Rumsfield pushing for war on Iran

[TAE]

nope jc2 left the house with his underwear showing as has been demonstrated above ...

you are another clueless prick TAE another waste of dna fuck off too...

You what?

 

[Aldebaran]

You were speculating about JC2 and got it wrong, as posts above mine made clear.

Giving my opinion (and all while explaining how I came to a conclusion) is not a speculation, it is stating my opinion.

Can you solve this riddle for me:

1. We are all anonymous posters on a message board.
2. I describe my conclusion about the nationality of a poster and explain why I don't believe his version.
3. You call that "speculation".
4. Others gave their conclusion on the same matter (without any explanation).
5. You call their posts on the matter "fact" while mine is "speculation".

How can you explain your reasoning?

salaam.

 

[spring-peeper]

Giving my opinion (and all while explaining how I came to a conclusion) is not a speculation, it is stating my opinion.

Can you solve this riddle for me:

1. We are all anonymous posters on a message board.
2. I describe my conclusion about the nationality of a poster and explain why I don't believe his version.
3. You call that "speculation".
4. Others gave their conclusion on the same matter (without any explanation).
5. You call their posts on the matter "fact" while mine is "speculation".

How can you explain your reasoning?

salaam.

JC's name contains the word "canuck" - this is a slang version of the word Canadian.

To call an Canadian an American is a very big insult.

It is entirely possible that you were not aware of this. If so, I apologize for me jumping at you.

 

[TeeJay]

2: I don't believe (at least in the context of the 20th-century history of the region) that it is a bad thing in cultural terms, after all the Iraqi Shia were shat on under Saddam, why shouldn't they seek comfort from their brethren over the border? Of course, this relationship annoys and upsets many in Bush's inner circle who remember the events of 1979, but it's their present actions that have caused this "firming up" in the relationship between Iraqi and Iranian Shi'ites, so they've only themselves to blame.

You don't think that supporting militias that may well be murdering large numbers of fellow Iraqis and trying to kick off a full-on civil war is a good thing surely?

Surely it would be far better if Iran was trying to help calm things down in Iraq, not pouring fuel onto the fire and funding violent militias?

If Iran is helping one element in Iraq, is it also true that other neighbouring countries are halping (or will end up helping) other elements there? Isn't there a real risk that this could make a full-on civil war more likely - one which could end up going on for years and years and in which potentially millions could die? How could this in any way be a good thing for anyone?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The Shiite militias don't have a motive that I can see for starting a civil war. The demographics mean that their associated political parties almost automatically gain power via democracy. So it's in their interest to stay chilled as far as possible and let democracy take its course. That's presumably precisely why various other groups keep trying to provoke them by blowing up their mosques etc.

 

[Lock&Light]

The Shiite militias don't have a motive that I can see for starting a civil war. The demographics mean that their associated political parties almost automatically gain power via democracy. So it's in their interest to stay chilled as far as possible and let democracy take its course. That's presumably precisely why various other groups keep trying to provoke them by blowing up their mosques etc.

You seem to be totally ignoring the principle, as far as I know accepted by 'everyone', that the reins of power, in Iraq, with its minimum of three different sections, are to be weighted. There could well be Shiite groups who see that as unacceptable.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Well, that rather seems to be a principle the US is trying to impose and I can see that could eventually cause the Shiite factions to stop relying on the democratic process.

 

[TeeJay]

The Shiite militias don't have a motive that I can see for starting a civil war. The demographics mean that their associated political parties almost automatically gain power via democracy. So it's in their interest to stay chilled as far as possible and let democracy take its course. That's presumably precisely why various other groups keep trying to provoke them by blowing up their mosques etc.

Maybe some of them want a break-away state and don't want to be part of a larger Iraq? Maybe others want revenge? There could be more extreme groups that have all sorts of twisted logic, scores to settle or reasons for wanting to bypass elections and rely primarily on violence.

Even if the majority of Shiites don't want to see a war, this doesn't preclude Iran (for example) funding and supporting smaller militias to increase instability in Iraq or for whatever strategic aim they have. Civil wars aren't limited to when the majority of people want them to happen: they can happen even if a small majority of violent groups create enough violence and if people finally panic and join sides purely for self-preservation.

