current events
[ Reply | Delete ]semiomniscient on March 24, 2007 at 7:29 PM
Re: What are they trying to do?
Iran is and has been provoking war. This instance may be set apart from that. I've heard conflicting reports--some saying that the Iranians mistook the British positions and some saying the British strayed into Iranian territorial waters. And as far as buying into what the media all tells us, the BBC is no better than any of the American news networks.
I haven't been for the Iraq war. I thought it was quite unnecessary and unwarranted. But Iran is well past beginning to push their luck, with not only the US, Britain, and (let's not forget) ISRAEL! But the entire world.
[ Reply | Delete ]redwoodpecker on March 26, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Re: What are they trying to do?
First of all, I don't believe you weren't for the war in Iraq. You're falling for the same media tactics now that were used then to justify it which would indicate that you not only didn't learn from the Iraq war, but that the experience somehow made you more gullible. In addition, that I should have to tell you why BBC is more reliable than NBC is ridiculous as it should be common sense but no doubt your opinion is based on one the many right wing shills who accuse every new agency which is not simply rehashing white house talking points without question a liberally biased network. The BBC is reliable because it has no corporate sponsors and no large individual donors ensuring that they are beholden to the British public who as a whole pay their operating costs and not individuals who contribute disproportionately and therefore have more say. NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, all of those networks are going to avoid any story which will cause them to lose corporate sponsorship. They are beholden to the people that pay their salaries as well, only in this case it is not the American people, but American corporations, making them a media complex for business rather than Americans. Of course, by constantly accusing these networks of having biases, they have not only removed suspicion of how corporate money influences the news, but somehow created this alternate reality where a bunch of hippy lesbians have somehow taken over the news. What Iran did was have the misfortune of being next in line on the regime change hit list and the administration will do whatever they need to do to drum up support whether that be spinning the news, creating false news stories as they did before the first gulf war, or simply staging an event to build support.
[ Reply | Delete ]semiomniscient on March 26, 2007 at 10:42 PM
Re: What are they trying to do?
You presume far too much about me. I never was, nor have I ever been for the war in Iraq. I have been quite outspoken on the matter. You also presume I am of the right wing persuasion--while I am religiously conservative, I am not by any means a Republican nor do I adhere to any sort of Neo-Con agenda... nor for the matter do I at all like the Bush administration. I agree that some coverage of Iran seems to be preparing people to go to war very similarly that was done before the Iraq war... however, it is a stated fact from Iran's mouth herself that they seek nuclear weapons. Also, they have threatened on numerous occasions close allies of our nation--Israel... and has not at all been friendly toward our nation. Iraq did none of these things after the first Gulf War (which was provoked by the invasion of Kuwait--not false media stories). Hussein was annoyingly ruling his own country, terrorizing his own people, when we butted in with falsehoods about WMDs and cheap crap like that--with no good intelligence to show for it. Iran cannot be given the opportunity to have WMDs. They have proven themselves with their words and their actions (support of terrorist groups like Hezbollah) to be a threat to the unstable "peace" (or rather non-fighting) that exists between the Middle Eastern states. (We won't count Iraq since it's not warring with another Middle Eastern state).
I will agree with you on the counts of news network sponsorships--etc. The news networks do not report all what needs reporting. I tend to carry much of this sentiment with me to all news networks--including the BBC. Because everyone has an agenda--even the BBC. I will grant that perhaps they may be better than other American news networks (certainly Fox "News"!) I mean, I don't think the BBC covered too much on crap like Anna Nicole and Britney Spears' hairdo huh?
As far as the deal with Iran though--I don't want war with them. A war with Iran would be a great deal worse than what happened with Iraq. Iran has more means--and has shown that they play dirty. Perhaps yes, they may have been on the regime-change hitlist of the Administration... perhaps. But just because they're on the list of a bad administration doesn't mean that they don't deserve to be removed. Besides, didn't we have a hand in setting them up anyway? And didn't we also have a hand in setting up Hussein as well? I guess Bush thinks he's righting old wrongs or something--doesn't make him right... But it certainly doesn't make Iran okay either.
