Pre-Emptive Striking

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Captain Sensible+Aug 20 2004, 01:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Captain Sensible @ Aug 20 2004, 01:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Aug 20 2004, 03:45 AM
I didn't read anything that indicates they would strike pre-emptively.

Iranian Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani has warned that Iran might launch a pre-emptive strike against United States forces in the region to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities. [/b][/quote]
You'll have to excuse Lanny. Links are a little beyond him.

Cowperson

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Captain Sensible+Aug 20 2004, 01:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Captain Sensible @ Aug 20 2004, 01:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Aug 20 2004, 03:45 AM
I didn't read anything that indicates they would strike pre-emptively.

Iranian Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani has warned that Iran might launch a pre-emptive strike against United States forces in the region to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities. [/b][/quote]
Woops.

Seems the tone of the comments changed though as I read on.

Still, I'll defer back to my posturing post.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Aug 20 2004, 04:46 AM
I see this whole thing much clearer now than I did four years ago and you guys don't get it!!! Stop thinking the way of Westerners. Try thinking like someone from the Middle East who was raised in the way of Islam. Iraq has shown us something that many in the West are refusing to understand. The whole war is not about boundries anymore. Its about ideology.

It IS becoming about the Western World versus the Arab (Islam) World. To Muslims there are no borders, as they are brothers (and sisters) in their faith. Borders are enforced upon them by the Western World, which is a bone of contention for many of the religious leaders in the Islamic world. A state that is as religious as Iran may be willing to "take one for the team" if they feel that it will unite the Arab World against the infidel hordes. If the Islamic World rises up, it could take this engagement to the level that the world has been dreading. We're not talking about people with Western sensibilities (a point that is completely lost on all of you by the sounds of it) but people that would happily sacrafice their lives for their religion and way of life.

Westerners are at a massive disadvantage because we have different values and have other motivations that keep us going. Muslims are guided by their religion and live for their religion. While it is extremely hard for us to comprehend this is the life force that makes these people tick. If they could give their lives to kill an American they have done a good thing. If giving their life leads to the unification of the Arab World and leads to the deaths of many Westerners (nee ifidels) then their death was worth while. The House of War has been established and it is only going to take another stupid move to end creedence to the doctrine that many clerics are already preaching. One "dumb" move by Iran may just entice that stupid move the Islamists want.

BTW... from the Western view, why is it okay for Isreal or the United States to make pre-emptive strikes to protect themselves (when a threat is several thousand miles away) but it is wrong for Iran to make a strike when the threat is a few hundred miles away? Double standard?

I agree with you. Its about ideology. I've thought that from day one. A clash of civilizations.

The Italian Prime Minister in the days after 9/11 even offered this controversial comment:

"We must be aware of the superiority of our civilization, a system that has guaranteed well-being, respect for human rights - and in contrast with Islamic countries - respect for religious and political rights, a system that has as its values understandings of diversity and tolerance."

Do you agree with him? The comment greatly angered Muslims world-wide at the time. Was he wrong?

By the way Lanny, before the Iraq conflict started I said on this board it would probably be the last major land conflict the USA would engage in for the next 25 years, so I'm not sure where you're coming from in reading my mind.

Secondly, if Iran acquires nuclear weapons then it also becomes a clear nuclear target. That's the price of having nuclear weapons.

Lastly, you're overblowing the "willing to die to the last man" thing. I would think the majority of Muslims are basically decent folk with the same, normal concerns of job, family, house, etc. as anyone else. There is a fanatical group, fueled by what they call religion, that has a different view. As Rougeunderoos noted, they're not true Muslims.

The Americans had lots of experience with the Japanese in WWII and that was a people TRULY willing to die to the last man as they proved over and over again in mortal combat.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Aug 20 2004, 05:11 AM
Going a little overboard aren't you Lanny?

By your "definition", every Muslim would be willing to die to kill an American. If that was the case, there certainly wouldn't be any Jews and there likely wouldn't be any Americans either. How many Muslims are there? A billion and a half? If they were all half as bloodthirsty as you make out then we would be in a very different world right now. We might not even be in this world at all if that was the case.

On a smaller scale -- the few Muslims I know are not willing to die to kill an American. "If they could give their lives to kill an American they have done a good thing." ? Bullsh*t.

The 9/11 hijackers weren't real Muslims, incidentally.