Even though it wasn't a "civil war" look at how many people die in 1948 in India: up to a million people by some estimates. Look at how many people died in the Iran-Iraq war: again a million people. It is crazy to simply react to this as an opportunity to automatically disagree with Rumsfeld or discount everything that doesn't fit into a simplistic picture as propaganda.

 

[TAE]

How can you explain your reasoning?

I would be happy to.

Post #32 - you stated that you believed JC2 to be a US citizen, a Bush supporter, and (rather bizzarly) that he thinks he's God.

As far as I know, none of those are the case, and I could see no reason for you to think it was (except maybe possibly for a general prejudice against US citizens - although that is speculation on my part).

I appologise if I was being rude, but I can assure you that I do ask other posters how on earth they came to some of their conclusions as well, if it's not clear why they might believe something. However, if (for example) a marxist were to say 'religion is the opium of the people', I don't need to ask, because I already know the background of that. Perhaps I pick up on your posts a lot at the moment because you are saying some unusual things.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You don't think that supporting militias that may well be murdering large numbers of fellow Iraqis and trying to kick off a full-on civil war is a good thing surely?

Surely that depends on the context? I replied in the context of whether such support was a good thing for the ovt of Iran to be giving.
If you're the Iranian govt, then covertly supporting a "fifth column" in a neighbouring state when you'll benefit from that state's destabilisation may be a very "good thing".

Surely it would be far better if Iran was trying to help calm things down in Iraq, not pouring fuel onto the fire and funding violent militias?

You're making the assumption that Iran wishes Iraq to remain as a unitary state, rather than as a tripartite state.

If Iran is helping one element in Iraq, is it also true that other neighbouring countries are halping (or will end up helping) other elements there? Isn't there a real risk that this could make a full-on civil war more likely - one which could end up going on for years and years and in which potentially millions could die? How could this in any way be a good thing for anyone?

I think you're maybe (and quite understandably) transposing your individual rationality onto a nation-state and expecting them to follow the same moral compass as you do, which isn't imho a way to get an accurate "feel" for what they're up to.
I tend to look at the situation as being one where, almost unfailingly, nation-states will not be operating on an altruistic level, but with the aim of accruing power and influence to themselves. That simply means that if civil war in Iraq is the easiest method to accrue power and influence in Iraq, then they won't do anything to prevent it, and may even grease the skids somewhat. As Karl von Clausewitz said, "war is merely the continuation of politics by other means".
Also, bear in mind that a massively destabilised Iraq puts enough problems in the USUK coalition's lap to perhaps further deter the US from an Iranian adventure.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

JC's name contains the word "canuck" - this is a slang version of the word Canadian.

To call an Canadian an American is a very big insult.

It is entirely possible that you were not aware of this. If so, I apologize for me jumping at you.

what part of he did it himself do you not get ...

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I really do reckon you should read blowback by chalmers johnson.

Either that or get a lesson in cause and effect, sowing and reaping, and where and with who the whole processes begin. Not leaping in the middle somewhere.

The process didn't begin with the USA, it's been 'processing' for a long time now, back through the british, the ottomans, etc.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

...

you cannot state oh yes me and my fellow citizens the americans, when you are french neither can you if you are canadian, unless you ment in like one great big global type way mannnnnnn... which you didn't you stated you are american in your post which contradicts your previous claims that you are a cannuck so either you were lying previously and forgot yourself or you are some missive who through some homogious binding thinks that everyone from the contenant of the americas is a citizen of the us which is narrowminded bigotry, or you were just to damn quick to leap in to defend your beloved bush...
..

Sometimes, you're like a two year old losing at a game of tag.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

after 9/11 summit which didn't involve you or for that matter canada.

Pretty narrow thinking there, dude.

 

[snadge]

the iranians have been gifted with some very state of the art air defence systems courtesy of china, along with a lot of other goodies.


and today the iranians have effected their oil bourse.

wonder how much that has to to do with retard rumsfields rantings.

BTW JC2 I still think you argue for arguings sake cos' tha' has dispalyed only a google knowledge of certain issues.

