What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Maybe the U.S. should hold talks with Iran

  • #41
It's never terrorism to attack a military force.  Call it an insurgency or even a military action or whatever, but it isn't terrorism.  Terrorism is directed towards civilians and people wearing US uniforms have done their share.  When a uniformed military does it, of course, the proper term is war crime.  And it's the fault of the politicians and Neocon theorists and Limbaugh-listening armchair warriors who put soldiers in such an impossible situation.  Prospective police officers get better testing and training before being placed in far saner assignments.  I have no idea how I would respond if I were in their position, so I don't judge our soldiers.  But I'll judge the bloodthirsty cowards who sent them because I never would have jeopardized people's lives and national security to invade Iraq.  There was nothing good to be gained by it and Bush Sr. knew better than to try it a decade earlier.
 
  • #42
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]It goes beyond the Iran-Contra Scandal.Did you know about the now-admitted covert operation of the CIA called Operation Ajax in the 50's that destroyed the democracy of Iran to restore a politically friendly dictator? The US and Britain helped organize protests to overthrow the unfriendly president and return the Shah who previously ruled the country to Iran. Iran's fledgling attempts at democracy quickly descended into dictatorship, as the Shah dismantled the constitutional limitations on his office and began to rule as an absolute monarch.

Thanks for this post, I don't believe I've heard of this before. I'm still a'learnin'!
smile.gif


[b said:
Quote[/b] ]EST Someone on this board was saying his father just designed a nuclear reactor that used something other than the currect technology that would use up the rods completely. It was a different type of reactor for generating electricity. I don't remember who said it. That was the type of reactor I was saying build for them. One that doesn't have the control rods left after the reaction is spent.

Yup, I know. I was the one who asked about it.
biggrin.gif
However, I make it a point to not rely on theoretical technologies as solutions for current problems. Sure such a reactor MAY be viable in this case n years from this point, but even then, do you really want an experimental reactor built somewhere that seems so shaky? There's reasons that accidents like Chernobyl happen.

If I were just to rely on theoretics, I'd be kickin' back because I know that fusion power is coming. lol I see what you're saying, but the point is that a) it's theoretical, so not a real good solution, and b) for the same reason that other solutions don't work, this one would probably be denied by Iran as well.

Was a nice idea, though.
smile.gif


[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I agree nuclear weapons are the worst invention humans ever came up with, next to agriculture.

Yeah, that DARN agriculture! I hate fruits, vegetables, and society! :pout: Translation: While you may disagree with modern agricultural practices (eg Green Revolution practices,) saying that you're mad at agriculture is saying that you're made at one of the greatest forces that has shaped man's history.

As for nuclear weapons: I'll bide my time. I thoroughly believe that nuclear weapons may one day be the force that makes sure everybody stays in line.

When every national entity has nuclear weapons, people are going to be a bit more reserved, a bit more hesitant to get in to conflict. And if a nation uses atomics against unother in an unprovoked act, what could the other nations due but retaliate against that nation?
Ok, no need to tear it apart, I know it's not viable for out current age... But maybe in the future. Nothing wrong with a little enforced peace.
wink.gif.gif


[b said:
Quote[/b] ]We have a bad enough relationship with the Arab world due to our support of Isreal, we need to talk with them and reach some understanding, unless you believe we should continue our presidents "cursade" against the Arabs/Muslims which ever group it is that he seems to hate. It as simple as this dialog can lead to understanding for both sides, understanding often times leads to conflict resoultion that is fair for both sides with out tons of bombs being droped everywhere. Basically its like we are having a shouting match between the two leaders in a crowded room so no one is getting a good understanding of the other so problems arise. We need to meet in the middle and discuss the problem.

I agree with ya. Things need to be done to make ties instead of burn bridges. However, as far as I know, Iranians are generally not on good terms with the Arabs. I've got an Iranian friend, and every time he comes back from a visit to Iran I hear about the animosities that Iranians generally hold for the Arabs.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Why should we appease and make deals with terrorists?

If you're going to sell weapons to them, you can at least talk to them. It's not like Iran wasn't considered a terrorist-supporting state when the US sold arms to them. What harm can having talks do? Nobody's saying that either country has to make concessions, but merely opening diplomatic relations can put you on moral highground in the event that something goes sower. At least you can say "well, we tried."

