. you might think these people are you arch enemies, but for us, you're no different. that's not a preconception, that's a perception, which many have of you.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-14 20:48:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2007-01-14 20:32:25 (#)
Ranking: 2
Hey ETS! Here is a pic taken by a guy I've (very recently) started seeing. He works for most of the local radio stations as their photographer. Consequently, he gets to go to all the concerts for free. Lucky bastard
I figured you'd like and appreciate this!
http://www.pbase.com/blkftindian/image/72968184
------------
Queensryche.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-14 20:47:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by LeaderOfMen (user info) at 2007-01-14 20:27:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
Worried about a draft? Im aleady in the Army, and its not a bad thing. Take all preconceived notions and shove them in your ass ETS with your lack of personal experience. You and Bush have something in common... you sit back and state what you think are facts, but in everyone else's reality we see that you belong in the same cell, if not straight jacket.
-----------------
Preconceived?
That word suggests that I have conceived such notions BEFORE something, as the prefix "pre" would suggest... But I have given more than my fair share of reasons for thinking the way I do, and my government keep supporting those "preconceived notions" time and time again. This means, I have drawn my conclusions AFTER having seen a preponderance of evidence supporting such conclusions. If there is anything my notions are NOT, it's 'preconceived'.
But out of curiosity, what in this post leads you to the PREconception that I belong in a cell or a straight jacket along with Bush?
You say both he and I are out of touch with reality, yet I starkly disagree with him. How do you reconcile this?
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2007-01-14 20:32:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Hey ETS! Here is a pic taken by a guy I've (very recently) started seeing. He works for most of the local radio stations as their photographer. Consequently, he gets to go to all the concerts for free. Lucky bastard
I figured you'd like and appreciate this!
http://www.pbase.com/blkftindian/image/72968184
Submitted by LeaderOfMen (user info) at 2007-01-14 20:27:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Worried about a draft? Im aleady in the Army, and its not a bad thing. Take all preconceived notions and shove them in your ass ETS with your lack of personal experience. You and Bush have something in common... you sit back and state what you think are facts, but in everyone else's reality we see that you belong in the same cell, if not straight jacket.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-01-14 20:14:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-01-14 20:00:19 (#)
Ranking: 0
why do guys hate forensic...she's never out of place.
i don't defend people, but i have to say i am curious about the ire. same thing about sicosemen. what are their sins?
---
I think she is great - but she hates me for some reason so I figured I would play along.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-01-14 20:14:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-14 20:06:24 (#)
Ranking: 0
The same could possibly be said of you, Caul. For confirmation, I would merely have to point to your previous reviews.
===
the same could not be said because i'm not trying to have a conversation with you. i, among others, have long given up on that. we're just poking monkey (or is it the dog?)
i think you're a fucking idiot and i don't have to split hairs and be passive-agressive about it. (see first comment)
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-01-14 20:12:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Dude.
I think you might want to take a stroll over to some of my posts and actually read them. (i know they are long and certainly filled with far too many adjectives for the word "dumb" but have a gander.)
I blame US.
WE, (that's right Filthy) the people.
WE are to blame for letting this sort malignant shit happen.
We elect our public officials in this catastrophic bastardization of democracy.
We fail to rise up and hold our leaders accountable thereby failing ourselves.
We are willfully ignorant.
We are distracted.
Bush is terrible leader and unquestionably a fucking retard. His administration has enabled or directly influenced the death and mutilation of hundreds of thousands of people.
I don't blame him. I blame us.
Education is failing, Healthcare is unreasonably expensive and inefficient, Global Warming+Dumping+Toxic waste+Pollution are inexplicably ignored or marginalized.
The list goes on and on.
I don't blame the government. I blame us for allowing them to fail at their jobs.
WE are to blame... and we don't give a shit.
Not about being blamed, not about some collection of assholes on the internet claiming how much we all suck.
We don't care.
THAT, my friend, is the problem.
We don't care, and the people that DO hold power care a great deal. So they do what they can to manipulate the masses and benefit greatly from our apathy and desire to "tune out all the bad shit."