 

[spring-peeper]

no to the extend of changing nationalities no ... that's a simplification too far really isn't it... wriggle wriggle...
you cannot state oh yes me and my fellow citizens the americans, when you are french neither can you if you are canadian, unless you ment in like one great big global type way mannnnnnn... which you didn't you stated you are american in your post which contradicts your previous claims that you are a cannuck so either you were lying previously and forgot yourself or you are some missive who through some homogious binding thinks that everyone from the contenant of the americas is a citizen of the us which is narrowminded bigotry, or you were just to damn quick to leap in to defend your beloved bush...
face facts JC2 you are a sham of a poster...
as for
well yes it'd be nice to have a sainity thouht prick the insatiable appitite you have for blundering along like some wounded bear from one untied states govermental fuck up to another and the cia bodge jobs which cause them and have you think hey that's shit rather than have you sitting there glory worshipping the deaths of 100,000's of arabs like some nigger baiting, coon hating kkk member... odd when you think about it really that your overt racism is thinly disgusied under the premise that cos you your self are a minority that you couldn't possibly be racist...

yet you are a racist, to you as is evidenced through out your entire backcatalouge of posts, not only racist but also and frankly more importantly a charlaton...

now be a good doggie and fuck off..

http://www.punctuation.com

 

[snadge]

http://www.punctuation.com

that isn't the point is it?

avoid the issue and personally attack.

 

[spring-peeper]

.

 

[spring-peeper]

that isn't the point is it?

avoid the issue and personally attack.

It would appear that I mis-read your post and took offense where there was none intended.

Sorry.

 

[snadge]

There we go, little one. I hope that the modified post meets with your approval.

Is there anything else that I can do for you - bedtime story, check under the bed for monsters?

piss off dog breath, why not discuss the matter in hand instead of personal digs?

you don't know me at all so don't make assumptions!

 

[TeeJay]

I think you're maybe (and quite understandably) transposing your individual rationality onto a nation-state and expecting them to follow the same moral compass as you do, which isn't imho a way to get an accurate "feel" for what they're up to.

No. I am asking what *you* think. I haven't made any claims about what the decision-makers in the Iranian government are thinking nor have I pretended that I share the same ideological or ethical viewpoint as them.

I have however asked you to pass judgment on what is or is not a 'good thing' using your own political, ethical and/or moral ideals - if you actually have any (I am presuming that you do).

I have also implied that I am passing judgement or at least expressing the viewpoint that backing miltias within Iraq with the aim of destabilising it, breaking it up or causing a civil war is a bad thing. I have suggested that this will kill a lot of innocent people and cause a lot of destruction, and wouldn't really achieve very much - thing that couldn't largely in any case be achieved with far less destruction misrey and loss of life. Yes I am making a value judegement when I say this but no I am not claiming to speak on behalf of the Iranian government.

I would also argue that even if you just frame things in very cynical self-interested terms from the Iraiain point of view they would be mistaken to stir things up in Iraq - it could very well end up turning around and biting them very hard on the arse in fact.

 

[Lock&Light]

piss off dog breath, why not discuss the matter in hand instead of personal digs?

you don't know me at all so don't make assumptions!

Your first sentence invites assumptions.

 

[fela fan]

The process didn't begin with the USA, it's been 'processing' for a long time now, back through the british, the ottomans, etc.

Well then, why do you continue to bang on about how america has changed since 911? Why do your posts ignore the stuff that led up to 911?

I remember your position on invading iraq before it happened. I remember you banging on about how american people feel after 911.

I absolutely do not recall you mentioning any root causes for 911.

But here you are now telling me historical reasons for the lead up to 911. Why not then? Why did you not recognise the cause and effect before 911? Why did you post as if 911 was the beginning of the current bullshit that passes for world affairs?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Well then, why do you continue to bang on about how america has changed since 911? Why do your posts ignore the stuff that led up to 911?

I remember your position on invading iraq before it happened. I remember you banging on about how american people feel after 911.

I absolutely do not recall you mentioning any root causes for 911.

But here you are now telling me historical reasons for the lead up to 911. Why not then? Why did you not recognise the cause and effect before 911? Why did you post as if 911 was the beginning of the current bullshit that passes for world affairs?

or for that matter how the fuck a "canadian" would know how the fuck americans feel any more than a french man would...

ignore his spouting rethoric bollocks he's wrtiing cheques his creduilty cannot cash...