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Is that the afro dude?

God I miss him...

"happy trees..we'll just put a few happy little trees right there"

Yup, that's Bob Ross. You can see many of his show's episodes on Youtube.

Bob Ross always made me so happy. He appreciated life and everything around him so much. Real relaxed, awesome guy. I could write a whole topic about him- so I wont put it here where people are expecting to read things about the Mid East and nuclear armaments.

"Now isn't that just a beautiful explosion? How about we make him a happy little friend out in this village..." (better?) :p


As for the bit about the Coalition forces and butt-kicking, etc, etc, I can say only this:

Nobody ever thought the US could lose Vietnam, either. Not that I'm drawing a 4,792 parallel between this war and the war in Vietnam. lol

A military's greatest weakness can be its strength. "How many martyrs can we make today?" Just a thought.
 
  • #43
Blahhh. In one breath you say forced peace, and then you say this war is bad we are causing martyrs. So what is it? We are trying to enforce peace here. Anywho. This is a new type of war. Something we have never faced before. I don;t want another Vietnam. We cannot pull out now. Nothing we do is going to be a boog ending in Iraq. We stay and make more martyrs that will be made regardless, IMO. Or we leave and let them have a country that cannot defend itself and will fall apart if we leave so soon.

We need to stop complaining how we shouldn't have went there. The fact is we are there. That canot be changed now. It needs to be finished. I think we should devide the country up into 3 countries and give each group there own country with 3 different governments. That is a big part of the problem. They do not want each other governing the other. They are already pretty much devided up already. Just make it official.

Est I didnt realize the reactor was theoretical. I forgot about that part.

Maybe talking with Iran would be a good thing.

How is Hezbalah trying to do a revolution or however it was put. They are terroists PERIOD. Look at that crap they pulled on civilians lobing missiles across the boarder from lebanon not to long ago.

Oh oh oh We talked about the Iran Contra affair? Didn't that involve some hostages? Sorry I get things confused sometimes. I do remember something that involve Reagan. I remember he was here in Augusta playing golf at the masters and on a Sat phone with someone when that ended. The threatened them with a Nuke and bam it was ended. From the golf corse no less. Now that is what I remember my Dad telling me anyway.

We need to stop saying we shouldn't have done this we shouldn't have done that. The fact still remains we did it already! We cannot change that. We need to focus on the future and how to fix it. Complianing about how we shouldn't have gone in and how it is a bad thign to be there doesn't fix the problem.

Oh and I don't consider a cawardly suicide bomber or someone setting up a IED and blowing it up when a truck passes handing them there butt. But I guess you can say the ame about the unconventional war tactics we had against the britsh when they attacked with redcoats and we attacked from the woods just blowing down there gentlemanly style of war compaired to our unconventional war methods of the time. So it can be looked at both ways I guess. We lob bomb they blow up IEDs. who the heck knows.
 
  • #44
Please note that I'm not saying: Iraq shouldn't have been invaded, I'm not whining, merely trying to give people something to think about- and get some material to ponder on as well! It's by no means an easy topic, so I enjoy when I hear someone with an idea or perspective that I hadn't thought of yet.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Blahhh. In one breath you say forced peace, and then you say this war is bad we are causing martyrs. So what is it? We are trying to enforce peace here. Anywho. This is a new type of war. Something we have never faced before. I don;t want another Vietnam. We cannot pull out now. Nothing we do is going to be a boog ending in Iraq. We stay and make more martyrs that will be made regardless, IMO. Or we leave and let them have a country that cannot defend itself and will fall apart if we leave so soon.

Ah, there would be the subtle difference between "forced" and "enforced." A forced cease of hostilities gives the people something tangible to resist. In this case, there's soldiers forcing people to stop fighting. An enforced peace would be one which is not FORCED per se, but is rather "in everyone's best interest."

Much like your reactor idea, the enforced peace was merely a theoretical one. I meant it more as something interesting to think about than a solution for current predicaments.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Est I didnt realize the reactor was theoretical. I forgot about that part.

