Israeli troops launch raid deep into Lebanon

Parent Cafe
401

<p>“Iraq used to be our safety net against Iran. There should be no thanking or blessing Bush for basically putting the world on a collision course.”</p>

<p>Safety net against Iran? Since overthrowing the U.S. backed dictator and the 5th most powerful military force in the world in 1979 without firing a shot, and establishing both a constitution and a democracy encompassing a wide range of views, exactly whom has Iran attacked? Granada? Haiti? Nicaragua? Afghanistan? Iraq? Where have they invaded in the past 27 years? What governments have they overthrown? Where outside their own borders have they established military bases?</p>

402

<p>Iran a democracy? With acceptance of a “wide range of views”? Should I laugh out loud?</p>

<p>I guess you don’t take the words of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at face value then? No real existential threat from Iran? They just want nuclear energy for peaceful purposes? They really love Israel and the US? Okeedoke.</p>

403

<p>"Iran a democracy? With acceptance of a “wide range of views”? Should I laugh out loud?</p>

<p>I guess you don’t take the words of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at face value then? No real existential threat from Iran?"</p>

<p>Did Grenada threaten you, too? Come on, don’t be shy. Let’s hear whom they have attacked. Haiti? Iraq? Surely you must have a long list.</p>

<p>Who was the Prime Minister before Ahmadinejad? Do you know? Do you know what policies he pursued? What about the one before him? Do you know? Did you ever bother to find out? Do you have any idea what the range of views reflected in 27 years of elections have been, even while they are surrounded by a belligerent enemy that supplied torturers (and trained them in Georgia) and torture equipment to their dictator for a quarter of a century? Do you even have any curiosity as to who might be the Prime Minister AFTER Ahmadinejad, again replaced by a democratic electorate? (I can guarantee one thing: it won’t be a Bush or a Clinton.)</p>

404

<p>Mini, it’s true that there have been a variety of views in Iran over 27 years, but I wouldn’t call the current set of politically stated views in the slightest democratic. And yes, I am well aware of the political structure from well before Ahmadinejad’s presidency, so I’d appreciate your not treating me in a patronizing way. </p>

<p>I am talking about the threat today, of a nuclear Iran. If you happen to think that there is no danger in that concept, we may just not be able to have a meeting of the minds on the subject. I don’t look at Ahmaninejad’s rhetoric as simply the language of a blowho, but a man with a true mission, and interestingly, many of the other Arab countries are also not so comfy with his POV and goals.</p>

405

<p>Removing Saddam was simply a bonus point. The main objective in invading Iraq was to frustrate and engage a ruthless, state-less rogue enemy–in their own backyard. Why the administration didn’t feel it could broadcast this intent, I’m not sure, but as a strategic intent, it has been successful–though more costly in time, human capital and money (for both sides) than perhaps was imagined at the outset. The well-funded verocity of the insurgence shows the administration did not underestimate the strength of that enemy. To mini’s point about the possibilities of Iran, Iraq appears to have been the right ‘backyard’ too.</p>

<p>I didn’t vote for Bush in either election but I’m not sure he isn’t crazy like a fox. I’m not sure Clinton wouldn’t have done the same thing post 9/11. I feel sure Kerry would have had a similar strategy. Even if the Democrats had a potential winner for 2008, (which they don’t, sadly), this strategic intent would continue.</p>

<p>In any event, this is now the American reality. The decades of gobbling up the world’s resources while the rest of the world sat back and placidly watched us enjoy the feast are over.</p>

<p>mini–such an optimistic view of Iran–the likes of which I never hear from my Iranian friends, many of whom travel back and forth to their family still living in Tehran. I would love to hear your predictions for the near future for Iran…</p>

406

<p>Oh, I think things will get significantly “worse”. The election of Ahmadinejad was a direct response to 200,000 hostile U.S. troops who, as a result of armed invasions, are amassed on both of their major borders, with a sabre-rattler in DC who can’t get over the fact that the biggest U.S. foreign/military loss of the 20th Century took place there in 1979. People under siege mentality will often elect nasty folks. I think their current Pres., who I expect will not be around forever, manages to galvanize local opinion by spouting off with nasty crap. (I think the same of our current Pres. as well, though he is no longer so capable.) WHEN the U.S. cuts and runs, things will improve somewhat. </p>