We are pathetic - but we have great TV and soe kick ass movies to look forward to. Life isn't so bad. Ho-hum. Pass the remote.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-01-14 20:11:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-14 19:53:56 (#)
Ranking: 0
A truly open mind acknowledges ALL possibilities and sets aside those that are less likely than others in an effort to discover truth.
===
sorry but that's what people do with your posts, set them aside.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-14 20:06:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The same could possibly be said of you, Caul. For confirmation, I would merely have to point to your previous reviews.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-01-14 20:01:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-14 19:53:56 (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't hate you, Rob. I don't 'hate' any of you. I just get annoyed when you retreat to your familiar terrain of blindness to what's taking place in front of your eyes. """
way to start a conversation, brad.
"i don't hate you. you're just a clueless moron."
passive-agressive much?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-01-14 20:00:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
why do guys hate forensic...she's never out of place.
i don't defend people, but i have to say i am curious about the ire. same thing about sicosemen. what are their sins?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-14 19:53:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't hate you, Rob. I don't 'hate' any of you. I just get annoyed when you retreat to your familiar terrain of blindness to what's taking place in front of your eyes.
I don't question your desire for a better world, and I don't challenge the truth of some of the things you say, but I take serious issue with your aim when it comes to finding the source of the problems we face in the world right now. You're not aiming high enough. Left to you, we would do exactly as the people pulling the strings of government would like us to do at this juncture and rest our anger and blame solely on president Bush, Tony Blair, and their cabinets, but the truth is, the people on whom you place such blame are, at best, rooks in the game.
Do some people oversimplify the world in an effort to make it make sense? Do they find scapegoats that are convenient and make it possible to excuse themselves from any responsibility? Do human beings have such ego issues that they will not admit they were wrong to avoid an embarrassing situation? Of course, we all do these sorts of things from time to time. It's only human nature.
I can tell you now with certainty that, in this case, none of the above apply to what I am trying to warn you of. This is not a case of Brad saving face or desperately trying to make his world make sense in the face of mounting complication. This is simply a matter of me trying to do anything I can - to add my voice to the pygmy din - to dissuade a possible future that is nothing if not bleak.
Could I be wrong? Sure I could. But, so could Einstein...so could Newton. Their theories are STILL just "theories". Remember?
They could all be proven wrong tomorrow and we COULD find out that interdimensional reptilian beings ARE controlling the world after all and that the so-called 'laws' of physics were nothing more than their programmed parameters for our limited world. It is "possible". A truly open mind acknowledges ALL possibilities and sets aside those that are less likely than others in an effort to discover truth. That is all we can do with these 5 senses - drawing upon our powers of reason and experience discern truth from fiction. But NEVER, under any circumstances, will we dismiss anything.
Uncertainty and risk are facts of life. We cannot know everything. All we can do is attempt to make educated predictions about our world and what will happen in it based on those things we've accepted as true in the past. This post, for me, was about just that.
If you choose to reject it, that is not my problem, nor is it any of my concern.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-01-14 19:50:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2007-01-14 19:46:56 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2007-01-14 17:49:09 (#)
Ranking: 2
The American public should be storming the Whitehouse and demanding the removal and imprisonment of Bush and all his cohorts.
~~Well we would but we figure we'd just be gunned down on the lawn and our families would be sent the bill for the bullets. Then again, according to you, I'm just stupid and apathetic.
---
... and a giant random BE-YOTCH.
um... ok, maybe thats just me. But I am sure I could get at least a few people to second that motion.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2007-01-14 19:46:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2007-01-14 17:49:09 (#)
Ranking: 2
The American public should be storming the Whitehouse and demanding the removal and imprisonment of Bush and all his cohorts.
