Replies
http://www.nukeiran.com
The mullahs in Iran may soon
have a hard decision to make. Their secret nuclear program is close to having a
few weapons ready for them to use, but a young, homegrown progressive movement,
inspired by recent events in Iraq, may force them into a doomsday situation.
These old dinosaurs have sworn to destroy Israel. If they were to come under
attack from their own people, they have no flexibility or ability to see things
from others' points of view. They're stone-age religious fanatics for crying out
loud! If they are backed into a corner by secular forces during a civil war, why
shouldn't they lob their nuclear weapons at Israel? They would get their 72
virgins if all hell breaks loose. What would restrain them from letting loose
with all that they have?
We may have to let Israel take out their nuclear facilities with their own
nuclear strikes. What makes this situation more difficult than the earlier
strike by Israel is the fact that Iran's present-day nuclear facilities are
spread around the country and many of them are in secret underground locations.
Surgical strikes may not be possible.
Big plans must be in the making at this moment by U.S., Israeli and underground
Iranian leaders. What is the solution?
|
|
|
Replies |
|
|
Iranian scholars in the U.S.
have confirmed that the mullahs now in power in Iran would use any weapons at
their disposal on Israel as surely and with as little hesitation as Adolph
Hitler or Osama bin Laden would use them against America. Why should religious
fanatics with their backs agains the wall think twice?
By
redboy on 2/4/05 at 9:55
PM
I am just wondering if the U.S. could give Iran the
benefit of the doubt that they have a nuclear program for nuclear energy?
Also, who are the Iranian scholars in the U.S. to which you are referring? What
article are you referrring to?
By
phillip1776 on 2/4/05 at
11:26 PM
Not that I would want political or religious fanatics
of any persuasion with nuclear capabilities!
By
phillip1776 on 2/4/05 at
11:27 PM
I'm forced by, your previous statements, to believe
that you are really serious here.
10 reasons why your sugestion is, Pardon my flame, IGNORANT
!. It fits into your sense of honor to contract someone else do the dirty
business of deploying a neuclear weapon against our enemy?
2. It took the US with unlimited resources 50 years to develop a neuclear missle
capable of striking a target on another continent. Iran has few developed
economic resources. The many pressing social and cultural issues they have,
prevent the expenditure of those resources on a neuclear weapons program.
3. Black market neuclear weapons would be much cheaper and both the US and
Russia are reputed to have lost both neuclear weapons and/or materials.
4. War is an economic and social quicksand.
5. Large scale energy development is a necessity for Iranian economic
development. Automobile useage is growing rapidly in the world and as yet auto's
are powered by the swiftly dwindling and dirty oil resources.
6. The middle east is in a period of natural social advance.
7. The US seems to be in a period of socially regressive behavior. From here on
lets just call it a tantrum.
8. If your son is having a tantrum do you:
A. Give him a gun
B. Tell him to take a time out.
9. People doing stupid things in cars kill more US citizens in a year than
terrorists have in history. Do we forgive this stupidity as unintentional or
maybe nuke them also.
10. AAAAAnd lets not forget who bombed the Oklahoma federal building.
Anyone want to add to the list?
By
rogesgallery on 2/5/05 at
5:56 AM
Mr. Rogesgallery: I hope you are right about all the
reasons you gave why Iran is not a threat. I did not write that we should
encourage Israel to strike; If they see that option as being in their own
security interest we couldn't stop them anyway.
The Iranian situation does not lend itself to the usual "Blame America First,"
Bush-bashing tactics one often sees from our leftists. In this instance you can
hardly blame the U.S. for the developments in Iran, and unlike the Iraq case,
Bush and Co. don't want an invasion/occupation.
To Phillip1776: I can't site an article for you about what Iranian experts say
is the mullah's intent to use weapons if they get them. I've heard and read a
number of different pundits express this view, so I assumed most others here had
been exposed to it as well. I thought it was accepted as common knowledge. I'll
stand corrected for throwing it out so easily--I'm not a journalist, I'm just
interested in discussing this topic. I'd be glad if YOU could refer ME to
Iranian experts who say otherwise.