<p>I do NOT have an optimistic view of Iran. Who they choose to govern, or how they govern, would never be my choice. And of course it isn’t the choice of my well-healed Iranian friends who made their fortunes as procurers for the Shah and his followers. That’s why they didn’t stay! But it is the Iranian people’s choice, and they have, under very difficult conditions, including war with a nasty opponent fought with chemical weapons at the urging of the United States, managed to exercise that choice through thick and thin - and with widely varying results, far wider than anything I’ve seen in the U.S. in the same time period. It’s more than can be said of those freedom-loving folks in Saudi Arabia (busy producing the Bin-Ladens of the world), or those Kuwaiti democracy lovers.</p>

<p>One thing I am clear about, though: if I were an average Iranian, and worried about the NEXT U.S. invasion, I’d want a nuclear weapon as quickly as I could get one. I think there is much greater worldwide risk from a U.S. invasion of Iran than from a Iranian nuclear weapon, if, in fact, (and not in theory), they are intent on producing one.</p>

<p>One thing that most folks don’t know about Iran (because their governmental system is different from ours) is that the loser in the 2005 presidential election, Rafsanjani, may actually have more power that Ahmadinejad. He is executive of something called the “Expediency Council”, appointed to decide all disputes between executive, legislative, and guardianship branches. Rafsanjani is a well-known moderate, yet appointed by the ayatollahs to the position (suggesting that the religious authorities are in fact somewhat more liberal than the current president.) Rafsanjani was prez from 1989-1997, oversaw the end of the Iran-Iraq War, and was a voice of moderation. However, he was the first Iranian pres to push for an Iranian nuclear weapon, based on his well-deserved mistrust of the U.S. following the Iran-Iraq War.</p>

407

<p>It surprises me that you believe the Iranian people freely elected Ahmadinejad–widely believed to be a puppet of those who rule Iran. I’m not so sure ‘free’ elections are possible in a police state. </p>

<p>I’ve lived under a benevolent dictatorship with so-called ‘free’ elections. Mysteriously, the best of the opposition always ended up in jail so that the dictator’s choice could be ‘freely’ elected.</p>

<p>By the way, my friends did not ‘make their fortunes’ procurring goods for the Shah. They are mostly teachers and scientists who left Iran because they could not live with the pervading intolerant religious fanaticism enforced by the Iranian security forces. The family that stayed behind did so at the special behest of Ayatollah Khomeini.</p>

408

<p>“It surprises me that you believe the Iranian people freely elected Ahmadinejad–widely believed to be a puppet of those who rule Iran. I’m not so sure ‘free’ elections are possible in a police state.”</p>

<p>A police state does not name the loser of an election to the so-called dictator to rule over him.
Most of my friends made their fortunes as procurers. Their sons and daughters, those who didn’t end up as procurers for the new state, became teachers and scientists. The services formerly provided by their parents were not in high demand. Having been raised in the glory days of Tehran, they were uncomfortable with the religious fanaticism that wasn’t part of their upbringing, and came here. I can’t say I would have acted any differently. But they were, and are, a very, very tiny portion of the population.</p>

<p>And, yes, I think the people freely elected Ahmadinejad, just as they had elected Khatami before him, and Rafsanjani before him. Three very, very, very different people who pursued very different policies. Far, far more different than Reagan/Bush and Clinton, or Clinton and Bush. And I expect that, barring a U.S. invasion, they will elected someone after Ahmadinejad as well. Perhaps very different from him. If history tells us anything, that is rather likely. </p>

<p>Rather surprising in a police state, don’t you think?</p>

<p>(P.S. I lived under a less than benevolent dictatorship with so-called “free” elections. Iran, to be exact. And I worked for the U.S. government.)</p>

409

<p>My friends and their parents were teachers and scientists and doctors during the Shah regime–and they have continued in those professions in exile–or in Tehran as the case may be.</p>

<p>For an old guy, I must say, you’re pretty starry-eyed about life in a police state–but hey, you lived there and I’ve never even visited. I would like to go and see the architecture. We’ll have to politely agree to disagree on the viability of ‘free’ elections in Iran and whether or not Ahmadinejad is a mere puppet of that same police state. </p>

<p>On some matters, we do agree. It was a remarkable revolution which had an enormous effect on the American political scene when it unhinged Jimmy Carter which, in turn, perhaps, unhinged the Democratic party. </p>

<p>We agree that Iran was bound to be tumultuous in the aftermath of the Shah’s reign. The police state may be a temporary condition for that evolving nation. Finally, we agree that a nuclear weapon is the cleverest solution to the US threat because it would put Iran into a protective cold-war with the US.</p>

