Oh shit - look who the US have voted in now...

[Zachor]

Perhaps you could give an illustration? For the moment, you sound like a right-wing propagandist.

Well you've got the rabid and tension raising ant Israeli comments from the govt of Iran, the attacks and murders of gay and lesbian people in Iran, the setting up of networks to divert technology that other nations are refusing to sell to Iran for good reason, the meddling in Iraq, the WMD programme, the funding of terror groups in the Mid East, the oppression of women and minorities, jailing and harrassment of reporters and the list goes on and on.

Iranians are a lovely people cursed with a terrible govt.

RE Galloway here is a link (via Harry's Place) to one of the little shits grovelling appeasment of Lebanese terrorists

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/07/23/galloway-glorifies-again/

I'm not a rabid right wing propagandist. Just a realist who is rightly worried about Iran and disgusted at treasonous scum like Galloway.

 

[two sheds]

How would you say it compares with Saudi Arabia?

 

[coccinelle]

Well you've got the rabid and tension raising ant Israeli comments from the govt of Iran, the attacks and murders of gay and lesbian people in Iran, the setting up of networks to divert technology that other nations are refusing to sell to Iran for good reason, the meddling in Iraq, the WMD programme, the funding of terror groups in the Mid East, the oppression of women and minorities, jailing and harrassment of reporters and the list goes on and on.

Iranians are a lovely people cursed with a terrible govt.

RE Galloway here is a link (via Harry's Place) to one of the little shits grovelling appeasment of Lebanese terrorists

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/07/23/galloway-glorifies-again/

I'm not a rabid right wing propagandist. Just a realist who is rightly worried about Iran and disgusted at treasonous scum like Galloway.

A realist, perhaps, who is on the side of Israel. The 'rabid and tension raising anti-Israeli comments' are presumably a reference to this: http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel and, while I accept that Ahmadinejad has not always been careful about what he says, it bears absolutely no relation to the propaganda use made of his remarks by pro-Israeli commentators, like yourself. Iran has never threatened to attack Israel. Israel, on the other hand, makes threats to attack Iran almost on a monthly basis. Iran has never attacked a neighbour (or any other country) in modern history. Israel has attacked all her neighbours.

So which, then, is the mad dog country?

 

[Zachor]

How would you say it compares with Saudi Arabia?

Also a country that is a source of worry.

 

[Zachor]

A realist, perhaps, who is on the side of Israel. The 'rabid and tension raising anti-Israeli comments' are presumably a reference to this: http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel and, while I accept that Ahmadinejad has not always been careful about what he says, it bears absolutely no relation to the propaganda use made of his remarks by pro-Israeli commentators, like yourself. Iran has never threatened to attack Israel. Israel, on the other hand, makes threats to attack Iran almost on a monthly basis. Iran has never attacked a neighbour (or any other country) in modern history. Israel has attacked all her neighbours.

So which, then, is the mad dog country?

I think you need to go read a proper history book not the SWP / Hamas book of convenient myths. Israel has been ATTACKED by all its neighbours not the other way round. Israel didn't attack itself at the recreation of the state in 1948 did it ?

 

[two sheds]

So, should we be preparing for an invasion of Saudi Arabia, too? From what I've heard, there is internal repression there similar to that in Iran.

the meddling in Iraq, the WMD programme, the funding of terror groups in the Mid East,

I'm not keen on the Iranian government, either, I must admit. These seem to be the international crimes, that should be dealt with under international law. So, how do you recommend we bring the relevant people to justice?

 

[Zachor]

So, should we be preparing for an invasion of Saudi Arabia, too? From what I've heard, there is internal repression there similar to that in Iran.

I would certainly be in favour of having plans to do so if the Saudis moved beyond what they are doing at the moment with promoting wahabism to actively funding terror groups.

I'm not keen on the Iranian government, either, I must admit. These seem to be the international crimes, that should be dealt with under international law. So, how do you recommend we bring the relevant people to justice?

Yup preference would be to see tyrants on trial in The Hauge but failing that deposing them is an option.

Sometimes liberal interventionism is the way to go.