~~Well we would but we figure we'd just be gunned down on the lawn and our families would be sent the bill for the bullets. Then again, according to you, I'm just stupid and apathetic.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-01-14 19:38:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I think it's obvious why he has such a hate-on for me. Don't you? """
you said it best when he complained that you had broken your alliance: "childish tree fort bullshit"
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-01-14 19:32:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-01-14 19:26:17 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-14 19:05:46 (#)
Ranking: 0
Thanks, pussy coward motherfucker.
===
yeah, because ets sent a letter to a senator and he threatened to not pay his taxes.
that takes some fuckin balls i tell you.
---
He's just cranky because he doesn't like people disagreeing with only SOME of what he has to say or as the audacity to criticize how he says it.
I applaud his actions and deeply respect his intellect.
I think it's obvious why he has such a hate-on for me. Don't you?
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-01-14 19:28:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
- i suspect that you're like one of those many people who cannot deal with the fact that this world is a big complex melting pot of NUANCES. you need to have some sort of clear line between good guys and bad guys like in the movies so you can sleep at night. some choose terrorism, others choose the government. alex jones knows this and he milks his targeted audience like fox news does with its own.
- you are part of the problem because you abandon debate for emotional driven opinions that comfort you.
- your government knows it distracts you from its blatant incompetence.
---
Splendid points!
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-01-14 19:26:17 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-14 19:05:46 (#)
Ranking: 0
Thanks, pussy coward motherfucker.
===
yeah, because ets sent a letter to a senator and he threatened to not pay his taxes.
that takes some fuckin balls i tell you.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-01-14 19:25:13 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-14 19:00:53 (#)
Ranking: 0
All I ask is that people who haven't seen the video watch it and decide for themselves. But, of course, there will always be those who, out of deliberate smokescreening or malinformed prejudice, will attempt to dissuade people from thinking for themselves
===
decide for themselves? i watched almost all the videos you posted and when i questionned them, i was greeted with a typical ETS irrational fit.
all you ask people is to agree with you, o great prophet.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-01-14 19:22:32 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-14 18:48:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-01-14 18:44:37 (#)
Ranking: -2
unless the US nukes iran, there is no way it can invade it with it's current force.
you're an idiot.
---------------
Read the reviews and you'll see that I've already addressed that.
===
so many people predicted a war with iran. even in 2005, i remember seeing stabkill and you, which although opposed in views are much similar in character, yapping about a war with iran for ze petrodollars as soon as march 2006. what happened to that theory? where's the war?
rad says your predicions are good, but the truth is, you're like an astrologist. you spew so much bs that some is bound to make sense...vaguely. if you can connect hitler with bush, everything you say can make sense, right?
i suspect that you're like one of those many people who cannot deal with the fact that this world is a big complex melting pot of NUANCES. you need to have some sort of clear line between good guys and bad guys like in the movies so you can sleep at night. some choose terrorism, others choose the government. alex jones knows this and he milks his targetted audience like fox news does with its own.
just like stabkill who thinks everyone is a liberal nut-job, you think that we are all zombies under the grip of Bush The Terrible. you are part of the problem because you abandon debate for emotional driven opinions that confort you.
i can't really blame you because that is human, but i can tell you to stfu. or keep concocting theories and arguing with your equivalent opposite. your government knows it distracts you from its blatant incompetence.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-01-14 19:17:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-14 19:05:46 (#)
Ranking: 0
Thanks, pussy coward motherfucker.
---
HAHAHAHAHHAhahahaa.
HA.
yer welcome.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-14 19:05:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Thanks, pussy coward motherfucker.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-01-14 19:03:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
MUCH better.
This is infinitely more productive.
We the People, We the People, We the People, We the People, We the People, We the People, We the People, We the People, need this kind of education and exposure to reasoned speculation.
Nice work, poopie pants.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-14 19:00:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-01-14 18:46:56 (#)
Ranking: -2
For more information on the history of false flag events, including the Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, and 9/11, see Alex Jones' excellent film "Terrorstorm": http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7152849288500417952 """
oh good old alex jones...the same guy who said that the US was a police state because a policemen in NYC told him to stop loitering in the middle of traffic. or the same man who made an hour long movie about how Schwarzenneger will be the next Adolph Hitler of America with nonsensical connections.
and you wonder why you are not taken seriously.