I don't have any pat solutions for this problem. Here's a thought: How about U.S
and Israeli Special Forces working with progressive leaders in Iran conduct a
lightning-fast coup, moving in quickly and killing or jailing the mullahs?
By
redboy on 2/5/05 at 6:32
AM
//How about U.S and Israeli Special Forces working
with progressive leaders in Iran conduct a lightning-fast coup, moving in
quickly and killing or jailing the mullahs?//
All I can say to that sugestion is:
nonononononononononononononononono...
We (the US) should NOT, nor should Israel, take any military action against
Iran. The sh$# storm that would cause in the Arab world would make what has been
happening in Iraq look like a Sunday picnic. Things are starting to look up over
there, lets not spill any more gasoline, or blood, right now. The Iranian people
are not helpless nor are they un-intelagent. If reforms are to happen there,
Please may they be non-violent. If we send soldiers in, we will be playing into
al qaeda's(sp) hands. Let's not help them recrute any more killers, ok?
By
SneakyPete on 2/5/05 at
7:43 AM
Okay SneakyPete--I'll hold off for a while if you say
so. But if Israel feels threatened I can't make you any promises.
By
redboy on 2/5/05 at 7:52
AM
I think one of the major reasons that Iran is doing
this is, they feel surounded. Afgabistan on one side and Iraq on the other. They
know the US doesn't like them (remember that "axis of evil" thing?) and they are
doing the only thing that , they think, will save them from invasion from us.
Nothing like the thought of a mushroom cloud to give one pause to think.
In my opinion, we should have patience and let the diplomatic route have a
chance.
By
SneakyPete on 2/5/05 at
7:54 AM
Israel has a more immediate problem, the
Palestinians. When and if they can resolve their differences, that will go a
long way in calming down the hate and violence in the regon. And in getting
democratic reforms going there. The various governments won't have the killing
in Gaza and the West Bank to deflect the people of their countries from looking
at the corruption in their leaders.
I think the key to the whole regon is to get Israel ant Palistine to stop
killing each other.
By
SneakyPete on 2/5/05 at
8:05 AM
Did I ever mention the fact that I suck at spelling?
By
SneakyPete on 2/5/05 at
8:06 AM
I do too SP. My wife, little Miss Spelling Bee just
looks down her nose and says, "Can't you just sound it out?" No, you can't. I
can't really distinguish "intelligant" from "intelligint" from "intelligent" by
just listening.
My theory is that the spelling part of my brain was taking up too much space and
that the overdeveloped part that has to do with love, tolerance and compassion
for all just pushed it aside. That's probably what happened to you too.
By
redboy on 2/5/05 at 8:32
AM
Red: My sympathy's if any of these apply but are you
crippled, hogtied, or hobbled? Why are you not in Iraq, either with the military
or a private contractor?
By
rogesgallery on 2/5/05 at
8:50 AM
This is an appalling thread.
If you can't distinguish "intelligant" from "intelligint" from "intelligent" by
just listening, I seriously think you should get a lobotomy.
By
Brit on 2/5/05 at 8:56 AM
If you google Mossedeq or Kermit Rossevelt you will
find that the primary reason for misstrust of US policy in the Middle East is a
coup orchestrated by the CIA that over threw a democratically elected government
and reinstalled the Shah. The 30 years that followed were far worse for Iran
than Saadams reign over Iraq
By
rogesgallery on 2/5/05 at
9:04 AM
If someone doesn't talk some sense into the boy he's
likely to go on a college campus shooting spree.
By
rogesgallery on 2/5/05 at
9:11 AM
Oh great--so we can get back to the comfortable habit
of "Blame America First." Is there any major problem in the world that can't
eventually be traced by to evil old Amerika?
