Iranian President Delivers Hand Written Letter To Bush

[tahoma]

Scooter,

That statement was a half tongue in cheek/half dismissive non-argument in response to another non-argument. You take me too seriously sir.

RealistBear is a fundamentalist Christian. This group believes that a cataclysmic war centering on Israel is the precursor to the second coming of Christ and their ascent to heaven. They really believe that. This is why he is rabidly pro-Israel, and pro-war in the middle east.

The insanity of this position cannot go un-noted. Hence my wet-dream-war statement.

Nice idealistic ideas but sadly not really all that helpful.

You can't reconcile point 1 with point 2.

And although it is hard to stop countries doing what they want on their own (or occupied) soil, even with the approval of their people, I'm sure you can see that sometimes it is necessary to try. Can't you?

I do live in the real world, which can be a nasty place with irreconcilable tensions. Those points are indeed hopelessly idealistic, and yes it is sometimes neccessary to try to stop the actions of other countries.

However my points revolve around the utterly arbitrary way things like the NPT are enforced, revolving entirely around what the USA and it's proxies are comfortable with. But they are only human after all.

[BoredTrainBuilder]

However my points revolve around the utterly arbitrary way things like the NPT are enforced, revolving entirely around what the USA and it's proxies are comfortable with. But they are only human after all.

It is our greatest good fortune that we are alive at a time and place (the west) in history whereby the world does indeed generally revolve around the USA and its proxies rather than, for example

- the Mullahs

- the Nazis

- the Romans

- the Soviets

- the Napoleonic French (come to think of it, any French)

- the Chinese

All of whom could under slightly different circumstances have, or at one time did, run the show.

I think I'd prefer to keep it that way and I'm sure, on reflection, so would you. If you're honest.

Edited May 9, 2006 by BoredTrainBuilder

[tahoma]

It is our greatest good fortune that we are alive at a time and place (the west) in history whereby the world does indeed generally revolve around the USA and its proxies rather than, for example

- the Mullahs

- the Nazis

- the Romans

- the Soviets

- the Napoleonic French (come to think of it, any French)

- the Chinese

All of whom could under slightly different circumstances have, or at one time did, run the show.

I think I'd prefer to keep it that way and I sure, on reflection, so would you. If you're honest.

I agree. We could be worse off. But that does not mean we should clap our hands when the powers that be act in a manner that clearly destabilises the world for no tangible benefit.

Policy seems to be getting closer and closer to those of the regimes you list, so maybe your polarised argument is not so convincing? It's hard thing to accept that 'our side' is committing and aiding atrocities.

[Scooter]

Scooter,

That statement was a half tongue in cheek/half dismissive non-argument in response to another non-argument. You take me too seriously sir.

RealistBear is a fundamentalist Christian. This group believes that a cataclysmic war centering on Israel is the precursor to the second coming of Christ and their ascent to heaven. They really believe that. This is why he is rabidly pro-Israel, and pro-war in the middle east.

The insanity of this position cannot go un-noted. Hence my wet-dream-war statement.

I do live in the real world, which can be a nasty place with irreconcilable tensions. Those points are indeed hopelessly idealistic, and yes it is sometimes neccessary to try to stop the actions of other countries.

However my points revolve around the utterly arbitrary way things like the NPT are enforced, revolving entirely around what the USA and it's proxies are comfortable with. But they are only human after all.

Hmm. I am prepared to agree that anyone genuinely pro-war on the basis of bringing back Jebus, the rapture et al might be a bit odd. That said, I am fairly pro-Israel and worried about Iran's nuclear programme, as much for Europe as for the Israelis.

[MarkG]

It's hard thing to accept that 'our side' is committing and aiding atrocities.

Why? It's not as though 'our side' hasn't done it before. Maybe not on the same kind of scale as the 'bad guys', but I was watching a documentary about Vietnam last night and all the same kind of things were happening then as today... if anything, it was worse.

As for the 'second coming', I'm still amazed how many people ignore the rather obvious fact that a sizable number of fundies _WANT_ a war in the Middle East so they can be 'raptured away', and call you a nutter if you point it out. These people are incredibly serious about their goals and don't give a crap about the harm they cause because they think they'll be in heaven rather than down here living with the results.

I can't say that RealisticBear is one of them, but he does give that impression at times. Either way, the American fundies are a far greater threat to the future of the human race than some Iranian nutter.