--------------------
He gave a lot more reasons than the one you mentioned why he thinks that U.S. is turning into a police state, and he is by no means the only one. People have been warning of this for decades and if you only look at the legislation that has been passed just sinec 9/11 - The Patriot Act, The Military Commissions Act, Defense Authorization Act of 2006, Model States Emergency Health Powers Act, etc. - you would realize you have absolutely no argument.
Instead of trying to get your kicks by inciting or discrediting myself or Alex Jones with your dumbed-down, rudementary interpretations, maybe you should do some research.
All I ask is that people who haven't seen the video watch it and decide for themselves. But, of course, there will always be those who, out of deliberate smokescreening or malinformed prejudice, will attempt to dissuade people from thinking for themselves.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-14 18:48:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-01-14 18:44:37 (#)
Ranking: -2
unless the US nukes iran, there is no way it can invade it with it's current force.
you're an idiot.
---------------
Read the reviews and you'll see that I've already addressed that.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-01-14 18:46:56 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
For more information on the history of false flag events, including the Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, and 9/11, see Alex Jones' excellent film "Terrorstorm": http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7152849288500417952 """
oh good old alex jones...the same guy who said that the US was a police state because a policemen in NYC told him to stop loitering in the middle of traffic. or the same man who made an hour long movie about how Schwarzenneger will be the next Adolph Hitler of America with nonsensical connections.
and you wonder why you are not taken seriously.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-01-14 18:44:37 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
unless the US nukes iran, there is no way it can invade it with it's current force.
you're an idiot.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-14 18:26:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Sinistral (user info) at 2007-01-14 18:11:10 (#)
Ranking: 2
Now I gotta go figure out what this damn Gulf of Tonkin thing is.
--------------
Well, the 'official' history is that it was an attack on U.S. ships off the coast of Vietnam that led to the escalation of the Vietnam War.
But the actual history is probably much different, according to other evidence. We were never actually attacked by the Vietnamese, but instead, we staged a flase flag event in the hopes that it would stir Americans into a revenge frenzy that would ensure support for an all out invasion.
For more information on the history of false flag events, including the Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, and 9/11, see Alex Jones' excellent film "Terrorstorm": http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7152849288500417952
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-01-14 18:24:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
This is true.
I have been working for the US government for months now, assisting in the planning of such an attack. The plan is for the USS Ronald Regan to be the ship, thus presenting Mr. President with a sound bite akin to "Bring em on"...
On nationally televised TV you'll hear it...
"This one's for the gipper"
God bless capatalism, and republicans
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-14 18:22:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Far from me to try and make sense of the shit my government is doing, Shitfuck...
I KNOW it's madness... You KNOW it's madness... Rad KNOWS it's madness... But George W. Bush...forgetaboutit.
It's not impossible to invade Iran. It's only impossible with current troop levels.
*cough*draft*cough*
And lest we forget, the history of mankind has not followed from military might nearly so much as it has from financial manipulation and control. Bottom line, the money men want us at war...and they want us at war with someone that will maximize their profits. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUbaCWyxJo0&mode=related&search=
Imagine this: "My fellow Americans, today our nation was once again attacked by an act of dispicable terrorist aggression. One of our ships was attacked and destroyed unprovoked in the Persian Gulf by the terrorist nation of Iran. In the past, our nation has responded in times of great tribulation; we mobilized our talents to combat the forces of evil in WWII, and now we must mobilize again if we are to defeat the very real 21st century treat of terrorism in the world. As you might know, the brave men and women our armed forces are already deeply entrenched in this new war as they fight for freedom and liberation in the nations of Afghanistan and Iraq. But the sudden emergence of this new enemy will test the limits of our armed forces and present challenges unparalleled in our history. That is why, today, I am asking congress to put together a committee to explore ALL our options, which may or may not include an involuntary draft.... Our nation is in jeopardy and it is time that we ask all willing and able young men to follow in their grandfather's noble footsteps in service of their country in this time of desperate need...blah blah blah..."