Brit: What a kind thing to say! I was sure that you thought I'd already had a
lobotomy.
By
redboy on 2/5/05 at 9:14
AM
Thanks, Rog. As you say, our involvement in the
Middle East goes back decades - no need to blame just Republicans, there's
plenty of self-serving imperialism to go around. No one there trusts westerners,
and for solid reasons.
I think Pete has a sound view of the diplomatic challenge. There was very good
reason after the Holocaust to find a home for Jews and re-create the Nation of
Israel. But the impact on the area chosen was bound to be painful. The Arabs
didn't love Israelis, but WWII wasn't their doing. It was the Germans who had
practiced genocide, but no one gave German land to the Jews.
As for Iran, their current experience has given them due cause to distrust us.
There was the Axis of Evil thing, and Bush used strong language again in the
State of the Union. Unfortunately, the whole region is now wary because Iraq has
told them that we'll invade if we decide it's to our advantage. Rice has a huge
job in front of her.
By
gailkate on 2/5/05 at
9:20 AM
// I seriously think you should get a lobotomy.//
Brit...
No thanks.
Redboy.
Unfortunatly, the sins of America (Rogesgallery pointed one out) are now comming
back to haunt us. With great power comes great responsability. In the past, in
going for the quick fix, we haven't been all that responsable.
By
SneakyPete on 2/5/05 at
9:24 AM
Sorry Pete if I did not make myself clear.
I was suggesting that redboy really needs to get a brain transplant.
By
Brit on 2/5/05 at 9:26 AM
I know Brit... and it's becoming a bit of a bore.
If you don't like the guy, avoid him. The insults are getting old.
By
SneakyPete on 2/5/05 at
9:29 AM
Where does Lawrence of Arabia fit into this picture?
Doesn't British colonialism have something to do with all this? And what about
the French?
By
John "The Okie Swede on
2/5/05 at 9:31 AM
I remember Bill Clinton's series of "Apology Tours,"
around the globe. Everywhere he stopped, he would bite that lip and say he was
so, so sorry for all the evil this old nation of ours had wrought upon the
planet. That's such a liberal thing to do and so distasteful for patriotic
Americans to watch. We even give the Anti-American U.N. a cozy place on our lap
from which to berate us. Screw that.
Conservatives believe that America has done so much more good for the world than
harm. We have given protection, the benefit of our research and technology, more
foreign aid and charity than any other country. We have come to know that it is
an exercise in futility to try to be popular among the nations of the world.
Bush is leading in the proper way now. We go about our business without the
self-imposed handicap of seeking love and approval. If countries like Iran don't
love us, that's okay, but if they threaten us or our allies, they know there
will be Hell to pay.
By
redboy on 2/5/05 at 9:36
AM
oops...
after re-reading my post, I think I left the impression that tht US was the only
one to blame for the ills of the regon. That's wrong. There's plenty of blame to
go around. The short-sightedness of world leaders everywhere is what keeps
getting us in trouble.
I can't remember where I saw this but if governments could take the view:"What
would the last seven generations think and what effect would it have on the next
seven generations" things might run a bit smoother in the world.
By
SneakyPete on 2/5/05 at
9:42 AM
Remember what JFK said during the Cuban Missle
Crisis?
He said (paraphrase), "An attack from Cuba on any nation in the Western
Hemisphere will be viewed as an attack on the United States by the Soviet
Union."
Now THAT's sticking up for your allies and your interests. Sort of like going
"All In" in No Limit Texas Hold 'em.
By
John "The Okie Swede on
2/5/05 at 9:43 AM
And what about the groups of "Arab" states that twice
tried to destroy Israel and twice failed (resulting in doubling the size of
Israel)? I'd say their own actions created a lot of the so-called "Palestinian"
problem.
By
John "The Okie Swede on
2/5/05 at 9:45 AM
//(resulting in doubling the size of Israel)//
That, of course, would have nothing to do with the so-called "Palestinian"
problem.