Well you've taken the content of the post and run with it a little too far, for the time being. For the most part Muslims just hold a great deal of contempt for the US. Only the most extreme, at this time, would give their lives for the cause of killing Americans/Westerners. But, as I said, if America were to attack another Muslim country, in essesnce making another aggressive move towards Islam itself, that mood may very well change to a more aggressive one. If this thing blows up into a war of ideology, which is where it has been headed, then you have a problem where the people itself become the most dangerous weapon.

While you know muslims, they are western muslims and ones that have been educated in our Judao-Christrian ways and been forced to adapt to our culture (a democracy). They know no other way of life for the most part. These muslims are a very small percentage of the 1.2 billion muslims in the world. They are at the opposite end of the spectrum from the wackos (nee terrorists) that are causing the problems. The muslims that we must consider are those that are living in the Middle East and how they view the situation. The ones where religion is the driving factor behind their lives, is the part that leads their lives, is the part that is not just the basis for their core beliefs but IS their belief system altogether (a theocracy). It is difficult for a Westerner to understand how their religion can be such a motivator and driver and how it can rule their minds. Until people begin to understand that these people are living their religion, dedicate their lives to their religion, and hold their religion as the most important thing in their lives they will not begin to understand what motivates them. They are taught to believe that the preachings of a warlord who lived 1400 years ago are still viable in today's world and are still the guiding values for their lives. They have distinct rules to follow that guide their lives. They are like Mormons, except a thousand times more structured and devout. Islam is supposed to be a peaceful religion, yet it was spread through war and subjugation.

For the Western world to have a chance at winning this war they must understand that the way to win this war is not through war. This is exactly what the Islamists want. The general population is a peaceful lot but with a lot of contempt brewing under the surface. The Islamists are hoping that that contempt may be inflamed and turned into rage that will unite all of Islam and allow them to whip the nation into a fury and open a big can of whoop-ass on the infidels from the West, finally clensing their lands. The US is doing everything in their power to assist them in accomplishing this goal.

Bottom line is that the US' desire to peddle their idea of democracy (as twisted as it is) to everyone in the world is a threat to the theocracies of the region. It is an afront to their base teachings and is viewed as imperialism. It would not take much to have the Islamic moderates (the ones preventing all out war at this time) to change their view and see this aggressive imperialism as a threat to their religion and have them toss their support behind the more extreme Islamists. At that point, its done and we have a global conflict on our hands. Exactly what the extremists wanted.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Aug 20 2004, 01:57 PM
The Americans had lots of experience with the Japanese in WWII and that was a people TRULY willing to die to the last man as they proved over and over again in mortal combat.

Great point Cow. My wife and I were discussing a very similar fact earlier this morning. The West has not had much success in fighting the East. They very good at fighting amongst themselves because we share the same core values and would likely not give our lives for a cause that we did not honestly believe was just. We have mechanisms in us that filter the things and help us believe that human life is the most thing and wasting it is wrong. The Eastern religions are a different beast and have different values, especially on human life. The Eastern religions do not have a similar value on individual life as Westerners do and that is a hard concept for us to grasp.

Our problem is that we tend to try and figure this issue out using our Western values. That is our failure IMO. We should be trying to figure this out using Eastern values. The only way to win this war will be through the change of those core values and you only do that through education and cooperation. I fear the way the US is going down this road as it may have dire consequences for all of mankind. The West should be cooperating with the East and trying to develop a better understanding of each other and develop some tolerance for each other. This is the way the war will finally end. When we accept that they are different and wish to lead their lives a certain way, and they accept that we are different and wish to lead our lives a certain way. When we go into each other's homes we accept those differences and adapt to the customs and rules of our host. Then and only then will we find peace. Islam needs to be educated, but so does the West. As your quote shows, the West is extremely arrogant and self serving. Until the West learns some humility and respect of others this war of ideologies is going no where fast.

Oh, I would paste a ink for this here, but there isn't one. Its my beliefs based on reading many books on the subject (you do remember books don't you?) and until they are published in electro-text and have their own web site a link just ain't gonna be available.

[Cowperson]

[Bottom line is that the US' desire to peddle their idea of democracy (as twisted as it is) to everyone in the world is a threat to the theocracies of the region. It is an afront to their base teachings and is viewed as imperialism. It would not take much to have the Islamic moderates (the ones preventing all out war at this time) to change their view and see this aggressive imperialism as a threat to their religion and have them toss their support behind the more extreme Islamists. At that point, its done and we have a global conflict on our hands. Exactly what the extremists wanted.