[ Reply | Delete ]redwoodpecker on March 27, 2007 at 12:25 PM
Re: What are they trying to do?
You're right, to be fair I don't know you or your views on the war, statistically very few conservatives were anything but in favor of the war. First I want to address the nuclear weapons. If I were Iran, I WOULD be developing nuclear weapons. If you haven't noticed, there's a crazy nation with a madman at it's head trying to conquer the world, the first thing I would look for is protection. Nor am I scared for Iran to have one. We can already blow up the damn world so many times and the redundancy on our nukes is so absurd that I hardly think one in Iran would contribute to the problem.
Israel is not exactly a beacon of peace and is right now an occupying force just as we are. Israel is not my friend, nor does their relationship to Iran have any impact on whether we should invade.
I SAID Iraq went to war over slant drilling if you were actually reading it, the new story was to get US into war.
There are many MANY places where worse things are going on than Iran, a lot of them right here. My real issue is that our nation is falling apart and people are worried about nations they know nothing about. Regardless of the what the news says in any case neither of us has lived in Iran, knows their culture, knows their people, knows their government, or really anything else which is not given to us by the media which we know is frequently inaccurate, serves political and personal goals, and most importantly often fails to do any of the actual reporting or research that used to be a part of news. Iran will never be a threat to us, Iran is not going to attack us, nor is Iran going to provoke us to attack them because regardless of what people think I have no belief whatsoever that they want to commit suicide. Look at what we do to people who do nothing to us.
I love your last point, we did set them up. We play with the governments of other countries like it's a game to us then when that fosters hate and distrust we're told they hate our freedom. We are the bad guys here, and we need to fix this shit at home before we start sticking our noses elsewhere. This crap is just distraction.
[ Reply | Delete ]semiomniscient on March 27, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Re: What are they trying to do?
from what I gather by your other comments, you appear to be an isolationist... or at least have isolationist tendancies. So it is natural for you to want to be "minding our own business." Nevertheless, isolationist ideas won't fly anymore in the face of globalization.
Concerning Israel, I don't see how you consider them an occupying force... unless you sympathize with the Palestinian agenda. but nevertheless, they are our nations ally... whether or not you like it. They have close ties with both our government and our citizenry (particularly the Jewish population, but Christians and some others also.) Not only that, but they are one of the only true democratic republics to be found in the Middle East--there are some few other states that technically qualify. Israel, no matter how you look at it, is important to American interests in the region--both culturally, and politically.
Iran, therefore, supports action against an American ally, has threatened an American ally... has threatened American interests in the region and has even according to some, threatened America and her people. Iran is a supporter of terrorism--IE: Hezbollah. Iran is garnering the means to make good on threats issued to our allies--and to ourselves. We have a responsibility to prevent her from carrying through with her intended objectives. Now they have captured British soldiers and marines who the British gov't maintains, were in Iraqi waters--not Iranian. If something is not resolved quickly, then a more severe--less peaceful course of action WILL take place. Place blame on the US if you will--we're certainly not an innocent party as the game of world politics goes--but Iran is far worse, far more beligerent, and certainly not a fan of peace, in either her own region, or in the regions beyond her.
[ Reply | Delete ]redwoodpecker on March 27, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Re: What are they trying to do?
I've heard the speech about why Israel is our ally, I especially love the democratic nation in the middle east bit, as if we have any idea what Democracy is. As for your views of isolationism, I don't know where you pulled that from. There are plenty of places where we should be giving aid or stepping in, but those places aren't the ones we are involved with.
How is Iran worse? How many countries are they occupying right now? Are they manipulating the governments of the nations of the world to put friendlies in power regardless of their treatment of the people of their nations? I will repeat again, NOTHING is going to happen with Iran except by our interference. As for the British government, well, I said I trusted the BBC as far as any mainstream media organization, not the british government, once the news passes through any government agency it has been washed to produce the effect they want to produce either by manipulating the facts or lying. Point in case the events of 5/5 in Britain were similar to 9/11 in several ways, among which are the training exercises going on in Britain involving hijacked buses in London on the same routes at the same time the actual incident occured. In addition, they claim hijackers with explosives blew up the train cars yet at least one picture shows an explosion from beneath the train ripped the floor up. It's clear additionally that Blair and Bush work closely together and both benefit from the fabricated war of terror. Once any news goes through any government agency I appropriately dismiss it for the likely propagandization it has undergone, especially when the news coincides with their preexisting objectives.