There are two sides to every story. Why does our foreign policy only take one
side? I know, power, politics, votes, but that is not the high ground and it has
only led to an escalation of violence and misunderstanding.
If Israel is really poised to conduct a pre-emptive nuclear strike, it seems to
me that along with Iran, the world should be beating Isreal back into its corner
with sanctions and threats.
By
juliastar on 2/5/05 at
10:36 AM
Agreed
By
Brit on 2/5/05 at 10:41 AM
Especially now that it looks very likely the Iraq
elections are going to favor the Shiites. From the San Francisco Chronicle:
"Americans are in for a shock," he [a shiite leader] said, adding that one day
they would realize, "We've got 150,000 troops here protecting a country that's
extremely friendly to Iran, and training their troops."
The partial totals so far show the Iraqi List headed by Allawi, a secular Shiite
and onetime CIA protege, trailed far behind with only 18 percent of the votes,
despite an aggressive television ad campaign waged with U.S. aid. A lopsided
majority of votes, 72 percent, went to the United Iraqi Alliance list, topped by
a Shiite cleric who lived in Iran for many years and whose Sciri party has close
ties to Iran's clerical regime. More than a third of the alliance's vote came
from Baghdad, the cosmopolitan capital where Allawi had been expected to fare
well.
By
gailkate on 2/5/05 at
11:05 AM
But C. Rice says we won't attack. Lets trust her on
this.
By
afan on 2/5/05 at 11:08 AM
Why would the U.S. take "the side" of the
Palestinians, many of whom turned out on the streets cheering and celebrating
after the 9-11 attacks? (This was even shown on the liberal media, so it wasn't
just Limbaugesque propaganda). Somehow this just doesn't seem to be in our best
interests. But maybe in Bizarro World it is.
By
John "The Okie Swede on
2/5/05 at 11:24 AM
The Shiites who turned out to vote may be ready to
try secular governance. They've lived under the lash of Saddam and have seen
what the mullahs do next door in Iran. Not all Catholics agree with every edict
from Rome--why should we assume that the Iraqis are too stupid to choose a
better way for themselves?
By
redboy on 2/5/05 at 11:43
AM
Israel has had nuclear weapons for a long time and
has not used them on her enemies. Israel does not have a formal policy of
bringing about the destruction of Iran--the reverse is not true. Israel has
shown enormous restraint. I would not be for "beating them back into their
corner" just so they could be slaughtered by a (another) sneak attack from the
religeous fanatics in Iran. It is the Iranians that are out of line here. They
are known supporters of international terrorism--they will not be allowed to
have nuclear weapons.
By
redboy on 2/5/05 at 12:09
PM
religious/rilidgius/relledgias/reeligius--I know it's
there somewhere, just keep moving them vowels around.
By
redboy on 2/5/05 at 12:11
PM
Hey, redboy! I'm not interested in entering this
conversation of which I am so poorly informed so I am simply evaluating
conversational style.
I'd like to tentatively echo Sneaks in support of your more readable discourse.
Winks. anja
By
anjanita-1 on 2/5/05 at
1:03 PM
//It is the Iranians that are out of line here. They
are known supporters of international terrorism--//
Seems like I've heard this some place before in a run up to war. Facts to
support an accusation so very dangerous in today's world, please.
By
juliastar on 2/5/05 at
1:25 PM
Excerpts from the Christian Science Monitor:
Would Israel strike first at Iran?
Israel holds the preemptive wildcard, but experts doubt Osirak-style repeat.
By Joshua Mitnick | Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor
TEL AVIV – Moments before dispatching Israeli pilots to bomb Iraq's Osirak
nuclear reactor in June, 1981, army Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan is said to have
depicted the importance of the mission in stark terms: "The alternative is our
destruction.''
In ordering the lightning knockout, Israel served notice to its Middle Eastern
foes that the Jewish state would act - even preemptively - to deprive them of a
nuclear option.