President Musharraf of Pakistan said this to an Islamic conference in October 2003, continuing a theme he had echoed earlier.

“We stand at the crossroads of our future destiny,” he said. “We have to decide whether militancy, extremism and confrontation will lead us to our emancipation, or a focus on our socio-economic well-being will benefit us.”

Musharraf said poverty, government mismanagement and frustration over international disputes were fueling anger among Muslims.

“Politically we find ourselves at the centre of most conflicts and disputes,” said Musharraf. “While on one side, attempts at resolution of disputes are not making much headway — whatever the reasons — on the other side, an anger at being wronged (that is) leading to frustration, hopelessness, deprivation and a sense of powerlessness is rising in Muslim society.”This is fueling hatred, extremism and militancy, and diverting Muslim governments’ energy from economic development, he said.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?p...-10-2003_pg7_33

Musharraf added this Churchillian quote a few months ago at another conference:

"A new iron curtain seems to be falling," he said. "This iron curtain somehow is dividing the Muslim world on one side and the West on the other side. This is very dangerous,"

I would agree Musharaff doesn't exactly have clean hands on these matters and is hardly a paragon of virtue. He is, however, one of the few Muslim leaders stepping out with public comments like that.

And he doesn't appear to be blaming the USA or Western Culture. He's pointing a finger directly at Muslims and saying: "We have to change to fit into the modern world. We're our own worst enemies. We're holding ourselves back." At least that's my interpretation.

In a round-a-bout way, he's agreeing with Berlusconi of Italy.

On another point, global domination and conflict, it helped being a racist in WWII - exterminating Japanese en masse wasn't a big deal.

Bomber Harris was ostracized in post-world war II circles for wiping out Hamburg and Dresden. Killing white Germans en masse wasn't nice.

General LeMay was a hero for firebombing Tokyo and killing 100,000 in a single night. He went on to bigger and better things career wise after the war.

I don't think its that simple these days. Race isn't the issue on the side of the West and I wouldn't necessarily ascribe it to poverty either. Ideology is. Most Islamic terror leaders come from fairly well-to-do backgrounds and there are plenty of terribly poor places on earth where fanaticism isn't an issue.

Oh, I would paste a ink for this here, but there isn't one. Its my beliefs based on reading many books on the subject (you do remember books don't you?) and until they are published in electro-text and have their own web site a link just ain't gonna be available.

Intellectual snobbery? For shame!!

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Interesting Cow. You point to Musharraf of Pakistan as support of your case, yet Musharraf is a dictator in his own right and is extremely hated by his own people (two assinination attempts on him in the last year). The "elected" Prime Minister stepped down because of his distain for Musharraf and his handling of things in Pakistan. Isn't this also the same Musharraf who has been at odds with the tribes in northern provinces and has murdered many of them, his own people? So its okay to support one murderous dictator, because he plays ball with you? Interesting double standard.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Aug 20 2004, 03:55 PM
Interesting Cow. You point to Musharraf of Pakistan as support of your case, yet Musharraf is a dictator in his own right and is extremely hated by his own people (two assinination attempts on him in the last year). The "elected" Prime Minister stepped down because of his distain for Musharraf and his handling of things in Pakistan. Isn't this also the same Musharraf who has been at odds with the tribes in northern provinces and has murdered many of them, his own people? So its okay to support one murderous dictator, because he plays ball with you? Interesting double standard.

Nice try but I said very clearly in my post: "I would agree Musharaff doesn't exactly have clean hands on these matters and is hardly a paragon of virtue."

Whats the matter Lanny? Did it throw you for a loop that a Muslim leader might actually call his "own" on the carpet?

Does it bother you a Muslim leader might stand up and say, "You know . . . . we might have some responsibility in this as well. We're not exactly helping ourselves."

Lets face it, finding an enlightened and worldly Arab leader without blood on his hands is virtually impossible . . . . so, for the moment, we make do with what we can find.

That hardly absolves the West from its responsibility in the matter but it also points to the fact its alright not to be a self-loathing westerner and agree with Berlusconi that the other side has some cleaning up to do as well.