No problem, there's a lot of information going on and it's easy to forget bits and pieces. Was definitely a good idea in any case! lol

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Oh oh oh We talked about the Iran Contra affair? Didn't that involve some hostages? Sorry I get things confused sometimes. I do remember something that involve Reagan

Iran Contra affair redux (lol): Iran is was war with Iraq. Initially, the US supported Iraq because the whole terrorist affiliations Iran has going on. The US gives Saddam billions of dollars to purchase American goods: large purchases of pharmesueticals, weapons grade anthrax, etc are purchased.

Now Iraq starts WINNING the war, and that's no good. So, since it's better to have the kids fighting with each other than causing trouble with the rest of the world, the US govt under Reagan (with full knowledge of the Pres) sells arms to Iran in their fight against Iraq (big time illegal.)

With the money from the sales, the US supplies Contra rebels in Nicaragua. Also with the full knowledge of Reagan and also highly illegal, and hence the "double whammy."

Then the public finds out. Oops!

If you want a longer, more specific account of the affair, go ahead and check it out on google or wikipedia (or if you happen to have a US history textbook lying around.)


[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Oh and I don't consider a cawardly suicide bomber or someone setting up a IED and blowing it up when a truck passes handing them there butt.

If we drop the butt handing term (because it's merely inflammitory and gets in the way of the point -hence I don't use it-) Consider how the war in Vietnam was different. The US had vast military superiority and was fighting with napalm and Agent -insert colour of choice-, but still lost. Sure the Vietnamese had the advantage of all of the forest cover, but an urban city will do just fine for cover. Afterall, an insurgent/terrorist/whatever doesn't look any different than the general populace, eh?

What worries me about the situation is that the factionalism is different than anything before so we can't even make a historical comparison. As if fighting against guerilla tactics with an increasingly hostile populace didn't make things hard enough, there's factions.

Sure after winning the war against Britain the US eventually had a civil war, but the Iraqi people seem to lack the national identity to have a common cause to work together to create a nation beyond religion. That's one of the problems with helping liberate people. There are two possabilities, it seems, to have a working nation: Saddam kept the factions in check, so there's the ruthless dictator option. Perhapse if the Iraqi people had finally gotten fed up and taken back the country by themselves the unity and identity formed would have been enough to get through a bumpy beginning.

There's simply a LOT of facets to the problem (though their stems are all rooted in the same piece of the puzzle... Can ya guess what that is) I can't say, either way. Still, it's interesting to hear ideas and even to watch historical parallels evolve:

I when I hear Bush saying "I have a plan to win this war with honour - but it's a big secret plan and I wont tell you yet!" I can see Nixon when he did the same thing.

When I hear about the training of Iraqis to help supplement coalition forces, I think Vietnamization.

Which brings me to a tangent of sorts. I wonder if training Iraqis will really WORK. First off, Vietnamization didn't work too well. Next, say an Iraqi force is trained- who is to say that they'll fight for what they were trained for? Whether the US is there or not (but especially if they were to pull out) who is to say that the faction boundaries that exist in the general populace wont extend to the trained forces? Is having trained, armed sectarians going to help the situation?

If you catch me on something that I'm wrong on, then let me know! As I say, I'm learnin, too.


What does it all amount to? I think Josh sums it up nicely:

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]who the heck knows.

--Additions--

I'd just like to point out that the Iraqi soccer team is probably doing more to unify the country than any other given factor. Seriously, read up on it. The team has members from all three factions, and although they recently lost to China, the country has had their hearts captured by the diverse team working together.

Man I love soccer.

Please not that I haven't made any real opinionated assertions as to my position on the war. I'm just here to give you things to think about.
smile.gif
 
  • #45
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Oh, that's cute, a veiled threat of violence.
I acknowledged that you have the right to your opinion.  It is simply my opinion that if you made the “butt wuppin’” statement to a member of the U.S. Military in Iraq, he would probably be willing to debate you on the subject.


[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Oh and lauderdale, I'd like to see YOU say that BS, smart-arsed little statement to in front of ME.
Carl, have you ever thought about anger management classes.
I don’t get up to Canada very often but, gee whiz, it seems to me that if I did, it would be my right to state my opinion in front of you…without threat of violence.
You do have rights up there that are similar to those stated in our “First Amendment”…Don’t you?
I also have the right of self-defense…..
Swords or pistols???
usa2.gif
 
  • #46
[b said:
Quote[/b] (JB_OrchidGuy @ Dec. 16 2006,7:52)]How is Hezbalah trying to do a revolution or however it was put. They are terroists PERIOD. Look at that crap they pulled on civilians lobing missiles across the boarder from lebanon not to long ago.
First Hezbollah is populated by a large number of Palestinians, which were ousted by Isreal, so they are fighting to get rid of the occupier of their territory. Also Isreal has for a long time occupied southern Lebanon and committed many attrocites that should have been tried as war crimes in The Hauge.