Two decades later, the Osirak precedent endures. As the Bush administration
steps up its rhetoric against Iran's nuclear program, the possibility of Israel
following through on veiled threats to hit Iranian sites remains a wildcard.
But several Israeli experts say that the Osirak experience bears little
relevance in the case of Iran and that the chances of a repeat strike are very
low.
**********************
With National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice warning last week that the US
won't tolerate a nuclear Iran, Israel is much more likely to act in tandem with
its most powerful ally rather than electing to go it alone, observers say.
"The circumstances are quite different,'' says Ephraim Kam, head of the Begin
Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel.
"If Israel is going to take any move beyond the diplomatic move, there should be
better understanding in the international arena that there is no way to stop the
Iranians.''
Tehran admits it has sought so-called dual-use nuclear technology in order to
generate electricity, but denies it aims to build nuclear weapons.
Repeat performance?
Even the very ability of Israel's military to repeat the decisive strike
achieved at Osirak appears doubtful. While the Iraqi nuclear effort was
concentrated at the Osirak plant, nuclear experts say the Iranians have
dispersed their program at multiple sites, some of which are hidden underground.
***********************************
Even so, first-strike offensives have been an essential element of Israel's
defensive doctrine for decades - the most famous instance being the Israeli Air
Force's destruction of Egyptian air bases to open the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.
That approach still influences the Israeli defense establishment.
With Israeli intelligence agencies estimating that Iran will acquire nuclear
weaponry by 2007, defense officials on occasion drop hints of a first strike.
Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz (who was born in Iran) said in a December radio
interview that Israel would try to minimize civilian casualties in such an
attack.
Last week, Israeli army Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon said in an interview with
the daily newspaper Yediot Ahronot that Israel "can't rely on others'' in facing
the threat from Iran.
Both countries have engaged in a cat-and-mouse game of missile tests in recent
weeks. Iran has said it would strike at Israel with its ballistic missiles if
Israel attacks its nuclear facilities.
"For Israel it's quite clear, that we're not going to wait for a threat to be
realized,'' says Ephraim Inbar, head of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies
at Tel Aviv University. "For self-defense we have to act in a preemptive
mode.''.............
Nevertheless, a lone Israeli strike reminiscent of 1981 seems less likely at a
time when US forces are sitting in neighboring Iraq, ...
The Osirak strike generated a chorus of international condemnation that included
US Secretary of State Alexander Haig and UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick. But
beyond a temporary halt in F-16 fighter jet shipments from the US, there was no
lasting fallout.
Unlike 1981, the blame for such an attack today would not be limited to Israel.
The US would be perceived in the Muslim world as being complicit - probably
boosting the motivation of extremists to carry out terrorist attacks on Western
targets.
"Certainly it would be seen as a continuation of what the Americans did in
Iraq,'' says Bruce Maddy Weizman, a fellow at the Dayan Center for Middle East
and African Studies at Tel Aviv University. "Israel and US are widely perceived
to be acting in concert.''
For their part, Israeli officials argue that Iran's ambition is to use nuclear
prominence to threaten Saudi Arabia, Europe, and US influence in the Gulf.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0818/p06s01-wome.htm l
By
gailkate on 2/5/05 at
1:41 PM
On the Other hand.....
WARS AND RUMORS OF WARS
Israel 'ready'
to strike Iran
If Russia supplies Islamic state with rods for enriching uranium
Posted: July 18, 2004
6:15 p.m. Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Israel has conducted military exercises for a pre-emptive strike against several
of Iran's nuclear power facilities and is ready to attack if Russia supplies
Iran with rods for enriching uranium, Israeli officials told reporters.
An Israeli defense source in Tel Aviv told the London Sunday Times, which first
published the story, that "Israel will on no account permit Iranian reactors –
especially the one being built in Bushehr with Russian help – to go critical."
