world war four

Subject: Re: world war four

Aren't we getting a bit ahead of ourselves? Isn't WWIV the one to be fought with pointy sticks and rocks?

quijibo wrote: no.no.no.no.no.no
no cyborgs. and no angry!sex

bush has threatened syria
israel has promised to attack syria in days

iran declares any strike on syria will be akin to an attack on iran
iran has declared plans for rationing gas for its citizens

and there are militant muslims in the philippines,
somalia, pakistan... well. everywhere

I think you have to be pragmatic and look on the bright side: Wall Street believes this nonsense too, so there's another firesale on equities this week.

Toll So Far: More than 230 killed in Lebanon; mostly civilians.

"...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
John Donne

alafairnadia wrote: [quote=quijibo][quote=alafairnadia]"I’m not going to talk too long like the rest of them. Some of these guys talk too long. Gotta go home. Got something to do tonight,"

who is that quote from?

prez bush at the G8.

from http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/07/17/dont-talk-with-your-mouth-full/

there are also relevant gems:

"See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this [shit] and it’s over," Bush told Blair as he chewed on a buttered roll.

and

Later, Bush said he felt like telling Annan to telephone Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "and make something happen."

"We’re not blaming Israel and we’re not blaming the Lebanese government," he said.

Have you ever met an Iranian person?

Just curious if you've had any physical contact with a people you want to nuke.

Everybody relax, there's not going to be a war, at least not the one you're talking about. Just a lot of yammering and posturing, as usual. Eventually the world will pressure Israel to stop pounding Lebanon, and it will, and things will simmer down a bit, with continued tit for tat killings between the usual suspects. Iran is certainly not going to attack the US or any of its allies, and the US isn't going to invade Iran either--not that we wouldn't like to, but we're missing that crucial component of an invasion--an army. Ours happens to be busy right now. Later, things will boil up again, then quiet down, then up and down and up and down, again and again and again. I suppose someday down the road the parties will either sign further peace agreements and eventually stabilize (yeah right), or someone will nuke Israel and then all hell will break loose (seems plausible). But not for a while.

doctorj wrote:
Escap is as usual correct. So did anyone buy Friday through Tuesday before the market snapped out of it?

No, but I enjoyed Jon Stewart's piece this week making fun of Fox News (surprise) for running stories on how the middle east violence will effect YOU at the PUMP

(emphasis to represent the announcer yelling on Fox news)

quijibo wrote:
1. strawman
2. strawman

To be honest I was just curious where you get your information about Iran. My opinion on attacking Iran was drastically changed when I spoke to people from there who could tell me a thing or two about what it's actually like.

For starters, the leadership in Iran is hated by many of their own people. But if we attack Iran, or even strongly threaten it, all these Iranians who are actually on our side will immediately turn against us and rally around the very leaders we're trying to undermine and/or defeat.

Keep in mind unilateral U.S. military action and political interference does not have a very good track record. Bombing & invading is the easy way out and it can create decades and decades of problems for the people we try to 'help' and more often than not it creates worse security issues for ourselves down the line.

In the 1950's Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA deposed Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, an Iranian leader we didn't like in part b/c he wanted to nationalize the biggest oil company in the country. So we helped install the Shah who was willing to bend to our wishes. Fast forward 20 years and this corrupt, inept and murderous dictator had bred so much resentment that he inspired a fundamentalist Islamic movement to overthow him.

Then the US sits on its high horse and acts like the Iranian Revolution happened in a vacuum. The US assumes Iranians are morons and we can't figure out why on Earth Iranians would resent an innocent old country like us.

We deposed their democratically elected Prime Minister because we didn't like how his policies affected our oil supply and we didn't like his Iranian nationalism. They took 66 US citizens hostage for over a year. Both sides are f*cked, and both made tons of bad mistakes. But people shouldn't act like the US is innocent. Not by any stretch.

Obviously I'm passionate about this topic. I have a very close friend who's Iranian and passionately hates his country's leadership and their role in the Middle East. I'm also a tree-hugging hippie liberal. I just wanted to interject the little bit I've learned about US/Iranian history. Too many Americans think the US had nothing to do with Iran prior to 1979. The US government probably wants the American public to think that way. Things are easier when it's black and white, us vs them, good guys vs bad guys.

doctorj wrote:

You're also well-informed, and accurate on this topic in my opinion. But it sounds like you've fallen into the classic trap for tree-hugging hippie liberals: taking an absolutely ridiculous discussion seriously.

lol. no doubt.