That being said, we have more important things to worry about, far more important things, and until we address those these stories of Iran's provocation are simply a distraction.
[ Reply | Delete ]semiomniscient on March 28, 2007 at 12:33 AM
Re: What are they trying to do?
Ahh so you're one who believes that 9/11 and such were governmental conspiracies. I have looked at some of the evidence, and I can say that some of it is indeed most intriguing. But I would challenge any notion that Tony Blair has gained anything from going to war along with Bush--hell he almost lost his office because of it! I will grant that yes, the governments will propagandize news, but I will not grant that it is always so. There are checks and balances, they cannot always lie, nor always tell the truth. If they always lied they would be continually found out by investigative reporters and opposing politicians. The government isn't as unified as we critics of it like to sometimes hope.
I can understand your displeasure with American international policies--I have my own displeasures with them. And I apologize if the isolationist remarks offended you--it appeared to me that's what you arguing for. However, I maintain that Iran is a real threat--unlike Iraq. Iran is a threat to both the United States and to Israel. And even if you do not accept that Israel is important as a democratic nation in the Middle East, it is of no matter. They deserve the right to a peaceful existence without the fear of annihilation by some Islamic zealots with a nuclear weapon. They do not even deserve to live under the looming fear of such a possibility. They are, whether you like it or not, or whether I like it or not, or whether even if the president likes it or not, our nation's ally--with close cultural and social and political ties, and for such a reason, they deserve our support. And since it is a fact that America is a powerful nation, with much sway in world politics, it is our responsibility, as a good neighbor to aid our allies.
We must also remember, that even though we may think America butts its nose into politics of nations that should be none of our concern, we do so for both noble and greedy reasons. The greedy reasons you, I'm sure, are well aware of. But do realize that without United States aid, many countries recovering from civil wars, revolution, whathaveyou, would not be stable and would hardly get off the ground without much suffering. But also, without some aid and manipulation, these smaller countries could possibly be swallowed up by a rival nation--who could come to a power that is not particularly safe or desireable for the region. Case in point: the US supported Hussein of Iraq in the war against Iran back in the 1980's. This kept a power-hungry Iran from an imperial-type of expansion that many Middle Eastern countries aspire to do. (There is much pride in the ancient empires of Persia (Iran), Babylon (Iraq), and Assyria... not to mention the more recent Ottoman Empire.) It is a common Muslim ideal that there should be one Islamic State. So you often see expansionistic ideas floating around the Middle East. But not only there, but also in Africa (where not enough US aid gets where it's supposed to go) where the political maps change every two weeks! Even in Asia, the US must step in to protect its allies, like Taiwan, whom China has wanted to reassimilate for quite a while. Yet the Taiwanese government does not want this, and neither does the US--and as their ally, should we stand by with all our wealth and political sway and do nothing? Sure, the US has greedy interests in Taiwan--but there are noble sides to the manipulations of our country as well. That's my point.
And as for not knowing what a democracy is... I agree with you. I was just using the term as is used commonly in political rhetoric for expediency's sake.
[ Reply | Delete ]redwoodpecker on March 28, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Re: What are they trying to do?
I'm the ONE? What, I'm the only one that espouses this notion? I certainly wasn't the first to come to that conclusion, nor the first to speak. At the time of the attack Blair was way down in the polls and afterwards he was way up of course as people responding in fear looked to whatever leadership was available. Like Bush however the wild terror ride has lost it's power now.