Since you brought it up you need to consider Isreal a terrorist organization also. Isreal started the whole Lebanon conflict when they bombed a water plant in Palestine. Hezbollah then attacked a legitimate Isreali military outpost and killed some troops and took two as prisoners of war. Isreal then responded by droping cluster bombs and phospherous weapons on civilian areas, at which point Hezbollah responded by launching missles across the boarder into Isreal. So really its the Isrealis that should be labeled as "terrorists PERIOD" as you said. They were the first to target civilians, which they seem to do alot, which by your definition makes them terrorist.

EST- The agriculture comment was a reference to Jared Diamond who argued it was the worst invention ever because before this you dont find basically everything that is wrong with modern soceity ie polution, epidemics, species extinction, war, etc. Plus with agriculture we never would have invented nuclear weapons, nor would I be sitting here typing at a computer either, this I fully realize.

Also someone mentioned dividing Iraq up into 3 seperate countries. This is a good idea but it would never work all three nations would be too weak to defend themselves and the Kurds would be landlock with very unfriendly counries all around (Turkey, Iran, Syria) and no way to sell their oil, they would be destoryed quickly or starved out since their only real resource is oil. Also the ethnic and religious divide is not nearly as clear cut as we would like it to be, some sunnis whould be stuck in the shi'a area and some shi'a would be stuck in the sunni area and Kurds would be mixed in. So this is just impractical and would need someone to step in quickly to prevent widespread violence.
 
  • #47
No threat of violence, same as what you said man, I merely implied that I would be ready for a debate as well
biggrin.gif


And sorry for using the charged term, I really am, but I am not the most PC type fellow, and I alos believe that by and large the "steady progress" lies of the current administration (as well as our "women are now going to school" lies that we are supposed to swallow as regards our Afghanistan "mission") DO need to be confronted and usually strong, clear language is the best way I can think of to do so
biggrin.gif


And Anger management?? The only folks who have to deal with my anger are folks who truly deserve it- I am easygoing to a fault (no joke there) and am darn near impossible to set off, but if provoked, I don't get mad, I get even- being a genius has its rewards eh??

Sorry to take this off topic so far. As for the actual topic, EST has made some GREAT posts which mirror my thinking on the issue very well, so I won't elaborate beyond saying that dialogue is the ONLY "solution" to a "problem" which may not even exist- and the possible non-existence of the problem is, I believe, the reason why the current administration is so adamant about not negotiating- just like Saddams trials- they are being persecuted in a peculiar "cherry picking" fashion- Saddam has WAY too many skeletons in his closet, some of which are red white and blue, and I believe the selectiveness of the process and incidents being tabled is one of the main problems Saddam has with the joke of a trial he's recieved so far

So now it's back on topic, carry on
biggrin.gif
 
  • #48
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]EST- The agriculture comment was a reference to Jared Diamond who argued it was the worst invention ever because before this you dont find basically everything that is wrong with modern soceity ie polution, epidemics, species extinction, war, etc. Plus with agriculture we never would have invented nuclear weapons, nor would I be sitting here typing at a computer either, this I fully realize.

Well, my point is simply that it's a moot point. If you're gonna say "the world would be better without agriculture" that equates to "the world would be better without people/society." Agriculture is progress. Sometimes progress is ugly.

I just don't want to beat around the bush: Sure, there wouldn't be problems we have if there were only mabye 1K people spread out over the Earth. But that's sort of a useless statement, no? I know you realize the implications, but would it really be better if there were no humans? Better for WHO? lol

Sorry to pick at the point, I've always found "maybe we should all just be dead" to be a dangerous argument. lol I'm really just curious as to your motivations (despite the fact that it's a quote.)

Please enlighten me.
 
  • #49
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Est @ Dec. 16 2006,9:27)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]EST- The agriculture comment was a reference to Jared Diamond who argued it was the worst invention ever because before this you dont find basically everything that is wrong with modern soceity ie polution, epidemics, species extinction, war, etc. Plus with agriculture we never would have invented nuclear weapons, nor would I be sitting here typing at a computer either, this I fully realize.