<p>The fact that Bush DIDN’T mention Iran in his little “Yo!” tete-a-tete with Blair may indicate that the administration is not as worried about Iran as they sometimes lead the media to believe.</p>

410

<p><a href=“HeadlineAlley”>HeadlineAlley;

<p>Four U.S. soldiers accused of murdering suspected insurgents during a raid in Iraq said they were under orders to “kill all military age males,” according to sworn statements obtained by The Associated Press.</p>

<p>The soldiers first took some of the men into custody because they were using two women and a toddler as human shields. They shot three of the men after the women and child were safe and say the men attacked them- AP</p>

<p>Wow, nice stuff on BOTH sides…</p>

411

<p>

Anyone relying on Mini’s description of government in Iran does so at his or her own risk. Here is a more accurate overview of the Iranian theocratic republic.
<a href=“http://www.iranchamber.com/government/articles/structure_of_power.php[/url]”>http://www.iranchamber.com/government/articles/structure_of_power.php&lt;/a&gt;
Iran is clearly run by self-appointed religious dictators. Iran’s president is a puppet of the religious leaders. He would not have been president if the religious extremists did not first approve him.</p>

412

<p>Hey allmusic I know how you feel. I’m from the US, but I have about 50 family members who live in Israel, and my father was born in Haifa. Although Netanya, where most of my 1st and 2nd cousins live, has not been greatly affected by the events in Northern Israel and Southern Lebanon, I feel its only a matter of time before Hezbollah uses even longer range rockets that they have received from Iran. If the IDF and IAF don’t succeed soon, rockets will be hitting more highly populated areas further south in Israel. I was hoping to visit my cousins Jordan and Omer (who is starting his mandatory service in the IDF) in August, but things are not looking good right now.
What a present for my cousin’s 18th birthday.</p>

413

<p>well, now isn’t this great news:</p>

<p><a href=“Afghanistan close to anarchy, warns general | World news | The Guardian”>Afghanistan close to anarchy, warns general | World news | The Guardian;

<p>The most senior British military commander in Afghanistan yesterday described the situation in the country as “close to anarchy” with feuding foreign agencies and unethical private security companies compounding problems caused by local corruption.
The stark warning came from Lieutenant General David Richards, head of Nato’s international security force in Afghanistan, who warned that western forces there were short of equipment and were “running out of time” if they were going to meet the expectations of the Afghan people…</p>

414

<p>The mess in Lebanon is deflecting attention from the gigundo messes in both Iraq and Afganistan. One is “close to civil war” (with 100 deaths a day) and the other “close to anarchy”. But no one is watching <em>that</em> news, which I suppose is excellent news for the Bush administration. Perhaps just the way they planned it.</p>

415

<p>The best thing that ever happened to many now modern countries was their period of British colonization. Sometimes you just have to supervise people into joining the modern world. The Brits don’t have the means for it anymore, but I think our president has picked up the ball for them.</p>

416

<p>

Yes indeed.</p>

417

<p>well, er, yes British colonial administration created nice woodlands, parks, roads, and a divide and conquer mentality in their administration tactics, playing on already existing local resentments that divided the populations of whereever they settled even moreso and led to civil war after they left. Funny thing, the populations in these countries have a love-hate relationship with the Brits to this day.</p>

418

<p>I know many Indian businessmen and physicians who unabashedly credit the British empire for their personal successes. A good number also happen to be great tennis, cricket, rugby, and squash players.

</p>

419

<p>An an Indian I can comfortably say that the British have done many more good things for my country. They were opressive and cruel at times, but their good deeds overshadows this. Since Independance, the British and Indians have a much better relationship. Without Britain, India would still be under the rule of kings. It would not be modern or Westernized at all. The most popular sport in India today is cricket by far, despite the national sport being hockey.</p>

420

<p>I had a fascinating discussion with a young Indian businessman at DeGaulle airport years ago while waiting for a flight. He was a new Internet dynamo, and he really opened my eyes on some things. One thing that I remember him emphasizing was the importance of a common language (English) in an enormous country divided into tribes and regions and further divided by more than 800 different languages. I often think of him when I call the Dell computer technical assistance line and find myself speaking to an Indian who speaks the King’s English and follows US collegiate basketball. One young tech was very impressed when, during a re-boot I mentioned that I lived near the Merion Cricket Club–“we play cricket, too, you know!” he told me. Yes, I did know that. They are the best. One of my husband’s associates has a cousin who is something on the order of a Pele in the pantheon of professional Cricket players in India. Funny.</p>