Edited May 9, 2006 by MarkG

[HPCheese]

Nice idealistic ideas but sadly not really all that helpful.

You can't reconcile point 1 with point 2.

And although it is hard to stop countries doing what they want on their own (or occupied) soil, even with the approval of their people, I'm sure you can see that sometimes it is necessary to try. Can't you?

Beat me to it.

It's all very well to debate philosophical ideologies and also currently fashionable to knock the USA, but saying no-one should have nukes isn't constructive.

There comes a point where you have to make a decision on whether any-old state should have access to the most destructive force on the planet regardless of how deluded/bitter/oppressive their current government might be.

It still comes down to my original questions which Tahoma still hasn't properly answered, but I get the feeling he actually believes Iran should be allowed to have 'the bomb'.

[Catch22]

Allow UN inspections I think. Had Saddam allowed inspections instead of strutting around with a rifle in his hand and invading Kuwait and gassing Kurds a lot of grief may have been avoided. IF, on the other hand, the UN do nothing about Iran's refusal to allow inspections they might as well be disbanded as their directives will be scoffed at by Iran as they were by Saddam. In fact, the failure to enforce UN sanctions against Iraq has no doubt emboldened Iran to do the same thing.

Learn your Middle East history before you start spouting.

Statement for Feb 15 Peace Is Patriotic Rally

by Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret.

President, Institute for Space and Security Studies

National Advisor, Veterans For Peace

Presiding Archbishop, United Catholic Church

I'm here representing Veterans For Peace, an organization of thousands of combat veterans. All of us have put our life on the line for this country. And all of us are opposed to a war with Iraq.

Saddam Hussein is a bad guy. I don't know anyone who disagrees with that. He's a bad guy now. He was a bad guy in 1990 when April Glaspie of the State Department gave him the green light to invade Kuwait. He was a bad guy in the 1980s when Donald Rumsfeld sat down with him for a chat while he was gassing the Kurds. He was a bad guy in 1977 when Zbigniew Brzezinski met with him and proposed the invasion of Iran. And he was a bad guy in the 1960s when the CIA hired him to assassinate Iraqi leader Abdel Karim Qassim and then helped him take over Iraq. He's always been a bad guy. But he was always our bad guy. Right up to 1990, official DoD documents praised Saddam for vastly improving the education, medical care, and standard of living of his people. His regime was called one of the most enlightened, progressive governments in the region … and it was.

But there was a problem. The Berlin wall had come down and the Soviet Union had collapsed. The first Bush White House had to find another bad guy -- fast. And they did -- Saddam Hussein. They suckered him into attacking Kuwait, and the first Gulf War was on.

This was the war the first Bush administration wanted, the war they planned for, the war they instigated, the war they salivated over, the war that Saddam's unconditional withdrawal wasn't going to deny them, the war that would show off our smart bombs better than a hundred trade shows, the war that would prove George wasn't a wimp, the war that would make billions for the future president George W. Bush, who had exclusive rights to offshore oil in the Gulf, the war that would kill the "loser" image from Vietnam once and for all.

Now the second President Bush wants his Gulf War too. Planning for it started long before 9/11, even before he became president. In September 1990, his advisers set "regime change" in Iraq as a primary objective of US foreign policy should Bush become president. They made it clear that the purpose of moving against Saddam is to set the stage for occupying the entire Middle East (and therefore controlling its oil, no matter who's in power, especially in Saudi Arabia).

The problems with starting a preemptive war against Iraq are several: (1) It would be immoral and would probably be judged illegal by the World Court. (2) It would be costly, in terms of American lives and in dollars. (3) It would require us to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely. (4) It would fracture NATO, split the United Nations, and come between us and our allies. (5) It would incense the Arab world, probably causing the downfall of friendly governments who cooperate with us (like Saudi Arabia and Turkey). (6) It would provide Osama bin Laden with thousands of new recruits ready to die in a Holy War against Americans. (7) It would therefore cause an enormous increase in the terrorist threat to Americans at home and abroad. It might even cause World War III. It would destroy our national security and further endanger the American people.

As a combat veteran, I will not stand idly by and watch our security destroyed by a president who went AWOL rather than fight in Vietnam. I say, "NO" to war against Iraq.