I don't get what you're having trouble understanding about what I'm saying. I appreciate that you know your history, and that is very relevant here, just not in the way you're presenting it. Whatever we have done before this administration with our foreign policy, the current foreign policy is in the hands of a cabal of thugs who will lie and manipulate information in any way they need to in order to pursue foreign agendas which have nothing to do with either nobility or security. The government does propagandize. The government does want to go to Iran. The government already has bombing plans for Iran, the government regardless of how gullible you are at least lied and falsified evidence to get us into war. So to sum up, the government that lied to get us into a war they had already planned is saying that another country we already planned on going to war with is provoking us conveniently when Iran would have absolutely nothing to gain and it's our governments word against Iran's. Why are you failing to make the logical connection that there is no more value to the word of our government than Iran's? You are clearly intelligent, so from an objective standpoint you can't claim their word has any credibility at this point. Of course Iran could be lying about the sailors, but there's no greater chance of that then that our government is lying and when past evidence is taken into consideration and the larger picture examined it is very clear what's going on here.
And furthermore, let's pursue this fantasy of Iran being a threat, just like Iraq was about to singlehandedly take down America. What if Iran did get a nuclear weapon? What, do you think they're going to launch it at us? If I were Iran I know I would want one, if you haven't noticed there are some crazy bloodthirsty profit hungry countries out there that don't give a shit about anyone else's beliefs, rights, or government. So worst case scenario, Iran builds a nuke, then launches it, kill several million people, and are immediately completely wiped off the face of the earth by our nuclear retaliation. Is this the brilliant plan you think they're pursuing? Or could it be the only reason they want a nuke is it's the only assurance they have that we won't invade them without provocation, and they would be right.
We don't poke our noses in other countries for greedy and noble reasons. We do it for greedy reasons and give the public noble reasons for our actions. I am well aware that we put Saddam in power and that he was our ally. I also know that the real reason we invaded Iraq (this is from Greg Palast's book armed madhouse) was that Saddam was not cooperating with OPEC's price fixing on crude and was flooding the market with cheap product. Just like firing a manager at a chain store for not doing their job properly, we now had to replace Saddam so OPEC could price their crude the way they wanted. This is why rather than the price of oil going down after we invaded as was promised, it instead went up, and stayed there for quite a while. All of the death, destruction, chaos and bad will that has occurred as a result was just the consequences of a poorly planned change of management.
What I am saying is that if the British Sailors incident doesn't spark a war, stories will conveniently keep popping up in the news until one takes hold and we do, and it is only until too late that we'll discover it was a crock of shit, if we ever do at all. And please, if you think I'm a nut job for thinking 9/11 was an inside job, at least try the link to 9/11 truth on my site. It is not some random whack jobs thrown together tribute to the x-files but an organization of some of the many people like me who see the need to have an investigation of the attack independent of the government.
[ Reply | Delete ]semiomniscient on March 29, 2007 at 1:14 AM
Re: What are they trying to do?
I didn't say you were the only one who held that 9/11 was an inside job... and said you were one of them, "you're one who believes...." Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I can be swayed toward the idea that the government of our nation moves toward many greedy ends. It certainly is not concerned with the stated goal of serving the people. I do however think, that at very least, through their greedy means, oft comes some part of a noble end... or maybe perhaps the semblance of it. If you'll forgive a Biblical reference, but when Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery--the point of the narrative is to demonstrate that what evil people do for evil purposes--God works for good purposes. In the same way, what the United States government does for the furthrance of its own pocketbook also sometimes has an affect that is for the good of some (of course not for all). And even so, oftentimes the government will use this "good" to cover up their greedy intentions--and don't get me wrong, I don't think that these resulting good things will by any means "cover" the bad. Your arguments are, in part, furthering my previous resolution that our government is indeed corrupt. I fear that it is a fact that I hate so much, that I wish I could defend it rather than resign myself to the fact that it is broken beyond repair. However, this being said, I will hold to my belief that Iran is an evil nation--as far as their leadership is concerned. I can't say any different for our own leadership--but the difference between the two is that, one group is the leadership of an enemy nation (they are an enemy whether we wish it or not) and the the other group is supposed to be on our side (whether they represent us according to our wishes or not). As far as Iran having a nuke--has not the Muslim world proven that they are quite willing to sacrifice themselves in order to achieve their worldview-driven goals? All it would take is the resolution of their president (perhaps maybe the mullahs as well--I admit I am not entirely certain of their checks and balances) to commit nuclear suicide by sending a warhead into Israel--(it is doubtful that one could be sent into the US from Iran according to what little I understand of ICBMs.) And I have explained my views about Israel previously, and it is not likely that any of your arguments will change them. It is supposed that only five nuclear strikes will essentially reduce Israel to nothing. I find it a bit hypocritical to make light of the death of millions of Israelis, as well as hundreds of thousands of Americans (millions? of American ancestry), and others who reside, vacation, or make pilgrimage to that land. It appears to me, that a Muslim so devout to the cause of the destruction of all Jews (and Israel), as the president of Iran has stated publicly he is, would find his own nation a reasonable sacrifice.