The source was also quoted as saying that any strike on Iran's reactors would
probably be carried out by long-range F-15I jets, flying over Turkey, with
simultaneous operations by commandos on the ground.
Russia is expected to deliver the enriching rods, currently being stored at a
Russian port, late next year after a dispute over financial terms is resolved.
"If the worst comes to the worst and international efforts fail," the source
said, "we are very confident we'll be able to demolish the ayatollah's nuclear
aspirations in one go."
>>>>So what are we to believe? I think it was Joe who said get as much
information as possible and try to be objective.
By
gailkate on 2/5/05 at
1:50 PM
Ms. Anjanita: Thanks for your friendly note.
Ms. Gailkate: Thanks for posting the interesting articles. The bottom line still
seems to be: Israel will do whatever she deems necessary for her self-defense,
world opinion be damned. And if the Iranian facilities are spread around too
much for regular-style tactical strikes, do you doubt that Israel would go
nuclear if she feels seriously threatened?
By
redboy on 2/5/05 at 3:27
PM
Albert Einstein said it best:
"There are two things which are infinite: the Universe and human stupidity."
and:
"I don't know how World War III will be fought, but I know how World War IV will
be fought. With stones and clubs."
Cue the Armageddon Follies.
By
Escalus on 2/5/05 at 4:05
PM
Wow! I just registered and came here. If I knew
Garrison attracted such a bosterous crowd, I would have just tuned in Rush
Limbauch (uggh!). I thought the website would be more mellow and understanding -
like the show!
I did think it was funny that someone wrote that he didn't want any religious
fanatics to have a nuke. Hello, W!
By
snedzsr on 2/5/05 at 5:24
PM
Sorry to disappoint you Mr. Snedzsr. There are
threads about wedding cakes, chocolate and musical instruments that might seem
less jarring to you. I sympathize with your need to get away from right-wing
types. They're not at all shy about speaking out these days. You had them in a
box for so many decades. What could have gotten into them?
By
redboy on 2/5/05 at 5:30
PM
Snedzsr, YOU are welcome here,
redboy is an interloper - a recent interloper - who really needs to get a new
brain. He has been holding the platform for a little while and we allow him to
hold forth on his right wing prejudicies now and again.
That's freedom of speech so don't be scared off.
By
Brit on 2/5/05 at 5:49 PM
I strongly agree with Snedzsr that postings
advocating violence against other societies don't really belong on a website
obstensibly devoted to "A Prairie Home Companion."
Of course, I believe in free speech. But, do you think Bill O'Reilly, Flush
Limpjaw or other Confederate commentators allow anyone to post items about
lutefisk or Bertha's Kitty Boutique on their tightly-controlled propaganda
organs?
"Redboy" (does that name mean you are also a Communist?) claims that the U.S.
has helped the rest of the world more than it has harmed it through its overt
and covert attempts to control the planet. Of course, slave-owners used to point
out how much better off their slaves were because, in return for giving up all
human liberties, they were allowed to "share" the slave-owners' hypocritical
religion.
By
kharrin on 2/5/05 at 5:52
PM
My dear kharrin: America is one big 'ol "Masta" now
in your eyes. Well the Master just got its first black female Secretary of
State, its first Hispanic Attorney General, and served as midwife at the birth
of a brand new baby democracy. Who says we don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' no
babies?
I can't say for sure, but I don't think Limbaugh or O'Reilly host a chat room
like this. But if they did, do you think they would be afraid to mix it up with
a bed-wetting weenie like you?
By
redboy on 2/5/05 at 6:10
PM
Mr. Redboy:
I am a heterosexual male, I'd prefer that you not address me as your "dear."
Of course, right-wing radical ideologues such as Limpjaw and O'Lielly DO NOT
offer any opportunity on their websites for any public disagreement with their
hate-inspired pronouncements. Go ahead, check the websites of all the similar
Confederate commentators for us, and report back here as to which ones allow for
any dissenting opinions.