As one who has devoted his life to the security of this country, I will not stand by and watch an appointed president send our sons and daughters around the world to kill Arabs so the oil companies can sell the oil under their sand, making us the target of terrorists. I say, "NO" to war against Iraq.

I joined the Air Force to protect our borders and our people, not the financial interests of Folgers, Chiquita Banana, and Exxon. I say, "NO" to war against Iraq.

As a pilot who flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam, I can tell you that the best thing our government can do for its combat veterans is to quit making more of them. I say "NO" to war against Iraq.

Peace is patriotic; a preemptive war is immoral, illegal, unconstitutional, and a war crime. I swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States against all enemies -- foreign and domestic. That includes a renegade president. If this war happens, I will call for the impeachment of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the whole oil mafia. I say "NO" to war against Iraq.

We are the people. We are sovereign. The whole world is with us. And we say, "NO!" "NO" to war! "NO" to preemptive war. "NO" to wars of aggression. "NO" to war against Iraq. "NO!" "NO!" "NO!"

This war would be treason! PEACE is patriotic. God bless America! And God save us from George W. Bush! Thank you!

Once the US had their ex CIA opperative in power in Iraq, the US used Saddam to debilitate the massive military arsenal built up in Iran during the US/UK support for the Shah of Iran and his hated Savak secret police. OK this ment over a million dead Iranians and Iraqis, but who gives a sh@t certainly not the USA. They then needed to sucker him into invading Kuwait, so they could ship out masses of military assets onto Arab soil to safe guard Americas oil, but without the Arab street going mad. Of course once Iraqi's offensive military power was destoyed and Kuwait* liberated everybody went home apart from the Brits and the Yanks that is.

* Once part of the lands which constitute modern day Iraq, Kuwait was hived off from the Ottoman Empire at Britains insistance otherwise they said, they would incite the Arabs to revolt at Turkish control.

Anyway, after Gulf War One, the Industrial Military Complex represented by the US/UK military stayed on for the long game. This was conducted from Saudi soil by way of an embargo on aid to Iraq lasting 12 years, which independent analyists conluded resulted in the premature deaths of over 500,000 Iraqi children. Arab sentiment in Saudi Arabia turned against the US/UK who were in effect killing fellow Arabs, hence the rise of Osama Bin Laden seen as an Arab hero, which in turn resulted in 9/11. The US then knew they had to militarly vacate Saudia Arabia, and after 12 years of bringing a once proud nation to its knees. And having insured the Iraqi people had suffered from wars instigated by US foreign policy since 1979 right through to 2003. They finally went in for the kill as Iraq lay postrate and defenceless. Since then the Iraqi's continue to be slaughtered due to US/UK involvement in their affairs. We have brought nothing to Iraq and its people but death and destruction since we took control of it after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

Is there any wonder we have what is called in the West "World Terrorism" The US supported and installed dictators the length and breadth of Arabia, they did in South America. We stifle democratic freedoms and drive the people into the arms of radical forces. As Alan Pinter once said " We are not the Doctors we are the Disease"

As judged by International Law, we are the Real Terrorist States.

[MarkG]

It still comes down to my original questions which Tahoma still hasn't properly answered, but I get the feeling he actually believes Iran should be allowed to have 'the bomb'.

Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers on all sides: why shouldn't it have nukes of its own to deter them?

I don't know about you, but I grew up in an era where the USSR had tens of thousands of nukes, with hundreds of them pointed at the UK... and living where I did, I'd have been vaporised within a few minutes of a Russian launch. Why should I be crapping my pants at the thought of Iran having a few?

Nukes have been the greatest contributor to global peace _ever_, because nuclear-armed nations can't afford to pick wars with other nuclear-armed nations. That is precisely the reason why Bush doesn't want Iran getting nukes: he can't push them around if they do.

[tahoma]

It still comes down to my original questions which Tahoma still hasn't properly answered, but I get the feeling he actually believes Iran should be allowed to have 'the bomb'.

I answered you in post #14.

So by saying no-one should have the bomb, I'm saying Iran should have the bomb. I see.

Is this going towards a 'with-us-or-against-us, get with the programme buddy' type argument, regarding my chutzpah in criticizing US foreign policy?

Edited May 9, 2006 by tahoma

[BoredTrainBuilder]

Either way, the American fundies are a far greater threat to the future of the human race than some Iranian nutter.