Well, my point is simply that it's a moot point. If you're gonna say "the world would be better without agriculture" that equates to "the world would be better without people/society." Agriculture is progress. Sometimes progress is ugly.

I just don't want to beat around the bush: Sure, there wouldn't be problems we have if there were only mabye 1K people spread out over the Earth. But that's sort of a useless statement, no? I know you realize the implications, but would it really be better if there were no humans? Better for WHO? lol

Sorry to pick at the point, I've always found "maybe we should all just be dead" to be a dangerous argument. lol I'm really just curious as to your motivations (despite the fact that it's a quote.)

Please enlighten me.
We wouldnt all be dead, just few humans spread out in small foraging bands and possibly some pastorilist groups. Our impact on the planet wouldnt be a problem (face it we are consuming ourselves to death). The groups we did exsist in would be egalitarian and would rarely if ever have conflicts with each other that resulted in death. There would be no epidemic disease as populations would not support things like small pox nor would things like cancer be a problem as non-modern soceity almost never develop cancer. We would all eat a much healthier diet and oddly enough would spend less time "work" to gather what we needed. The biggest problem faced would be seasonal shortages, but those would rarely if ever have a big impact on soceity. Many of you may not agree with me but I do feel in some ways agriculture has had a very negative impact not only on humans but also on the planet as a whole. Everything we hate about modern soceity and everything about our current ways of life that we find troublesome are built on agriculture. All the good things too, but still which would be better no agriculture and a sustainable human population or agriculture adn the eventual collapse and death of the species? I personally feel that saying there is nothing wrong with agriculture is saying we are all "better off dead" as in the long run thats where we will end up.
 
  • #50
Pretty jaded, man.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I personally feel that saying there is nothing wrong with agriculture is saying we are all "better off dead" as in the long run thats where we will end up.

A if the first letter of the alphabet. Z is the last. Therefor nothing between the two matter?

You are correct in saying that humans would fit better in to the Earth's carrying capacity ift here were less of us and we had less of an impact. Afterall, polution is simply a substance beyond the assimilative capacity of a system.

And by denying all forms of progress (because that's what denying the development of agriculture equates to,) do we increase the survivability of humans? What does it ACCOMPLISH?

Frankly, if you're worried about human survival, I'd put my money on society as we know it surviving longer than society as you would have it.

Like I said, development has its reprocussions. If humans were to go extinct, chances are that it will be from events from outside of our control. I mean, think about it. If we outfished the oceans, destroyed our agricultural lands, polluted city center, and threw in a nuclear holocaust to boot, there would still be people left over who would survive. But if there's a natural disaster such as an asteroid smacking the Earth, is having less people going to increase our survivability?

I'd rather have more people working on increasing the survivability than have a few people living, denying any form of progress, waiting for the end. I don't dig progres for progress's sake, but I can't see how no agriculture could make anything better. In the event that all humans die tomorrow, the Earth will keep on a'spinin' and will forget about us in no time, flat.

Ok, that's enough exploration of this tangent in this thread. If you want to continue discussing this, then send me a PM. But to avoid getting shouted at by one of my fellow mods, we gotta move it somewhere else.
tounge.gif


[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Also someone mentioned dividing Iraq up into 3 seperate countries. This is a good idea but it would never work all three nations would be too weak to defend themselves and the Kurds would be landlock with very unfriendly counries all around (Turkey, Iran, Syria) and no way to sell their oil, they would be destoryed quickly or starved out since their only real resource is oil. Also the ethnic and religious divide is not nearly as clear cut as we would like it to be, some sunnis whould be stuck in the shi'a area and some shi'a would be stuck in the sunni area and Kurds would be mixed in. So this is just impractical and would need someone to step in quickly to prevent widespread violence.

Unfortunately, as we've seen (and as you've astutely noticed) splitting a country is never an easy or bloodless process (or has yet to bet, at least.) Look at the India-Pakistan exodus. People being forced from their homes to another area, tempteratures boiling, and eventually pure violence. Unfortunately, we don't have a Ghandi equicalent for Iraq, so who knows what would stop it.
 
Back
Top