Cowperson

[Mike F]

Did it throw you for a loop that a Muslim leader might actually call his "own" on the carpet?

Does the leader of a muslim country = a muslim leader?

Musharaff may have physical control of Pakistan and so you can take his statements about Pakistan as indicitive about the direction the country may take politically or militarily, but there is no indication that he is in any way a spiritual leader in the muslim world, so there is no reason to believe that these comments are in any way indicitive of feelings in the muslim world or the way they may be moving. It would be like holding up John Kerry's stance on stem cells (should he become president) as an example of a Christian leader calling Christians to embrace technological advancements.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Mike F@Aug 20 2004, 08:56 PM
Did it throw you for a loop that a Muslim leader might actually call his "own" on the carpet?

Does the leader of a muslim country = a muslim leader?

Musharaff may have physical control of Pakistan and so you can take his statements about Pakistan as indicitive about the direction the country may take politically or militarily, but there is no indication that he is in any way a spiritual leader in the muslim world, so there is no reason to believe that these comments are in any way indicitive of feelings in the muslim world or the way they may be moving. It would be like holding up John Kerry's stance on stem cells (should he become president) as an example of a Christian leader calling Christians to embrace technological advancements.

Good point Mike F although I'll remind you that Osama Bin Laden is fond of calling GW Bush leader of the "Christian Crusaders" even though Bush is well short of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson as a leader of the faith.

Below is another recent open letter to all Muslims from Musharraf, who has been talking a lot on this in the last few years, both to his own constituency and, in the case of this link, the Washington Post.

In it he sounds not only like a leader in the Muslim world but also one of faith as well. How influential he might be in one versus the other is a matter of debate of course.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004May31.html

And to be fair, revealing the warts as well, a Pakistani human rights group today is calling for a investigation of the death of a Muslim cleric who died after being tortured in the custody of Pakistani secret police. On Musharraf's watch.

Of course, that happens in Iran as well. In addition, Mucky Al Sadr in Iraq, currently holed up in a holy shrine with his band of merry armed thugs, is wanted for the murder of another cleric.

Which of these Muslim leaders has no blood on his hands? Even the men of faith? Should we respect any of the leaders of this faith, whether they hold the keys to office or not?

Cowperson

[Mike F]

Good point Mike F although I'll remind you that Osama Bin Laden is fond of calling GW Bush leader of the "Christian Crusaders" even though Bush is well short of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson as a leader of the faith.

Uh, Cow.... Did you just defend yourself by pointing out that your stance is analagous to Bin Laden's?

[Kobasew7]

If there was a pre-emptive strike against the United States..Iran would be in a ton of trouble. Bush is already itching to drop a 'A' bomb..and that would get everyone in america behind the idea of allowing it. No matter how much man power they have or large forces..non can withstand a bomb being dropped on them.

For instance, in Iraq..the ground forces of Iraq hardly saw the american ground forces because they were killed or fled from the bombs dropping. Do you really think that would change in Iran?

[calculoso]

Originally posted by Kobasew7@Aug 20 2004, 05:56 PM
Bush is already itching to drop a 'A' bomb..

Opinion or fact?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by calculoso+Aug 21 2004, 12:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (calculoso @ Aug 21 2004, 12:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Kobasew7@Aug 20 2004, 05:56 PM
Bush is already itching to drop a 'A' bomb..

Opinion or fact? [/b][/quote]
Ignorance

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Mike F@Aug 20 2004, 11:18 PM
Good point Mike F although I'll remind you that Osama Bin Laden is fond of calling GW Bush leader of the "Christian Crusaders" even though Bush is well short of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson as a leader of the faith.

Uh, Cow.... Did you just defend yourself by pointing out that your stance is analagous to Bin Laden's?

You had wondered if my description of Musharraf as a "Muslim" leader meant I was lifting him up as a spiritual leader in that part of the world. I said that made as much sense as Bush being named the leader of Christianity as Bin Laden proclaims.

I later noted Musharraf, like most leaders in that part of the world, certainly intertwines faith into the script far more than we would expect of a leader here in the West. I also said Musharraf's hands are no more or less dirty than the people who truly grasp the role of Muslim spiritual leaders, such as Iran's leading Ayatollah's.

Underlining all of that was a simple point directed at Lanny, that there are Muslim leaders who have taken it upon themselves to point inward and place at least part of the blame for the current predicament on Muslims themselves.