I don't dismiss the threat, I saw some of it in person when I lived in the US recently. But I think we underestimate the US constitution and US people (a great many of whom are not religious fundamentalists and think pretty similarly to any European liberal, but are perhaps a bit less self-indulged and intellectually conceited).

Dangerous and whacko as the religious nutters are they are in a minority in the US and, even though they have moments or ascendancy, this is probably not one of them. The Bush presidency is deeply unpopular and getting more so by the day. Because of term limits, Bush is over anyway and it is a safe bet that the next US government will be less, not more, religious.

As you point out a historical perspective is necessary and Vietnam was indeed far worse than any of the current US irritants to liberal sentiment. The Vietnam war taken in isolation was nasty, brutal and unjustifiable. See it as part of the eventual victory against soviet communism and perhaps we could be slightly less harsh towards the protagonists. And don't forget that in the case of Vietnam, and probably Iraq, it will be the moderating forces of the US people/constitution which bring an end to excesses in US policy. These checks are far stronger than would be the case with say, Iran.

[tahoma]

Nukes have been the greatest contributor to global peace _ever_, because nuclear-armed nations can't afford to pick wars with other nuclear-armed nations. That is precisely the reason why Bush doesn't want Iran getting nukes: he can't push them around if they do.

True; especially so for Israel. The majority of the population live in a thin strip of land barely 15 miles wide around Tel Aviv; just one low-yield nuke would be devastating. Iran on the other hand is vast, so there is a leverage effect in terms of the effectiveness of the nuclear forces.

[RichB]

I don't dismiss the threat, I saw some of it in person when I lived in the US recently. But I think we underestimate the US constitution and US people (a great many of whom are not religious fundamentalists and think pretty similarly to any European liberal, but are perhaps a bit less self-indulged and intellectually conceited).

Really, not read much about the PAtriot act then? Nor indeed our recent police acts - whereby police can now arrest anyone simply because they don't approve of their manner, nor the recent bill that enables cabinet to pass bills/amendments etc without parliamentary approval?

You keep hearing folk like Rice saying how the US operates within the law. Well, perhaps they do... and sometimes they just have to change the law to allow themselves that behaviour.

[tahoma]

Have a look at this, perhaps?

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n09/letters.html

That was a cathartic read, thanks.

[Catch22]

read it and weep In Our Name

Quote:

Prior to the 1991 Gulf War nearly all urban dwellers, and over 70% of rural residents had access to clean water, while nearly 95% of Iraqis had access to healthcare. Iraqi social services were among the most comprehensive and generous in the Arab World, and the populace enjoyed one of the highest per capita food availabilities in the region. But all this drastically changed as a result of Desert Storm. The bombing raids attacked the very core of civilian life, targeting and severely debilitating water treatment facilities and waste disposal systems; they knocked out electrical grids and communication lines. In all, the total tonnage of bombs dropped during the last Gulf War exceeded that of 7 Hiroshima's. Through 2002, over 70% of deaths were attributed to water-borne diseases such as diarrhea and respiratory ailments.

[MarkG]

Iran on the other hand is vast, so there is a leverage effect in terms of the effectiveness of the nuclear forces.

Israel has hundreds of nukes and every major Iranian city would be glass if they attacked. A christian fundie looking for rapture would press the red button, but no leader who expected to be around for long after doing so would.

In any case, I don't see how Israel can survive unless they learn to get along with their neighbours, as Jews did there for centuries until the 50s. Even if they don't get nuked, the demographics alone would appear to make the country unsustainable.

[tahoma]

Israel has hundreds of nukes and every major Iranian city would be glass if they attacked. A christian fundie looking for rapture would press the red button, but no leader who expected to be around for long after doing so would.

In any case, I don't see how Israel can survive unless they learn to get along with their neighbours, as Jews did there for centuries until the 50s. Even if they don't get nuked, the demographics alone would appear to make the country unsustainable.

I agree - nuclear war would be devastating for both parties, I'm just pointing out that it would only take one nuke to deal Israel a lethal blow. And they know it.

I think Israel's main problem is that Jewish people themselves are tired of the excesses of the various governments. It's ironic that the country supposedly set up to provide security for Jewish people is probably one of the least safe places to be Jewish.

[BoredTrainBuilder]

Really, not read much about the PAtriot act then?