I'm sure it will be a very short list.
By
kharrin on 2/5/05 at 6:31
PM
Oh I am laughing so much I can hardly see the screen!
The thought that "redboy" was a communist is absolutely hilarious.
This perhaps illustrates the sadness of redboy in his choice of nickname.
kharrin: Redboy thinks communists should be shot on sight, but I can well
understand your confusion if you had not read his rantings on other threads.
He does write rubbish on whatever thread he chooses so just ignore the prat.
By
Brit on 2/5/05 at 6:43 PM
Mr. K.: I must insist that Limbaugh and O'Reilly
could both send you running home crying to your mama. They are not afraid to
debate and, in fact, join in battle every day on live radio and television. I
haven't listened to Limbaugh for a while, but I do remember his policy of
putting liberals who call in straight to the front of the line. I wouldn't do it
if I were you.
I get the feeling that you think that Limbaugh and O'Reilly are some sort of
standard bearers for us right-wingers to rally around. Maybe a few years ago,
but not anymore. Conservatism is here in a big way and it transcends two little
talking heads on tv. We actually come out in the open now and demand our
rightful place. The days of unanswered ridicule and universal disdain of
conservative values are dead and gone. Power to the People!
By
redboy on 2/5/05 at 7:06
PM
And I admire the courage to demand one's rightful
place over bed-wetting weenies.
By
gailkate on 2/5/05 at
7:21 PM
Ok everybody...
Put down the pea shooters. Let's get back to the subject at hand. Will Israel
nix Iranian nukes?
I still say no. The head of the IAEA, last I heard, urged the diplomatic route
and I agree with him.
By
SneakyPete on 2/5/05 at
7:29 PM
Gailkate: Ya gotta start somewhere!
By
redboy on 2/5/05 at 7:35
PM
Ok, I'll try. If you go back to the first thread you
started, you might see that I responded courteously. Read what you said. Read
all of your threads and see the anger and hostility. You were about as easy to
embrace as a cactus ( with flesh-eating propensities).
So a person gets wary.
But I really believe that we MUST think together and share our fears and strain
our intellects for whatever wisdom we can manage. Not that any of us can really
affect what happens in the world, but maybe in small ways we can. And if enough
of us do, just maybe we can give our world a nudge.
There's a film that's used in business and may be familiar now to everyone (I
retired 5 years ago). In the film, we're driving along a beautiful wooded road,
all curves, dips and hills, and suddenly another car approaches from the
opposite direction. The other driver leans out the window and screams, "PIG!"
Remember, we're the driver of the first car; we're enraged,"What kind of #%^!*
is that? Who does he think he is, the miserable %#^*!" We accelerate into the
upcoming curve, still furious, and see a huge boar right in our path.
We need to trust. We need to believe that we all mean well. G'nite, folks.
By
gailkate on 2/5/05 at
8:18 PM
Good night Gailkate. I'll try to play more nicely
tomorrow.
By
redboy on 2/5/05 at 8:21
PM
shoot first, ask questions later..an all too common
reaction although one that has quite well served many surviving species. It all
comes down to survival of the fittest,as well as a pure reactionary deployment
of whatever weapons are at the desposal naturally, or invented, when cornered..
use it! even if it is used reactionarily the law of nature ( I have personally
witnessed a house cat awakened from a dead sleep, attack a folded newspaper that
fell from the arm of a chair! non-retracted claws moving at a very high rate of
speed) did the cat ponder the newspapers motives? no wayy It simply reacted as
any of us would have. any of us with a will to live that is. So my point is.
even if a reaction turns out to be a mistake, you cant blame the living thing
for the very act of reacting. things die sometimes without the benefit of an
explaination. example: a bear cub falls from a branch 12 feet from the
ground...upon impact the cub squeals and emits a reverberating vocal outlet that
would surely draw "moms" attention then ,in a rage mother bear wipes out the
nearest living thing to her cub, be it a racoon, a coyote, or a camper ( who may
have had a walkman on) and never knew for an instant that anything was wrong.