All this said, I agree with you that the American government is beginning to make a case for war to the public. Of this there is little doubt... but nevertheless, that case that they're making doesn't mean it is a false case--nor does it mean that Iran is not a threat. I believe that Bush's administration is like the boy who cried "wolf." But is Iran the real wolf or just another false cry? Bush's administration is not the only one crying "wolf" at Iran either. Israel of course has been calling Iran what it is--unless I'm mistaken, they said no such thing about Iraq. We'll even leave Britain out of this one--because I'll assume that Blair and Bush are close enough to consider "in cahoots" if we want to give credence to drumming up a cause for war. But even the UN sees Iran as a big problem--and we shouldn't think that they'd call for war, the UN was made to avoid wars in the first place.
In your opinion, what would make a nation worth going to war with? Under what circumstances should we attempt to hinder our enemies' ability to prepare to strike us or an ally? But most importantly, how should this administration, with its bruised reputation, start preparing the public to go to war with an enemy who appears to meet your criteria to go to war with.
Iran has not yet met my criteria for war. It hasn't met the government's criteria yet either (at least apparently). However, they have met my criteria to hinder them (through economic and political means) from gaining any true nuclear striking ability.
[ Reply | Delete ]redwoodpecker on March 29, 2007 at 12:20 PM
Re: What are they trying to do?
"I fear that it is a fact that I hate so much, that I wish I could defend it rather than resign myself to the fact that it is broken beyond repair."
The truth is that the government is not just fucked and broken, but being used by a small group to subjugate us into eventual serfhood. There are people who pull the strings behind the real government using their vast wealth, but there are also some genuinely honest and well meaning representatives as well. The problem is that like everything else in life, it is the ruthless who rise to the top.
However, although it is broken, nothing is ever beyond repair. If humans can do it, humans can undo it. If they fucked up our government so far beyond repair it can't be saved, well, a handful of men created it from scratch and if we have to tear the whole thing down and start over we can. We just need to remember that we are their bosses, not the other way around.
As for Iran, first of all, we wouldn't be going to war now, nor did we before. Iraq was an invasion followed by an occupation, and Iran would be an attack. Wars have rules and standards, conditions for being declared and don't pop into existence because CNN uses it on their graphics. There is no country we should be at war with right now other than our own, and part of the point of perpetual war is to reduce civil liberties and domestic dissent.
However, if you want an example of when we should step in, genocide would be a good one, which we ignore. Realistically we should never have a war unless everyone is fighting, and we have degenerated once again to a serf system where the wealthy elite send the poor to die for their interests. There are 190 countries in the world, and we have bases in 130. When we occupy every country on earth will that be enough to make you feel safe? When we slaughter the civilians of every country that starts a nuclear program will that make you feel secure? Wouldn't it be easier to just wipe them all out now? We've proven we don't need them, why not just kill the whole world. We don't have to do it at once, just one war at a time.
As for muslims, rather than considering that they're willing to die for their cause, did you ever stop to think why? How bad does life have to be before you're willing to end it in that way? If you're referring to them dying for their cause in 9/11, I think first you need to prove they were involved. This is why I keep coming back to it, once you accept that it was done to us by our leaders, it changes the logic that leads to all of these other decisions and opinions. It changes the world. They change the world through death, manipulation, brainwashing, suspicion, and fear but we can change it right back with nothing more than knowledge.