 

[two sheds]

I would certainly be in favour of having plans to do so if the Saudis moved beyond what they are doing at the moment with promoting wahabism to actively funding terror groups.



Yup preference would be to see tyrants on trial in The Hauge but failing that deposing them is an option.

Sometimes liberal interventionism is the way to go.

Alongside members of the American and Israeli government (among others), then. Yes I agree, although I think deposing them might be difficult. How would you go about the liberal interventionism there first? We could perhaps use that model in Iran.

 

[ska invita]

There will always be a need for some ariel bombardment but IMO you would incurr less civilian casualties and a more effective cleansing of the Taliban from Afghanistan if there were more infantry.

I try not to be offensive in my posts, but Im afraid I think your comment here is delusional...more infantry? Forget it.

Take a look back at Zbigniew's manufactured war, when Russia went in to Afghanistan. No country on earth does an infantry war like the Russians - they throw troops around like a farmer spreading muck. The fact is, and it is a fact, Afghanistan is not a nation-state, its territory is vast and mountinous, and its infastructure is zero (making getting around impossible).

Unless you populate Afhanistan with several million infantry, you will never be able to control it, or its militant groups. So far they've just about managed to secure Kabul, and that's it. This isn't my analysis, it's the analysis of head British army commanders, who have broken protocol to make their views public. Here's a piece from the radical left-wing anti-war rag The Daily Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...nder-Brigadier-Mark-Carleton-Smith-warns.html

I still think that going into Iraq was wrong and it distracted the attentions of the major democratic nations from the real dangers not just to the region but to the world as a whole, which are the Taliban, a collapsing Pakistan and a dangerously unhinged Iran.

Whatever problems exist in the region military solutions launched by USUK must be discounted. Military action cannot succeed - all it can do is kill innocents and perpetuate and harden exrtemist positions. And Obama is a fool for thinking otherwise.

Help them build infrastructure, and create wealth by all means. Use diplomacy and build links. Act supportively. Spend a fraction of the trillions on war on their infastructure, and fanaticism melts away of its own acord, ans local people become empowered.

 

[Zachor]

Alongside members of the American and Israeli government (among others), then. Yes I agree, although I think deposing them might be difficult. How would you go about the liberal interventionism there first? We could perhaps use that model in Iran.

The Yanks and the Israeli's are models of restraint compared to some of the tyrannical tossers who need dealing with first. Re Israel I think if you took away the existential threats to Israel then the country wouldn't need to be so on edge about its own survival. Someone threatening you when you were armed would not make you any less trigger happy.

 

[coccinelle]

The Yanks and the Israeli's are models of restraint compared to some of the tyrannical tossers who need dealing with first .

I am happy to have an intelligent conversation but not at this level. You sound like a self-styled 'Middle East Expert' who, just coincidentally of course, is also a zionist.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

The members of Obama's Transition Economic Advisory Board - lot of CEOs and chairman isn't there?:

• Warren Buffett (chairman and CEO, Berkshire Hathaway)

• Roel Campos (former SEC commissioner)

• William Daley (chairman of the Midwest for JP Morgan Chase; former secretary, US department of commerce, 1997-2000)

• William Donaldson (former chairman of the SEC 2003-2005)

• Roger Ferguson (president and CEO, TIAA-CREF and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve board of governors)

• Jennifer Granholm (governor, State of Michigan)

• Anne Mulcahy (chairman and CEO, Xerox)

• Richard Parsons (chairman of the board, Time Warner)

• Penny Pritzker (CEO, Classic Residence by Hyatt)

• Robert Reich (University of California, Berkeley; former secretary, US labour department, 1993-1997)

• Robert Rubin (chairman and director of the executive committee, Citigroup; former secretary, US treasury, 1995-1999)

• Eric Schmidt (chairman and CEO, Google)

• Lawrence Summers (Harvard University; managing director, DE Shaw; former secretary, US treasury, 1999-2001)

• Laura Tyson (Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley; former chairman, National Economic Council, 1995-1996; former chairman, President's Council of Economic Advisors, 1993-1995)