Hope that's clearer.

Bush is already itching to drop a 'A' bomb

Remember the joke George Bush Sr. was telling about Ronald Reagan in the run-up to the Republican convention in 1979, the backdrop of the Iranian Hostage Crisis overhanging the USA?

"What's flat and black and glows all over?

"Iran five minutes after Reagan becomes President."

Yeah, every president is itching to kill a million people and its fun to laugh about it.

Nevertheless, as I noted earlier, if Iran has nuclear weapons then it's also a legitimate nuclear target. That's the price of having nuclear weapons.

Cowperson

[kipperfan]

What I dont get is why??

Why, of all of the worlds nations, does the US march around the globe like world cop, sticking democracy everywhere it isnt, and pushing there values and beliefs on those from other societies???

Why cant the Americans keep their foriegn policy to a minimum for the first time in 60+ years?

I think the big issue here for Iran is, as Lanny stated in earlier post, Soverignty.
The US is a threat to the soverignty of Iran, a big threat. They already took away every inch of Iraqi soverignty, and Iran can see they are next. North Americans dont seem to understand the Arab desire for soverignty

.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by kipperfan@Aug 21 2004, 12:42 AM
What I dont get is why??

Why, of all of the worlds nations, does the US march around the globe like world cop, sticking democracy everywhere it isnt, and pushing there values and beliefs on those from other societies???

Why cant the Americans keep their foriegn policy to a minimum for the first time in 60+ years?

I think the big issue here for Iran is, as Lanny stated in earlier post, Soverignty.
The US is a threat to the soverignty of Iran, a big threat. They already took away every inch of Iraqi soverignty, and Iran can see they are next. North Americans dont seem to understand the Arab desire for soverignty

.

and terrorist supporting arab countries don't seem to understand that the rest of the world is tired of being blown up.

Maybe when they start to respect the non-arab, non-muslim people of the world powerful governments will have a little more respect for their sovereignty.

Works both ways.

[calculoso]

Originally posted by kipperfan@Aug 20 2004, 06:42 PM
I think the big issue here for Iran is, as Lanny stated in earlier post, Soverignty.
The US is a threat to the soverignty of Iran, a big threat. They already took away every inch of Iraqi soverignty, and Iran can see they are next. North Americans dont seem to understand the Arab desire for soverignty

Here I thought that borders were something that the western world has forced onto the Arabs.... or at least that's what Lanny said.

[kipperfan]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Aug 21 2004, 12:26 AM

I later noted Musharraf, like most leaders in that part of the world, certainly intertwines faith into the script far more than we would expect of a leader here in the West. I also said Musharraf's hands are no more or less dirty than the people who truly grasp the role of Muslim spiritual leaders, such as Iran's leading Ayatollah's.

Far more than we would see in the West???

"Bush presented himself as "a man with Jesus in his heart." When a reporter asked him who his favorite philosopher was, Bush replied: "Christ, because he changed my heart."

Bush intertwines religion and politics, as much if not more than many muslim leaders.

intersting article

[kipperfan]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Aug 21 2004, 12:50 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Aug 21 2004, 12:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-kipperfan@Aug 21 2004, 12:42 AM
What I dont get is why??

Why, of all of the worlds nations, does the US march around the globe like world cop, sticking democracy everywhere it isnt, and pushing there values and beliefs on those from other societies???

Why cant the Americans keep their foriegn policy to a minimum for the first time in 60+ years?

I think the big issue here for Iran is, as Lanny stated in earlier post, Soverignty.
The US is a threat to the soverignty of Iran, a big threat. They already took away every inch of Iraqi soverignty, and Iran can see they are next. North Americans dont seem to understand the Arab desire for soverignty

.

and terrorist supporting arab countries don't seem to understand that the rest of the world is tired of being blown up.

Maybe when they start to respect the non-arab, non-muslim people of the world powerful governments will have a little more respect for their sovereignty.

Works both ways.[/b][/quote]
Thats insane.


The world is being "blown up" because of decade after decade of foriegn incroachment, imperialism, and looting done by western nations(Primarily USA) to the middle east. Muslim freedom fighters, and terrorist bombers arent doing this because they like bombs, or dying. Their "blowing up the world" becasue they have been abused for years and no one in the western world cares. They see this as the only option left, are they right..........??