[ Reply | Delete ]semiomniscient on March 30, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Re: What are they trying to do?
I don't think that civilians are the ones targeted because their government has a nuclear program.
Even barring the 9/11 hijacker business... Muslims have proven themselves to commit suicide to commit murder--not just against the US and Israel, but against anyone whom they deem to be evil. You and I don't see suicide the same way that they do. And they don't see it the same way that the Japanese samurai did, or the way the Norse berserkers did. For them, life doesn't have to be bad--just the enemy.
The government thing---I just think it needs to be torn down and started anew. I don't think however that anything that could be started would be incorruptable. I hold to the idea that men are inherently evil--and so anything we make, or get our hands hold of, while it might start off looking good, will decay into something corrupt.
And I don't agree with your views about war and when it's necessary. Not entirely anyway.
[ Reply | Delete ]redwoodpecker on April 2, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Re: What are they trying to do?
Yes yes, I get it. The mud races aren't really people like us, and they think in completely different ways. That's why white people never blow up federal buildings. Except of course for the ones that do. Whether you want to admit it or not, you are a racist. You don't know any muslims, you've never tried to, you've never looked at their culture, or most likely any culture other than your own. The nation of racism as opposed to bigotry however is that it is state sponsored, so you can rest assured that your racism is intended and approved.
You are right about our government, either we need to start over or break into nation states to prevent this much power being accumulated for evil intentions. As for war, there is a very good reason for war, and especially long drawn out violent wars. They are VERY profitable. Not just for lockheed martin who provides the weapons, nor blackwell which provides over a hundred thousand civilian troops and contractors, but for all the corporations which will benefit from the selling off of Iraqs national assets and resources. It allows the state to reduce civil rights and greatly reduces domestic dissent. In fact it's much harder to find a reason not to find war, unless of course you value human life, and it's relatively easy to dehumanize people.
[ Reply | Delete ]semiomniscient on April 3, 2007 at 12:50 AM
Re: What are they trying to do?
I take offense at your accusation that I am a racist. I am not. I have nothing against Arabs (Iraqis, Syrians, Saudis, Jordanians, Palestians), or Indians (Pakistanis, Indians), or Persians (Iranians). I however do indeed have an extreme hatred for the religion that is Islam. Lets not confuse ethnicity, nationality, and race, for religion. I actually do know Muslims. One of my high school buddies is a Muslim. I would say that most Muslims just want to live their lives in peace and be left alone like everyone else. However, their religion teaches something very different. And I do indeed know what their religion teaches--I make that my business as I am a scholar/student of religion. Your accusations that I don't make any effort to know any Muslims, or attempt to understand their culture, is a complete and total unfounded statement. I fear Islam because I understand what it is about... not because of anything the media or the Bush administration feeds me, but because their accursed book sits on my bookshelf--and because I watch what happens in the world when Muslims are outraged. And I'm not referring to 9/11--or even terrorist attacks in general. It so happens that these "mud races" as you call them are the primary worshippers of Allah (let's not forget the Africans or the Asians either though) but don't call me a racist for it.
As for war: do not presume that the human race is so transcendent that there is never any need for war. War is indeed a terrible thing, and I believe that it should be avoided if reasonably possible. However, when is it no longer reasonable to attempt fruitless politics? Politics enforce nothing. Economics supplies everything. If you cannot politically influence economics--then politics by another means must be achieved. Before we go to war with Persia..ahem... Iran, we should cut off their oil and destroy their one refinery--make them draw to a halt--little to no loss of life. That would be the best alternative I believe.
And back to where this conversation started... the British sailors still haven't been returned. And there is proof with GPS technology that the Tommies were well within Iraqi waters...not Iranian. So I am standing by my position against Iran without any reservations.
Rosie says that the USA and the UK are the ones trying to start a war with Iran.
CuldeeDeacon +