• Antonio Villaraigosa (mayor, City of Los Angeles)

• Paul Volcker (former chairman of Federal Reserve 1979-1987)

• David Bonior (member of the House of Representatives 1977-2003)

So that's the "Marxist" accusations confirmed then

Whilst I'm delighted to see the disgraceful republico-mutant falangists sent packing up the arsehole of history, I’m afraid I haven’t been swept on the tide of Obamania either. A slave ship isn’t changed in its fundamental character when it gets a new captain to steer it – even if the new captain extols the virtues of unity between the slaves and slaveholders and declares them formally equal (or calls the slaves ‘middle class’).

 

[Zachor]

I am happy to have an intelligent conversation but not at this level. You sound like a self-styled 'Middle East Expert' who, just coincidentally of course, is also a zionist.

Firstly I am a Zionist and have no shame in admitting it.

That doesn't mean that I'm uncritical of the State of Israel (and sadly there is a lot to criticise) its just I refuse to join in with the kneejerk anti Israeli attitudes that infect the British Left.

 

[two sheds]

The Yanks and the Israeli's are models of restraint compared to some of the tyrannical tossers who need dealing with first. Re Israel I think if you took away the existential threats to Israel then the country wouldn't need to be so on edge about its own survival. Someone threatening you when you were armed would not make you any less trigger happy.

I'm agreeing with you, though, it should be dealt with in a court of international law. The courts would be the ones to decide who are responsible for civilian deaths, and the American and Israeli restraint would be part of their defence. "If they've not done anything wrong, then they've nothing to be afraid of" is the phrase, I think.

The court would also be able to examine the Israeli defence that it was acting for its own survival, like for example they would examine the defence of any Palestinian politicians to be tried that they were acting in resistance against an occupying army. It's a court - it has to be fair.

It's actually civilian deaths that I think a court would be primarily concerned with. They'd compare the number of culpable civilian deaths that the individuals in the American, Israeli and Iranian governments were directly responsible for. Do you have comparative figures we could work from for that?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The members of Obama's Transition Economic Advisory Board - lot of CEOs and chairman isn't there?:

Given what they will be advising on, I think it makes sense to have some of the country's business leaders giving their opinions.

 

[audiotech]

I'm in favour of making sure that the Taliban never reappear in Afghanistan to terrorise that unlucky people again.

Instead of the present gang of war lords eh?

I somehow doubt you'll be donning a tin hat anytime soon to 'make sure' the Afghani people are free from terror.

 

[Bakunin]

Yup. Have you seen and heard the sort of guff coming out of Ahmedinejad lately? I have a professional interest in Iran and to be frank its got a govt that scares the willies out of me. I've never been a fan of fascist theocracies.

George Galloway our very own modern day Lord Haw Haw seems to think there is nothing wrong from pocketing money for being a mouthpiece for the Iranian Govt however some of us have more principles.

You work in what is supposed to be 'arms control' don't you? Which usually translates as 'we sell to anyone we like and not to anyone we don't, according to political expediency at the time.'

It strikes me that, if the situation were different and we had major contracts to sell arms to, say, Iran, and it was Saudi Arabia that was being left out in the cold, you'd simply be recycling the same spiel with a different place name.
As you're not a fan of fascist theocracies, no doubt you'll be only to happy to assist in an arms embargo against Saudi Arabia, which is IMHO exactly the kind of fascist theocracy you claim to oppose.

And, last time I checked, the Uk was supposed to be a free country. If Gorgeous George, whom I have no love for whatsoever by the way, wants to make the case for the opposition then it's his right to do that. I marched against the assault on Afghanistan. I marched against the invasion of Iraq. I took and helped plan direct action aimed at stopping both those wars from happening and I don't regret doing any of that for one single, solitary moment. So, am I a treasonous 'Lord Haw Haw'? And, before you suggest that if I had a personal stake in all this I'd have a different opinion, I DO, as it happens, have a personal stake in that my cousin is a Royal Marine Commando and is, as far as I know, still out in Afghanistan at this moment. The best way I can think of to help him is to bring him and all his mates home and do so immediately or at least as soon as possible.