life is given, life is taken away and in the end no explaination is needed. my
point in summary being... Israel may one day have to react without thinking, as
may the U.S. and before you respond giving me the third degree pause and ask
youself..."have I ever in my life squashed a mosquito, out of pure reaction and
instinct?? you are lying if you say no! and yes those pesky lil bugs carry a
host of deadly diseases so you were well within your right to swatt first,and
then find out what bit you. Hey .coulda been a spider (a freind!) but out of
pure instinct ya killed em!
By
cdc3794 on 2/6/05 at 2:29
AM
//"Israel may one day have to react without
thinking''//
We are not dumb animals. Our own system of criminal law holds paranoid
individuals responsible for shooting off firearms recklessly into the dark. "I
would feel safer," does not, in sane times, entitle me to have another locked
away. What if this debate were about the ethics of Iran launching a pre-emptive
strike in reaction to all the talk about Israel's right or America's right to do
so?
By
juliastar on 2/6/05 at
7:49 AM
//"have I ever in my life squashed a mosquito, out of
pure reaction and instinct??//
Yes, but, if I thought that swating that mosquito would cause the guy next to me
to blow my head off, I would probably hesitate.
By
SneakyPete on 2/6/05 at
12:18 PM
Poor Herbert Spencer. His most famous idea, "survival
of the fittest," is not only generally misunderstood by most people and then
usually misused to support a weak argument, but it's also usually credited to
Charles Darwin.
Pity.
By
qhperson on 2/6/05 at
1:35 PM
snedz, hey and welcome.
Pick and chose. We are not at all of one accord but when we play we do a pretty
good job of it.
Go looking for some fun here or go back to the political forums. Doubt unless
they are homogenous and a bit boring that you'll find a more diverse bunch of
people working pretty well together.
Sit down and have a cup of coffee with us. anja
By
anjanita-1 on 2/6/05 at
5:25 PM
And kharrin, if I'm a female hetero, may I call you
Dear? ;-)
Keep trying with us. We don't do politics so well but there's a lot more stuff
in the nature of PHC which we do very well. anja
By
anjanita-1 on 2/6/05 at
5:32 PM
And when we do it well, we do it swell.
By
Brit on 2/6/05 at 5:42 PM
Whatever Israel does in reaction to events in Iran
will not be done without thinking.
Here's hoping that the Europeans who are in contact with Iran on the nuclear
question will be able to persuade them that it is not necessary or advisable for
them to develop nuclear weapons.
By
joeW on 2/6/05 at 6:45 PM
Very sensible joeW.
By
redboy on 2/6/05 at 7:15
PM
Dear Anjanita, thanks for the "Dear!"
Sorry I'm four days late in responding, but it was almost time for "News From
Lake Wobegon" the last time I was Chatterboxing.
It looks like this thread died out shortly after I left. I would still like to
hear Redboy respond as to which Confederate commentators allow any dissenting
views to be posted on their websites.
His claim that they "debate" opponents on their tightly-scripted programs is, of
course, laughable. Persons who have phoned Confederate radio shows, and taped
the broadcasts, report that their responses to taunts from blow-hards like
Limpjaw or O'Lielly "magically" never make it onto the air. Then, the host will
smirk and mumble "oh, I guess you couldn't answer that!"
By
kharrin on 2/10/05 at
12:04 AM
http://prairiehome.forum.publicradio.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/04/2132221
It's stories like this that make me want to cuss and launch tactical nuclear weapons against people and/or countries that say crap like this: "Existence of Israel contrary to Iranian interests."Oh yeah, well SCREW YOU, Iran. No one frickin' asked. Of course the UN won't say jack crap about this, because who cares about Jews anyway? This f'in mess. I hate it.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.fringeblog.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.r188.pl/481