 

[pk]

ignore his spouting rethoric bollocks he's wrtiing cheques his creduilty cannot cash...

And you'd know all about that Garf...

 

[ViolentPanda]

No. I am asking what *you* think. I haven't made any claims about what the decision-makers in the Iranian government are thinking nor have I pretended that I share the same ideological or ethical viewpoint as them.

I have however asked you to pass judgment on what is or is not a 'good thing' using your own political, ethical and/or moral ideals - if you actually have any (I am presuming that you do).

I have also implied that I am passing judgement or at least expressing the viewpoint that backing miltias within Iraq with the aim of destabilising it, breaking it up or causing a civil war is a bad thing. I have suggested that this will kill a lot of innocent people and cause a lot of destruction, and wouldn't really achieve very much - thing that couldn't largely in any case be achieved with far less destruction misrey and loss of life. Yes I am making a value judegement when I say this but no I am not claiming to speak on behalf of the Iranian government.

I would also argue that even if you just frame things in very cynical self-interested terms from the Iraiain point of view they would be mistaken to stir things up in Iraq - it could very well end up turning around and biting them very hard on the arse in fact.

From my own personal point of view I abhor the idea that more lives may be lost.
From the perspective of having a passing (but only passing) knowledge of military strategy and tactics then, if I look at how the Iranian military and it's paramilitary formations might deploy at the behest of an expansionist Iranian govt, then I view Iran as being in the position to make considerable gains in influence from further destabilisation of Iraq and it's fracture into "spheres of influence". Not only do they effectively neutralise problems on their western border from a unified Iraq, they would find themselves with that western flank partially covered by a sphere of Shi'ite influence, with the upper section of the border belonging within a Kurdish sphere of influence where the likelihood of an "accomodation" with Iran is great.
From a political perspective I see the fracture of Iraq and the ascendancy of Iran in the region as dangerous to western interests for all the reasons Bernie has mentioned on this and other threads, and because an Iranian ascendancy may have "knock on" effects in central Asia which could include more intra-Islam conflict between the Saudi-supported pro-Wahhabist HuT and Islamic Renaissance Party on the one hand, and the mostly Sufi "natives" of the region on the other. Add Shia into the mix (there being, iirc a Shia minority in most of the CA states) and the western grasp on Caspian Basin resources could slip, with concomitant effects on fuel prices and "the market" in general.

I find your "it could very well end up turning around and biting them very hard on the arse in fact" interesting, mostly because although the human cost is something that should be (and generally is) factored in to a belligerent foreign policy, this tends to be "played to win". I don't believe that the thought of being bitten on the arse actually occurs to many politicians until it happens.

 

[TeeJay]

...I view Iran as being in the position to make considerable gains in influence from further destabilisation of Iraq and it's fracture into "spheres of influence"...

It's a gamble: destabilisation in Iraq may well end up leading to destabilisation in Iran. Iran might think that they will benefit from setting fires in Iraq but these fires next door may well end up setting fire to their own house.

 

[nino_savatte]

that isn't the point is it?

avoid the issue and personally attack.

You've noticed that too.

 

[spring-peeper]

or for that matter how the fuck a "canadian" would know how the fuck americans feel any more than a french man would...

ignore his spouting rethoric bollocks he's wrtiing cheques his creduilty cannot cash...

911 had a much larger impact on Canadians than you seem to realize.

Do not compare my nation's reaction to an attack on our neighbours with the reaction of a country on the other side of the world.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

911 had a much larger impact on Canadians than you seem to realize.

Do not compare my nation's reaction to an attack on our neighbours with the reaction of a country on the other side of the world.

yeah no your right i should have said iraq... the considqunece for them was much much worse than canida how fucking morally bankrupt are you ....

how fucking dare you have some kind of moral realitivism or heirarchy of suffering to something like the 11th sept or for that matter the london bombings...

this proves my point ignoramus and well mean ing idiot defendign them...

quit while you're behind really... i think you might come out of this with some credibilty left unless you are actually argueing that western lives in closer geographical proximity are of more reality worth than those farther away.....