 

[EddyBlack]

There will always be a need for some ariel bombardment

They are only terrorists.

 

[EddyBlack]

You are a sick man to say that in this thread. People being bombed to death at a wedding was linked to in the opening post, and the rest of what you have said is the same.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Firstly I am a Zionist and have no shame in admitting it. <snip>

http://www.marxists.de/middleast/ironwall/ironwall.htm

 

[two sheds]

And we were having such an interesting discussion about actually implementing international law, but zachor seems to have lost interest in the whole subject if it means criminals from his side get tried, too.

 

[scifisam]

I'll wait and see what Obama and his government actually do before I decide whether he's a good or bad President (he's not even the President yet, after all). I am thrilled he got elected, especially considering the alternative (I mean, really, would anyone on this thread have preferred Palin? Because, with McCain's age, she was the real opposition), but that doesn't mean I think he can do no wrong.

Arnie as energy tzar? At least people might turn the bloody lights off when they leave a room.

He's been surprisingly good, though (and very green), and certainly has a lot of experience with energy crises in California.

No, they've been RESPONSIBLE FOR MANY CIVILIAN DEATHS!

Good old Auntie, still twisting words....

While I agree that 'responsible for' would be more honest wording, they're probably not allowed to legally.

 

[EddyBlack]

While I agree that 'responsible for' would be more honest wording, they're probably not allowed to legally.

Don't apologise for that shit. Pick your side.

As for Obama, he's of the same ilk as Zachor.

 

[scifisam]

Don't apologise for that shit. Pick your side basically.

As for Obama, he's of the same ilk as Zachor.

They'd get sued to fuck if they didn't word themselves carefully. They're a big corporation, not anonymous people on internet messageboards.

Obama = Zachor? I think that may be the oddest comparison I've heard in my life!

 

[EddyBlack]

They'd get sued to fuck if they didn't word themselves carefully. They're a big corporation, not anonymous people on internet messageboards.

Obama = Zachor? I think that may be the oddest comparison I've heard in my life!

There you go then.

 

[laptop]

Israel has been ATTACKED by all its neighbours not the other way round.

Israel didn't attack itself at the recreation of the state in 1948 did it ?

Best example of cognitive dissonance of the week.

Full-blown psychosis, possibly.


Though the people Israel attacked were not exactly its neighbours: they were the residents.

 

[scifisam]

There you go then.

Would you have preferred the US to vote in McCain and Palin, though? Obviously you can be critical of Obama even if you think he was the best choice (best of a bad lot if nothing else), but this thread, with its title, seems to be criticising the US for voting in Obama.

 

[gorski]

Zbigniew Brzezinski to be the real power behind an Obama throne.

I warned about it here a long time ago... Nothing new.

And no, they haven't voted him in. Hence he can be dismissed.

Sometimes it is good to know exactly, first hand, what the dark right, old style, neo-realist shisters and dark lords really think...

Besides, Afganistan is a tricky one: what does one do now that one is engaged there and it is as dangerous and as messy as it is?!? Just leave? How? What happens then?

That is not to say one follows Zbig's advice uncritically but explores it from all angles and thinks it through carefully, fully, in detail!

Although personally it gives me the creeps...

 

[EddyBlack]

Would you have preferred the US to vote in McCain and Palin, though? Obviously you can be critical of Obama even if you think he was the best choice (best of a bad lot if nothing else), but this thread, with its title, seems to be criticising the US for voting in Obama.

I will never apologise for the murder of innocents like you have done and Obama will definately accomplish. I suggest you consider carefully what you support and what you will happily apologise for.

 

[scifisam]

I will never apologise for the murder of innocents like you have done and Obama will definately accomplish. I suggest you consider carefully what you support and what you will happily apologise for.

Where have I apologised for the murder of innocents? What have I apologised for? Are you mixing me up with George Bush, like you mixed Obama up with Zachor? Who's McCain - moomoo?

So you would rather McCain and Palin got in, then? I meant that as a genuine question before, btw.