I've read a great deal about it, actually. It's remarkably liberal given that some semi-state-sponsored mullah-puppets had just killed 3000 of their citizens and attacked their key cities.

[Blue Peter]

I've read a great deal about it, actually. It's remarkably liberal given that some semi-state-sponsored mullah-puppets had just killed 3000 of their citizens and attacked their key cities.

Though isn't there a problem in that the state sponsoring al-Qaeda was the US, at least originally, and it's not clear how long contact went on for.

Peter.

[Cinnamon]

Tahoma you so ignored the actual message of my post.

1. Iran has repeatedly threatened Israel with war. This is a non-disputable fact, which is well documented.

2. Iran is a repressive theocratic regime that brutally opresses the population, partially with medieval brutality. There is enough documentation on the web about stonings and other grisly methods of maiming and killing that are the hallmarks of Sharia. There is no excuse for this kind of thing either -- the people who apply and support Sharia are barbarians, not even the nazis stooped that low. And you seem to think that people who uphold and defend such laws can be reasonable? Would you vote Freddie and Rosemary West for PM too?

3. You skirted around the question about what arabs themselves can do to improve their lives. You don't have to beat your wife (there is a law that says you can, not that you must) nor do you have to tolerate corruption or engage in it. Starting by stopping is the key solution to both those problems, and they are down to the individual.

Methinks you are probably better off at Lenin's Tomb if you want to discuss this kind of stuff, or, if you want some more friendly people to bite your foggy head off until you see the light(or not), try here:

http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/

But this blind left-wing stuff about siding with the oppressed without worrying whom they oppress in turn and how nasty they are to each other is kind of outdated. You dont' really help anyone with this blue-eyed doogoodie stuff, other than helping them to oppress others. Think about it.

[Europa]

Though isn't there a problem in that the state sponsoring al-Qaeda was the US, at least originally, and it's not clear how long contact went on for.

Peter.

A myth, I'm afraid - The US sponsored Afghan fighters during the Afghan / Soviet conflict. Later, some of these fighters formed a loose coalition which eventually formed into al-Qaeda.

While we're on the subject, can we also dispel the myth that the US armed Saddam to any significant extent?

[MarkG]

It's remarkably liberal given that some semi-state-sponsored mullah-puppets had just killed 3000 of their citizens and attacked their key cities.

As has been pointed out, the state which sponsored bin Laden was... America. And, magically, after a bit of bombing in Afghanistan, Bush decided to forget about bin Laden and attack Iraq instead... a nation which bin Laden had offered to fight against after the invasion of Kuwait, because it was a secular state invading an Islamic neighbour.

Either way, the 9/11 attacks added about 10% to the US murder rate in 2001... maybe less than that, if the ordinary everyday murderers were so preoccupied by the TV news that they didn't have time to murder anyone that month. Odd, isn't it, that we never saw a 'Patriot Act' to reduce America's high murder rate before then?

[muggle]

I sent a post card home from the States last time I was there. It arrived about a week after I returned, so we may have to wait another couple of weeks yet.

Then again, we have got to wait for him to read the letter!

[RichB]

Shame about the session data - hope the links work for you tho.

Remind me who's against nukes?

http://unbisnet.un.org:8080/ipac20/ipac.js...3;horizon#focus

http://unbisnet.un.org:8080/ipac20/ipac.js...3;horizon#focus

http://unbisnet.un.org:8080/ipac20/ipac.js...3;horizon#focus

http://unbisnet.un.org:8080/ipac20/ipac.js...e=~!horizon

http://unbisnet.un.org:8080/ipac20/ipac.js...3;horizon#focus

http://unbisnet.un.org:8080/ipac20/ipac.js...3;horizon#focus

[Blue Peter]

Tahoma you so ignored the actual message of my post.

1. Iran has repeatedly threatened Israel with war. This is a non-disputable fact, which is well documented.

No it hasn't, and it isn't. It certainly wants the end of the Israeli regime and liberation for Palestine, but it has not threatened war,

Peter.

[RichB]

While we're on the subject, can we also dispel the myth that the US armed Saddam to any significant extent?

Let me guess - US bankers had nothing to do with the germans prior to and during ww2. IBM didn't supply the technology that allowed for the mass organisation responsible for the holocaust? Rumsfeld wasn't over in Iraq shaking saddams hand after flogging him vast quantities of something clearly not arms...?