It helps if you remember the state of the U.S. military prior to WWII. But Pearl Harbor - the "day which will live in infamy", the whole "Remember the Alamo", "Remember the Maine", "Remember 9/11" syndrome - took over and we mobilized in a hurry as people of all stripes volunteered for service.
Volunteers aren't going to come easily, but mandatory service certainly will.
Oh, and by the way...we don't have to be able to win to justify an attack...not for these people. All we have to do is stay at war long enough to generate trillions of dollars in debt, to disrupt oil coming out of places we CANNOT control and channel it out of places we DO control, and to generate wartime contracts unlike anything ever seen in history.
It doesn't matter whether we win or not. Vietnam taught us that. At this point, it's only the fight that counts. Besides, Britain and Israel will be there to sweeten the deal and make it seem like we have a chance.
If you haven't seen this video, http://www.ubersite.com/m/94991, you should watch it.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-14 18:17:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Bomb the fuck out of Iran hoping that if he damages the infrastructure badly enough that the people will all of a sudden see the brutality of the regime they live under and choose democracy all on their own?"
Thats the major problem right there, Iran already is a democracy. Invade a democracy and replace it with a.....erm.....another democracy.....Mahmood is thought of as extremist by the west but in Iranian terms he is a moderniser....if anything, you could only get him changed for a real extremist
Submitted by Sinistral (user info) at 2007-01-14 18:11:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Now I gotta go figure out what this damn Gulf of Tonkin thing is.
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2007-01-14 17:49:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The American public should be storming the Whitehouse and demanding the removal and imprisonment of Bush and all his cohorts.
This affair with Iran is disturbing--but I'm still holding on to the fact that the US military is stretched so thin that a war with Iran isn't possible.
I mean--how could it be possible? America certainly has the arsenal to destroy Iran, but not to occupy it or force any kind of regime change--you need boots on the ground for that, and we all know how popular American boots are in the middle east.
So what does Bush do? Bomb the fuck out of Iran hoping that if he damages the infrastructure badly enough that the people will all of a sudden see the brutality of the regime they live under and choose democracy all on their own? Or does he abandon Iraq, and move those boots on the ground into an attack formation on the border so he can try this whole 'bringing democracy to the middle east' thing all over again in a different stretch of desert?
That makes no sense whatsoever--which is probably why the Conservatives will choose it and send another few thousand poor American kids to die in some useless conflict.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-01-14 17:27:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Give it a couple weeks, Rad. The momentary dip in gas prices was due, in part, to the mostly passive reaction over Saddam's execution, but that momentary high is fading fast.
Listen, dude...Ron Paul is running for president in 2008.
He understands that what we call terrorism is nothing more than a last desperate effort of a group of people who feel they are otherwise powerless to combat a behemouth military might like that the United States or Great Britain or Israel. He's been saying for literally 20 years that unless we stop this policy of attacking those that don't agree with us, the threat of terrorism and instability in the world will rise and no one has yet listened.
In this man lies pretty much my last hope for a future for this country. He sees the evils of the Federal Reserve system too and knows how its influence is felt far beyond just whether or not families can afford to buy a new house, and is just about the ONLY congressman I've ever heard of in the past 30 years speaking out against it on the house floor.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2007-01-14 17:11:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
whatever you naysayers think about brad, his predictions have a tendency to be not only immensely unpopular but correct. I think his batting average his probably higher than most of you people.
oh, and just for the record I am paying about 50 cents more for gas right now than in October.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2007-01-14 16:53:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
*explodes*
In the News Of The World today is an article that describes how the home office are planning on introducing laws to allow the police to limit the movement and access to mobile phones of people SUSPECTED of being involved in serious crime.
The End In Near.
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2007-01-14 16:46:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2007-01-14 16:40:33 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Zebra (user info) at 2007-01-14 16:30:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No Comment
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-01-14 16:22:14 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Insightful. Move to North Korea.